Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Good afternoon.
It is 1:03 on Tuesday, June 10th.
I am calling our council meeting to order.
We have a number of A number of agenda items that we are going to open today, most of which we are not going to do a lot with today, but this is where we start to do more of the technical pieces of the budget.
We're going to go through some of those technical pieces of the budget right now, and then we will hear public testimony.
And then we will have time to do a little bit more with amendments on the budget.
We will pick up where we left off tomorrow.
Keelan, could you please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
Kanal.
Here.
Ryan.
Here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Koyama Lane.
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Here.
Novick.
Here.
Clark.
Here.
Here.
Zimmerman?
Here.
Avalos?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Smith?
Here.
Farber?
Here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And Robert, could you please read us our rules of decorum?
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Welcome everyone to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must please sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
Presiding officer preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should please address the matter being considered.
When testifying, please state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you are a lobbyist, please identify the organization you represent.
Virtual testifiers should please unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Keelan, could you please read agenda items 1 through— 1 through 6?
There are 7 things here, and my script says 1 through 6.
Keelan McClymont
The first— Approval.
Yeah.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Got it.
Okay.
Could you please read agenda item 1?
Ah, yes.
Item 1, agenda approval.
Council will vote to approve the agenda, to reorder items on the agenda, or to add an item to the next meeting's agenda.
Thank you.
Colleagues, are there any requests to amend or reorder the agenda?
Aye.
Okay.
Item 2, conduct a proposed use hearing on state shared revenue.
Item 3, certify that certain services are provided by the city to establish eligibility for state shared revenue.
Item 4, approve accepting funds from the State of Oregon under the State Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026.
Yes.
Item 5, adopt the annual budget of the city and establish appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026.
Item 6, approve levying taxes for the city for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026.
And item 7, authorize a temporary interfund loan not to exceed $50 million from the Portland Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Fund to the Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund to provide interim financing for fiscal year 2025 through '26 cash flow deficit due to the timing of property tax collections.
Thank you, Keelan.
So colleagues, before we start taking on each of these agenda items, which we will do some brief work on today, hear some public testimony on, and then spend most of our time on agenda item 5, Budget Director Levine is going to go over our process in a little bit more detail.
Director Levine, could you please do that for us?
Sure, thank you.
And for the record, Ruth Levine, the Director of the City Budget Office.
Good afternoon, Council President, City Council.
So as Council President mentioned, we're here today for the next steps in adopting the budget for fiscal year 2025-26.
Following today and tomorrow's proceedings, the budget ordinance will pass to second reading and Council will vote on all of the budget items on June 18th.
There are a number of procedural steps we need to go through, and as Keelan read into the record, we have 6 items in front of you that are part of this process.
The first 3 items relate to the acceptance and use of state shared revenues in our budget.
Revenues shared by the State of Oregon primarily consist of cigarette, liquor, and retail marijuana taxes.
So first, council will hold a proposed use hearing on the state shared revenue.
Then you will consider a resolution certifying that the city meets the eligibility requirements of state shared revenue, and then you will consider an ordinance accepting the state shared revenue.
Thank you.
The 4th and 5th items, numbers 6 and 7 on the agenda, that council will consider today and tomorrow are— or today are the ordinance levying taxes and an interfund loan between the Parks Capital Fund and the Fire, Police, and Disability and Retirement Fund, which addresses technical timing issues with the FPDR revenues.
And the 6th and final item, which is item number 5 on the agenda, that council will consider is the adopted budget ordinance, um, and that will be obviously the focus of, of your time today and tomorrow.
So with that overview, we can begin with our first item, the state shared revenue hearing.
Um, Council President, you can, um, uh, be— open the state shared revenue hearing.
Thank you.
So we actually have all 6 of these open.
Um, so we are going into a hearing, colleagues, to discuss proposed uses of state revenue sharing.
This hearing is being held by the City Council in compliance with the provisions of state revenue sharing regulations, which are in ORS 221.770, to allow Portlanders to comment on the possible use of the funds in conjunction with the annual budget process.
As proposed for council adoption for fiscal year 2025-26, the budget anticipates receiving $21 million from state revenue sharing under ORS 221770.
As has been the case in prior years, it's proposed that this revenue be allocated in equal parts to support fire prevention and police patrol services.
Director Levine, could you provide an overview of the eligibility Certainly.
Um, council will consider a resolution to certify that the city meets the eligibility requirements for state shared revenue.
State law requires that we provide a number of services to be eligible for this revenue, and this resolution certifies that we do so.
The services certified by the City of Portland are police protection, fire prevention, street construction and maintenance and lighting, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, Planning, zoning and subdivision control, and water.
The 3rd and final step in accepting the state shared revenue is for council to consider and vote upon the ordinance to accept state shared revenue.
Once you've had a hearing and certified that the city is qualified, you need to take action to accept the revenue.
Thank you.
And Director Levine, because this is a new process for a number of folks up here, could you just give us a brief overview of what the shared revenue comes from, what those sources are that the city Sure, it's just state revenues from cigarette, liquor, and cannabis taxes.
So these are statewide revenues that are shared out based on population, and Portland gets our share.
This is separate, colleagues, from the expenditures that we've talked about in the general fund from revenue that comes from the state.
These are very specific funds that are collected from the purposes Director Levine named that are then distributed based on population across the state with limited uses.
Keelan, has anybody signed up to testify on the state shared revenue hearing, resolution, or ordinance?
Yes, one person has signed up, Loretta Guzman.
Great, and colleagues, these are agenda items 2, 3, and 4 that we're talking about right now.
Keelan, could you please call Loretta up?
Yeah, Loretta Guzman.
I think you might have signed up for the wrong time.
Oh, okay.
Are you signed up for the budget adoption one?
Yes.
You're signed up for the budget.
I think there's some confusion.
There was some confusion with the signups.
Yep.
Okay.
Yep.
Keelan McClymont
I think that makes sense.
We'll make sure you get called for the budget adoption.
Yeah.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Apologies.
That completes testimony for those items.
Okay.
Colleagues, these agenda items will come back up when we hear the budget.
On the 18th.
But for now, we are going to— I'm making sure we're also closing agenda item 4, which is an ordinance.
I'm looking to you, Ruth.
Are we closing all 3 of them?
That's right.
Continuing them to June 18th.
And then you're going to close the state shared revenue hearing.
Great.
So for now, we are closing the state shared revenue hearing.
And we are going to move, we're going to skip agenda item 5, colleagues, which is our annual budget, and move on to agenda item 6, which is the tax levy ordinance.
This is the action that allows us to levy property taxes that accrue to the general fund, the parks local option levy fund, the recently renewed children's investment fund, and the Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund.
It also includes property tax levies for general obligation bonded debt and our 6 urban renewal areas.
Keelan, has anyone signed up to testify on the tax levies ordinance?
Let me check here.
Keelan McClymont
We have 2 people signed up to testify on that item.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Karen Chire and Matt Nicholson.
Karen Chire, Matt Nicholson.
And Karen and Matt, if either of you had meant to sign up for agenda item 5, please let our clerk know and she'll make sure to move you over to the other testimony list.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Uh, Council President Matt Nicholson is online.
Let me go ahead and—.
Uh, can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
Um, I just wanted to voice my support for the parks levy, and, um, I feel that the community has strong support for our parks, and I would encourage all councilors to put a robust levy on the November ballot to allow us to fully fund our parks and parks maintenance.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you so much.
And that completes testimony for that item.
Okay, councilors, is there any discussion on agenda item 6, the tax levy ordinance?
Okay, this is a first reading as well, so we will continue this agenda item to second reading on the 8th— oh, Councilor Smith.
Did you have something here?
Yes, Madam President.
Go right ahead.
I wanted to find out what is the, the normal process of doing interfund loans and those kinds of things.
Director Levine, is that something you can help us with?
There's a question about the process for interfund loans, and I assume that's as it relates to this tax levy ordinance.
Right.
And, and how did we choose parks Councilor, are you looking at agenda item 7?
Let's see.
I think we can take the question now.
I just want to make sure that folks are all looking at the right thing.
Oh, I'm so upset.
So Director Levine, there's a question.
Agenda item 7 is a temporary interfund loan from Portland Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Fund to Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund.
And there's a question about why that fund was chosen, or perhaps Jonas would like to answer.
Yeah, I mean, I guess to the process for this specific fund, this is the second year that we've done this this way.
And I think we may have talked about this on the 21st a little bit, but essentially the— it has to do with the very specific situation in the Fire, Police, and Disability Retirement Fund, the way it's created in charter and the timing of the tax revenue.
So they don't get their tax revenue in until October, November, and they need to start paying out claims in August.
And so they need the cash.
And so this is just the simplest and cheapest way to do it for the city.
And yeah, happy to turn it over to Jonas as well.
Great.
Keelan McClymont
For the record, Jonas Biery, DCA of Budget and Finance and Chief Financial Officer.
Ruth is correct that this just addresses a cash flow mismatch between the language in the charter around the Fire and Police Disability Retirement Fund, who collects that levy receipt in November.
So this bridges the payment requirements between the start of the fiscal year and November.
I would add, in the past, in prior years, we've achieved this objective by getting an external borrowing, either by issuing a short-term bond or note or having a loan from a bank and paying interest on that to an external party, an investor.
This strategy utilizes that available balance in the Parks SDC Fund, fully replenishes the fund from that tax levy in November, and returns the interest back to an internal partner at the city via that parks fund.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Thank you, Jonas.
Any other questions, Councilor?
Nope.
Councilors, does anybody else have a question about agenda item number 6?
Keelan, did you send me a note that we have our second testifier available now?
Yes, they arrived.
Let's give them an opportunity.
Great, thank you.
Karen Shirey.
Can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay, my name is Karen Chee Ray.
I'm a resident of District 3, business owner in District 4.
I'm writing to express my strong disapproval of the proposed ordinance to levy taxes for the fiscal year beginning July 1st.
While I understand the importance of funding city services, I believe that this ordinance has raised several concerns that warrant reconsideration.
The financial burden on residents— the proposed tax levies represent a significant financial burden on residents, especially in a time when many families are facing economic challenges.
Increasing property taxes can strain household budgets, making it difficult for families to meet their basic needs.
There appears to be a lack of transparency regarding the budget process.
The ordinance states that the budget was adopted on June 18th, 2025, but as of June 10th, 2025, it has not yet been approved.
This discrepancy raises concerns about the legitimacy, legitimacy of the proposed tax levies and the decision-making process involved.
It's crucial to ensure that tax revenue is allocated effectively and efficiently.
I'm concerned that the funds raised through these tax levies May not be utilized in ways that directly benefit the community or address pressing needs.
I urge the City Council to explore alternative funding solutions that do not place an additional burden on taxpayers.
This could include reevaluating existing programs, identifying areas for cost savings, or seeking additional state or federal funding.
I respectfully request— thank you.
Thank you so much for being here.
Keelan, is that the end of public testimony?
It does, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, I am not seeing anybody else with comments, so I am going to close today's hearing on this bill, on this ordinance, and move us to agenda item 7.
So we are going to open our discussion on agenda item 7, the FPD and our Interfund Loan Ordinance, which is where this funding that Councilor Smith was asking about takes place.
Keelan, has anybody signed up to testify on this agenda item?
No one signed up.
Okay.
Councilors, is there any further discussion on agenda item 7?
Okay, this is again a non-emergency ordinance, so it will move to second reading on the 18th.
Councilor Green.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Madam President.
I just kind of want to put into the record, yesterday we heard from Kevin Matches who provided testimony, uh, regarding this item, and he wanted us to flag that there is a different yield associated with this interfund loan relative to the previous one that we heard as well.
And so I just— no action.
I just wanted to flag and make sure we brought that discussion out of the Finance Committee and before the full council.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you very much, Councilor.
Councilors, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, we are going to send this to second reading on the 18th.
The next item on the agenda is agenda item 5, which is the adopted budget ordinance.
And before we go to public testimony, I just want to take a, a moment to go over what to expect today and tomorrow for everybody who is listening.
So we will start with another round of public testimony on our budget.
We've set aside 2 hours, 2 additional hours for public testimony today.
After public testimony, the first thing that we will do is consider an amendment, which I want to get the language right here.
So I'm trying to pull up the email that has it, but I may not get there in time.
I think it's in the agenda.
We're going to consider the language which, or an amendment which will allow us to discuss carryover packages from council operations and council offices.
These are the items that also are reflected separately in the overexpenditure ordinance that we have talked about.
They've sometimes been called overexpenditure items.
We'll then talk about parks, then public safety, community engagement and equity, housing and homelessness, and then there is an other category.
And we'll take these categories like we did on the 21st, where everybody will have an opportunity to bring forward their most important amendment or package if you have a few things that should be considered together but were separated for technical reasons.
Thank you.
After we get through everybody's most important piece in those categories, we'll go back and consider budget notes, which, except as they have been related to packages we've not yet considered.
And then we will open up for consideration of additional amendments.
So if you have something new that you have brought forward in a category that we've already considered, or if you have additional amendments that you want to bring forward in categories where it wasn't your most important We'll do those at the end.
I suspect today we'll get through the council carryover package and the parks section and probably not much further than that.
But it'll just depend on whether we use our full 2 hours for public testimony or not and how quickly debate moves.
We'll recess at 6 o'clock and reconvene tomorrow at 9:30, and we are scheduled from 9:30 to 6:00 PM.
Thank you.
Obviously, if we get through everything, we could always end earlier.
I appreciate the laughs.
Councilor Clark, do you have a question on process?
Yes, I do.
I just wondered on the OEOs, are you grouping them or are we gonna go through individually?
I believe that we have a new amendment which grouped them as we talked about at our previous work session to help us move one thing a little bit more quickly.
Any other questions on process?
Okay, then I would like to move us into public testimony so that we can hear from Portlanders about how they're feeling about the current state of our budget.
Keelan McClymont
Sorry.
And— Council President.
Did I miss a piece?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes, sorry.
What did I miss?
We're supposed to talk about the changes to the budget as so it's talking about the changes that are reflected in Attachments B and C, and that basically just lets Council have like the starting point for further adjustments to the budget.
Okay, here's what we're gonna do.
I'm gonna say to the public who are here, feel free to testify not just on the budget before you, but the amendments that are filed.
This is an opportunity for testimony on anything within Agenda item 5.
So amendments as well, please.
But before we do that, let's let Ruth talk about some of the changes that we have here.
I apologize, Director Levine, that I missed that part.
No problem.
So I'm just going to describe at a high level the changes in the adopted budget as filed, which are reflected in Attachments B and C. These are primarily technical changes.
That were made in advance, and there are kind of a couple of buckets of types of changes.
Some of them are cleanup from amendments that were voted for in the approved budget hearings.
So just making sure those get into the right spots in the budget.
A couple of them are updates based on sort of year-end projections of revenues and expenditures.
And so you'll see that in a couple of different places.
Thank you.
There's also the largest adjustment is for the FPDR loan that we just talked about and sort of adjustments between funds, particularly in our public works bureaus, adjusting contingency and revenues based on that.
So those— that kind of covers it and essentially—.
Thank you.
Council, you need to motion and second to adopt the changes as currently reflected in attachments A through H. And again, that just kind of provides you with a clean starting point from which you'll discuss further amendments to the budget.
Director Levine, would it be best practice for us to make that motion before we move into public testimony or after?
I, I, I think it makes sense to do it just before you move into public testimony.
Okay, councilors, do we have a motion?
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Seconded.
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
So we are moving and seconding to extend accept the changes that are noted in, which attachments are we looking at, Director Levine?
Attachments A through H. Thank you.
Attachments A through H. There we go.
So if you're looking at the website, I and J are the new proposed amendments.
A through H are the changes that have already been proposed.
We are discussing and then we'll vote on accepting those changes so that we are starting with a clean slate with any amendments that we bring forward.
Councilor Clark, are you in the queue for discussion?
Discussion?
Is there any discussion?
Okay, Keelan— Robert.
Keelan McClymont
This— the motion and second for this opens all of those items up, and now they can be amended individually as you move forward.
And then at the end of that process, we will have a— we will vote on this motion To adopt all the changes as reflected in A through H. So that'll be— think of it as a nesting amendment.
Now we're moving and seconding to opening A through H. You will then consider all the individual amendments that make changes to A through H, vote on all those, and then there will be one final vote on accepting all of the changes to A through H. That's similar to the process you went through with On May 21st.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
But we need to do that now before we start hearing additional amendments that we have not yet considered.
Keelan McClymont
Correct.
You do the motion and second now.
You don't vote on it.
You hear all of the testimony on all of the amendments as filed so folks can talk about all of the changes that are being proposed.
Then you take the individual—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So you prefer that we vote on these at the end?
Correct.
Okay.
Great.
Then why don't we move now into public testimony?
And Keelan, if you could call folks up 3 or 4 at a time so that we can hear from as many people as possible, that would be great.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Um, first up we have Loretta Guzman, Michelle Miller, Alan Combs, and Karen Chire.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'll just sit here.
That's okay.
Sure, go ahead, Loretta.
Hi, my name is Loretta Guzman.
Keelan McClymont
I'm the owner of Bison Coffee House.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I live and work in District 2.
Before this budget is finalized and adopted with these amendments, I'm requesting that we are given the proper funding for public safety to PPB so They can better serve our communities and businesses.
We have standards as a business we are held to.
Safety shouldn't be compromised, but currently it is.
Look around us as businesses are failing.
Even Big Pink is up for sale.
How much more damage has to occur before our city starts prioritizing people's lives?
Keelan McClymont
Big businesses have left, small businesses have closed, whole families have moved.
We are—.
We are a city that we want to believe it can come back and it will.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
But how long before this will happen?
Yes, I understand that we are forever changed, but as death is all around us, it's not normal.
Yes, I have experienced it in the last few years.
Deaths, deaths that shouldn't have occurred.
Unanswered 911 calls in a life and death situation is something I think of every day.
Thanks to our city that is crumbling with no accountability.
Councilor Jamie Dunphy.
The things that used to work are not an option, and this new form of ideas is destroying and killing people's—.
People.
Our streets are not what, what they once used to be.
Public safety is compromised currently, when in reality it is a fundamental right which we are not given.
Michelle.
Good afternoon, councilors.
My name is Michelle Miller.
I'm a parent and public safety advocate in District 4 Stadium neighborhood, where we've been doing the hard work of organizing, meeting with electeds, and also coordinating with law enforcement because the city has left too many of us on our own.
So I'm here to strongly oppose Amendment 3 from Councilor Avalos, which would strip $15 million from the police bureau's overtime budget and place it into a council-controlled contingency fund.
This is clearly a power grab.
Councilor Avalos and her Progressive Caucus allies Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you, Mayor.
Councilmembers are attempting to exert direct control over the police bureau by holding critical overtime funds hostage, and that's a dangerous precedent, and it directly contradicts the will of the voters who passed charter reform to remove operational control from individual councilors and place it under a city administrator.
Police overtime is what keeps our neighborhoods covered when staffing is stretched thin.
When there's a crisis, a shortage, or a public safety emergency, those funds allow the system to respond quickly It and effectively.
Allows the system to flex and respond, and we need that right now.
Putting that in a set-aside will equate to less safety for the people who need it most.
It is a misuse of your power, Avalos, and I urge you to all vote no on Avalos 3.
We ask you to respect the charter, your constituents, and stop gambling with public safety.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alan.
Keelan McClymont
All right, thank you, thank you.
Uh, good afternoon, uh, councilors and mayor.
My name is Alan Combs, Portland resident for, uh, over 25 years, and I live in District 3.
I'm here today because I'm angry and disappointed that 7 councilors, including all of those from District 3, voted to shift $2 million from Portland Police Bureau to the parks based on a false choice and a lack of imagination that public safety must be cut to fund park maintenance.
No.
I support justice equity and sustainability.
Indeed, cities are key to realize these goals, but none are possible if the city isn't safe and livable.
Portland has underfunded public safety for years and now has one of the smallest police forces per capita of major U.S. cities.
The mayor's requested budget for PPB isn't excessive, it's essential.
What happens if you continue to defund the police?
It means Portland street response will suffer.
PSR needs Police backup to expand safely into evening or indoor spaces.
Recruitment and training will stall, just as PPB is making progress on recruiting and training a younger, diverse force.
And that'll solve your overtime concerns, by the way.
Targeted missions to address sex trafficking, car theft, and retail crime will be cut.
Traffic enforcement will stall despite being one of the most effective ways to reduce pedestrian injuries.
And fatalities.
So how do you afford both parks and public?
A little imagination, yes, and by doing the hard work of identifying lower priority spending.
I urge you to work with the mayor and city administrator to find a solution.
Don't settle for simple false choices.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Karen is joining us online.
My name is Karen Fieray.
I'm the owner of the convenience store Stadium Superette in District 4 and a member of Stadiumhood.
And yes, Vice President, I have testified multiple times regarding the budget, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
As a business owner in this community, I am deeply concerned about the recent challenges we have faced.
Over the past 2 weeks alone, our security logs Has had over 25 new recorded incidents, including three arrests, repeated vandalism, employee threats, thefts, and even drug deals.
This level of criminal activity has taken a devastating toll.
Keelan McClymont
In the last two years, we have seen 18 businesses close or relocate from our neighborhood, and at least three more confirmed to leave by the end of the year.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We are in a doom loop in our Stadium Hood neighborhood.
These closures mean lost jobs, lost investments, and a loss of the community hubs that our neighbors rely on.
We are in a danger— dangerous downward spiral, and I fear for the future of our small business district and residential district if drastic action is not taken.
This is why I'm pleading with you, do not let another business leave our neighborhood.
We need more robust public safety budget to empower the police to work hand in hand with the community on solutions.
Community policing, where law enforcement and residents collaborate toward the common goal of safety and livability, is the only way forward.
Thank you.
When I call the police to report suspects from my store, I am doing my part to be a partner in public safety, but I need the police to have the resources and support to respond effectively.
With your commitment to funding— thank you.
Next up, we have Vadim Mazierski, Brian Owendoff, Marissa Wolf, Joe Jackson.
Keelan McClymont
Hello, councilors.
I'm here to urge you to vote no on Avalos 3 and to restore the $1.9 million that was cut from the mayor's public safety budget request.
Recently, the Tribune noted that mayor— that the mayor believed that the funding cuts would hinder efforts to recruit officers and address critical missions like combating fentanyl and human trafficking.
This was corroborated recently in a 7-page memo from the next Public Safety Administrator.
But the mayor struck an optimistic tone.
Thank you, Mayor.
Noting that he was hopeful that City Council will restore the $1.9 million when it considers the final version of the budget.
I too am hopeful that City Council will work together to restore the public safety and oppose drug dealers and human traffickers.
I'm hopeful because common sense leaders like Councilor Zimmerman, Smith, Ryan, Clark have noted that the city does not have to choose between parks and police.
We have options to fund both.
I'm hopeful because I'm hopeful because the Oregonian editorial board advocated for restoring that same police funding.
I'm hopeful because 3 recent citywide polls, one funded by City Council, one funded by the business community, one funded by a nonprofit, show that the majority of Portlanders are against cutting the police budget.
A vast majority felt that even non-emergency police services were essential or very important, and a large majority would actually support doubling the police force.
I'm hopeful because many people in this room are taking time off from their jobs and their families to advocate for restoring that funding.
I know sometimes politicians heed the loudest voice in the room rather than the too often silent majority, but I'm also hopeful that this council will act differently and listen to what people are asking you to do in your districts and citywide.
Thank you very much.
Brian.
Brian Owendoff.
Thank you, Mayor, City Council President, councilors.
I live and work in District 4.
Rebuilding Portland requires a commitment to public safety, Law and order rooted in the rule of law is the cornerstone of any thriving society.
It ensures treatment safeguards against individual rights to deter crime and maintains the peace and stability that our community needs to prosper.
In Portland, we're facing a stark reality: our city has half the number of police officers as other comparable cities, despite a $318 million police budget.
That funding only delivers 50% of the officers that we need.
This shortfall has real consequences.
For residents, businesses, and visitors.
Portland's revitalization and its ability to generate revenue, essential services for parks, roads, fire department depends on restoring public safety.
The Portland Police Bureau strives to be a leader in policing that is respectful to all layers of our community.
Entrepreneurs will not invest in neighborhoods plagued by break-ins and vandalisms.
Workers and visitors will avoid areas of high drug use.
District 1 experiences the highest crime, yet Councilors Dunphy and Avalos representing that district voted to cut an already lean budget by another $2 million.
That decision directly undermines efforts to make our community safer.
We need leaders that support effective law enforcement, not those that spread misinformation about police or whose ideological agendas interfere with practical needs of our city.
Portland's problems are not due to lack of revenue.
They stem from bad policy decisions and misplaced priorities.
Reducing the police budget now risks driving away more businesses, more residents, and more taxpayers.
We will remember who stood before the public safety and who voted to erode it.
With District 3 and District 4 councilors up for reelection next November, accountability is coming.
Let's stop the decline, restore funding, restore order, restore Portland.
Thank you.
Next on the agenda.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Marissa.
Hi, I'm Marissa Wolf.
I'm the artistic director of Portland Center Stage.
We're in District 4, and I am here to support and ask you to support Motion 6, Green's Motion 6, the one-time $450,000 funding for Portland Center Stage, and also want to lift up Dunphy's Motion Number 2, $1.5 million for City Arts funding.
Thank you.
So Portland Center Stage, we're the second largest theater in the state of Oregon.
We serve 100,000 people, including 9,000 students every year.
We are a space to gather.
We are more than a theater.
We are a space to gather, which is— which has such a great need right now.
We are a space for collective imagination to renew the investment in all people's ability to dream into democracy.
We are an economic driver in our community.
For every $1 spent at Portland Center Stage, $39 are spent in our neighborhood.
When you consider the revitalization of downtown Portland, you must consider the arts and Portland Center Stage.
We drive business.
To all of the local businesses in the Pearl District, and we are a major part of safety in our neighborhood in bringing tens of thousands of people downtown and partnering with local nonprofits around the houseless community.
We are in emergency campaign to stay alive, and this, this one-time funding is absolutely critical as a public-private partnership in leveraging private gifts so that we can stay alive.
It's a win for this incredible group of new council members and mayor.
Thank you.
That tens of thousands of people will benefit from this funding for generations to come.
Thank you very much.
Joe.
Keelan McClymont
President Pirtle-Guiney, Vice President Koyama Lane, Mayor Wilson, members of the council.
My name is Joe Jackson.
I've been a rideshare driver in the Portland metro area for 10 years.
I've driven thousands of trips and amassed hundreds of thousands of miles on these roads.
And I need your help to support our— to support a fund for our driver resource center.
Whether it's a ride to work, the hospital, school, or just getting home after a night out, people depend on us.
And now we depend on the city to be there for us.
We rideshare drivers are fighting for our rights, and sometimes we feel alone out there.
Drivers need a place to go.
To get help if we have questions or issues with the TNCs.
The Driver Resource Center could offer legal help at little to no cost for drivers worried about feeding their families after deactivation, translation services for the culturally biased English-speaking AI chatbots that dominate the customer service of both of the current TNC giants, and outreach for the massive and diverse driver community with education on labor rights.
This $2 per trip fee that goes into effect without supporting drivers that so desperately need support.
We understand that Portland has needs, but so do drivers.
And without this, without us, this new funding wouldn't exist.
So please, councilors, Mayor Wilson, set aside just a small portion of this fee to fund a driver resource center so that we can get the assistance that drivers have needed.
We continue to support the city, but drivers deserve to be included in these decisions.
Thank you, and we look forward to working together.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you all for being here today.
Next, next up, next up we have Ahmed Alshamani, Craig Bethel, Dalgash Ahmadi, Dahir Sheikh Ahmed.
Thank you all for being here.
Keelan McClymont
Hi guys, my name is Ahmed Shamani.
I'm Uber driver 10 years.
I was, uh, in Fox 12 News for Uber karaoke, and I was in the page Uber For Tavi Driver in Portland.
I have multiple VIB tickets with Uber.
And then guess what?
After that, all this, I have over 4,000, I got deactivated in 2020 in the pandemic, and no one give me the reason what's going on for all that.
And then guess what?
I have $10,000 give me Uber for have over 2,000 trips.
So all this, this—.
Thank you.
If you— I'm all the type of driver, how is the regular driver is deactivated?
I'm here to share the story what's going on for this company.
This company is a slave the driver, don't care for the driver, don't care for the customer.
He just hiring people, firing people.
And then after 2 years, I share my situation, everything, and my account back.
Guess what?
And then I go back again, work, and then I work again, and then some customer have a one stop, and then I tell them I can't be stopped.
Councilmember, I'm And sorry, I have to stop you.
Then I call the support, say, okay, next day I find my account deactivation.
And after that, I go to Vancouver.
Vancouver have a support for Payfair deactivation and then, uh, uh, Payfair.
So guess what?
I, I connect with the driver union, and then guess what?
My account back again.
That's why I'm here.
I want to driver union because driver union back almost 1,700 people in Washington.
So why don't do it here in Portland to support the brother and sister?
Thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Mayor Wilson and members of the City Council.
My name is Craig Bethel.
I'm a 5th generation Oregonian and a resident of the Portland metro area for 68 years, and for the last 8 of those years, a member of the rideshare community.
I love my job and serving the people of Portland.
I am proud to call myself an essential service provider.
Currently, we have— we don't have any place to go to get help if we have questions or issues with the TNCs.
Uber and Lyft refuses to pay us a living wage, and they terminate us without any help of getting our jobs back.
A $2 trip fee is about to go into effect without supporting The drivers that don't have the protections available like other essential workers.
We understand the city has needs, but we do too.
But so do we.
And without us, none of the funding comes in.
So please, Council and Mayor Wilson, set aside a small 10% portion of this fee to fund the Drivers Resource Center, a place that has experience serving our diverse community of drivers.
Thank you.
So we can get the assistance we need from an independent organization that has drivers' best interests at heart.
We want to continue to support the city, but drivers deserve to be included in these decisions.
We look forward to working together to make both of these things happen.
Thank you very much.
Boohoo!
All right, good afternoon, Mayor Wilson, councilors.
My name is Dilgash Shamidi and Essential Rideshare.
Worker in the Portland metro area going on, uh, 8 years now.
Drivers are working long hours for low pay without basic labor protection, and Uber and Lyft keep deactivating us.
Portland wants to raise the TNC fee to $2 without supporting us, even though every ride we support the city.
Please take just 20 cents, just 10% on each ride, to fund a driver resource center so essential drivers and non-English-speaking immigrant drivers can have a place to go and get support that they need.
I was deactivated for 18 months with no reason whatsoever.
If it wasn't for the driver's union, I wouldn't be reactivated.
All it takes is a passenger to falsify some stuff, and they will not hesitate to deactivate Daher is joining us online.
Good afternoon, Mayor Wilson and all members of the council.
My name is Daher Shigamat and I'm a rideshare drivers union member.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I was living in Portland 25 years and I have been a rideshare driver over 8 years.
Keelan McClymont
I'm happy to serve the residents and visitors of the Portland metro area.
As you might be aware, or constantly reporting drivers to, to the City of Portland or the council, drivers are working long hours and never earn or close to the minimum wage of Portland, Oregon.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Drivers have no basic labor protection at all.
Order.
But rideshare companies keep pronging the expectation with us without any notice or warning.
Therefore, we—.
Keelan McClymont
Therefore, to able or continue our essential service in Portland City and Portland metro area, please, drivers need your help and support to fund our driver resource center.
Please, just take 20 cents or just 10% in each ride from the new TNC fee of $2 to fund Driver Resources Center so the drivers have place to go to get support they need, such as fair pay, necessary basic benefits, and protection of the wronged activation.
We hope and looking forward to work together to make those things to happen and make city of Portland great place to be residency.
Or work or protect the rights of the labor.
Thank you very much.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you all very much for being here.
Next up, we have Yusuf Fiki, Nathaniel Hudson Hartman, Angela Todd.
Keelan McClymont
Hey, you guys are tough acts to follow.
Privet, President, Vice President, Mayor Dubiet, and company.
I'm Nathaniel Hudson Hartman, proud 8-year rideshare driver and advocate with Drivers Union Oregon, the voice for fairness for Rose City rideshare.
As you can see, my merry band of largely low-income Black, brown, and immigrant drivers and I are here back again to ask for your help.
We support this city providing essential mobility services, and as our wheels turn Y'all know millions are pouring into this city, but why is none of that supporting us?
Impossibly long work weeks, jobs unfairly taken away, all thanks to Uber and Lyft.
We need actual human beings, actual humans that have drivers' best interests at heart without the influence of the TNC giants, as my brother said.
Great, great work.
That can serve our diverse driver community in languages other than English.
And this place our community desperately needs, just like its Seattle counterpart that has already helped thousands restore their jobs and access countless benefits and have a voice, is the Driver Resource Center.
This TNC fee was adopted without considering the negative impacts to our already struggling driver community, and as usual, Uber and Lyft are propagandizing this proposal.
But we are offering an equitable pathway forward.
That solves both of those problems, and that is the Driver Resource Center.
We're eager to collaborate more to ensure drivers not only have a seat behind the wheel, but at the table.
Remember, without us, there is no rideshare economy, no TNC taxation without driver representation.
That being said, Councilor Knoll, we are encouraged by Amendment 17.
Vamos a trabajar.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
New topic.
Good afternoon, Council and Mayor.
I'm Angela Todd with PDX Real.
Last week, this Council approved an $8.5 million settlement during a budget deficit.
I'm here today because I'm aghast at that decision.
You approved a settlement for 27 people claiming ancestral ties to a home in Albina.
In the court documents that I read, there's no proof their family wasn't already paid when the home was sold.
Thank you.
Or that they lived at the property.
This isn't equity, it's precedent.
I'd like to explain, even though I recognize this is a tough topic.
It opens the door to every other family in Albina, but also every eminent domain claim in Portland's history, including the Coliseum, the Highway 405, to the Mount Hood Freeway that was never built.
Meanwhile, present day, right now, the City of Portland has seized 2 family-owned nursery properties from the Bull Run Filtration Plant, and homeowners in rural Multnomah County are being harassed over new setbacks tied to that same project as we speak.
Oddly, they're the ones who raised the money to sue the city.
I keep hearing from this body that a budget is a moral document.
Well, let's be honest, symbolic justice won't fix what's broken today.
This council should be confronting the real abuse that's happening now, not 70 years ago.
Councilmember because the greatest injustice I see today is the one being carried out by the city of Portland against its own people through political muscle, inadequate public safety, and policies that leave families and businesses crushed by financial pressure with no relief in sight.
It's time to show moral courage in the present, not just the past.
Thank you.
Uh, Yusuf Vicky.
Okay, next we have Tiana Tozer, Eve Ashkar, Todd Littlefield, and Talia Giardini.
I got— I spent $64 on coffee, so is it me?
My name is Tiana Tozer.
I'm a D2 resident.
I'm concerned about the misinformation that has been floating around the police budget.
Contrary to Green and Kanal's claims that the police budget is being increased by $21 million, according to the PPB budget summary, taking away the $2 million is a 0.4% increase.
Page 4 of the budget summary states, and I've given you all copies of it, putting aside inflationary increases, PPB's general fund revenue would have increased by a total including ongoing and one-time of $861,379, 0.3% in the proposed budget, and decreased by $1,130,237.
That's a 0.4% after the reductions in the approved budget.
Where is the $21 million increase?
Keelan McClymont
Someone needs to show me the math.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I would also like to clarify how and why the $2 million decrease will result in a decrease in services.
The money from the 90 vacant positions is currently used for overtime to maintain a level of service.
When a new officer is hired, they start being paid.
Keelan McClymont
New police officers have an 18-month training period during which they do not operate solo.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That means a position is filled, but it takes 18 months for the staffing increase to take effect.
In the meantime, to continue the level of service, the bureau needs the same amount of money for overtime.
The result is a decrease in response times and services.
During your campaign, Councilor Novick, on October 2024, you stated, if it's a matter of cutting public safety or parks, probably you would have to cut parks.
Are you going to follow through on your campaign promise, or will you give in to the political bullying of Councilor Maria?
Portlanders want police and parks, and there are ways to fund them both.
Yeah, and I'll remind folks that while I know folks have reactions to a lot of what we hear, we try to keep those reactions silent so we can keep moving.
Thank you.
Okay.
Sorry, I'm like deep breaths.
Okay, can I go?
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
Hi, I'm Talia Jardini.
I'm a registered nurse and a Portland native.
Taking away $2 million from police, which with inflation is actually a 0.4% decrease, this goes directly against what the majority of the public wants.
This is not democracy, it's entitlement and abandonment.
Our DSA councilors are in denial of the facts and frankly dishonest.
They're open about police abolition, which is ridiculous.
I care for victims of gun violence, domestic violence, stabbing, and adults, and this includes children.
The hospital is regularly on lockdown due to gun violence in surrounding areas and parks.
We now have metal detectors at every entrance after a security guard was killed on site.
I myself am a victim of domestic violence, assault, and car theft.
We want and need police, and to say anything different is a complete fallacy.
It shows the Progressive Caucus would rather double down on their political ideologies than protect the public.
I've heard no mention of cutting their own multi-million dollar security budget.
We don't want to lose traffic enforcement, human trafficking missions, or PSR support.
We don't want delayed 911 response times, which are critical to the health of the community.
I was at the 2020 protests, and I'm proud of the reforms PPB has made, including an oversight board and community policing.
PPB, thank you for your service.
I'd like to add, we are on the stolen land of the Kalapuya Cuyah Tribe, who have been invisible in these conversations regarding reparations, and you better watch out for them to sue next.
I encourage all of you to support the mayor's practical proposed budget, widely supported by the public, and support our public servants.
Thanks.
Is joining us online.
Go ahead and unmute, Eve.
Hello, my mother and I own a small property management company that was started by my grandfather over 40 years ago in the Lloyd Center area.
We have a diverse group of tenants who work in various industries ranging from nonprofit community outreach, gun violence prevention, software audiovisual services, kids after-school programs, and high-end auto repair.
We do our best to keep our 3 blocks of buildings clean and safe for all Over the last few years, this has become increasingly difficult.
When our tenants' clients arrive to drop off their children for classes or deliver vehicles for repair, they are met with the unpleasantness of mobile homes, unlicensed cars dealing drugs, and leaving trash and human waste along the properties.
Often camper vans are parked in front of our buildings for upwards of 6 to 8 weeks, and their presence deters people from wanting to use our tenant services.
Thus negatively affecting their businesses and income.
We have heard from our tenants directly how some of their clients are no longer using their services because they do not have space in the area.
Our tenants are not able to maintain their business income.
That will not only hurt them, but will hurt us as the landlords who are financially responsible for these properties.
We are aware that there are only about 8 people employed with PBOT to address parking and car camping, and given the state of the city, that is not enough.
We need more funding towards PBOT and the police that will focus specifically on removing people and vehicles who continue to cause issues for local businesses.
I continue to observe the city leadership putting the needs of those individuals above the needs of property and business owners in the city.
It is families like ours and people like our tenants who make every effort to keep commerce going in our neighborhoods and generate tax revenue.
It is time for the city to take significant steps towards resources for PBOT and police to help business owners.
Thank you, Councilor Jamie Dunphy.
Thank you.
Uh, Todd Littlefield.
Uh, next up we have Kai McMurtry, Giles Gardner, Dave Crapo, Anastasia Howard, Rob Martineau, and Tara Carlson.
Welcome.
Thank you all for being here.
Keelan McClymont
Would you like us to start?
Please, Dave.
For the record, my name is Dave Crapo.
I am a chapter chair with Ask Me 189, and I'm the city's first park ranger dispatcher.
I and my team, the dispatch team, are also in the process of receiving our layoff notices this week.
So my job right now is to earn your vote in favor of budget amendments that will restore park ranger dispatch for our funding, and then to place us under 311.
311 Management is prepared and ready to receive and support us in our work, and we believe that this is the best solution for everyone.
If these amendments do not pass, our workflow will stop, and there's no serious plan in place to take over our functions.
Ranger calls will stop— will stack up in a work queue, and they will be passed out to rangers as time permits, frequently after problems have passed with no resolutions.
So I have 3 observations about our work that I need everybody to understand.
First, Ranger Dispatch lightens the load for PPB and BOEC by taking non-emergency calls and correctly routing them to safety resources around the city.
Usually that's a Ranger team, and sometimes we partner with others.
We are a force multiplier for Portland's safety and security apparatus, and that helps with neighborhood livability.
Second, we provide critical access to community services for people who are usually not comfortable calling city services.
We help triage calls, we help people get social services, and we help people get health resources.
Third, Portland is a union town.
We are represented labor.
We're the cheapest labor on the ranger team, and we need your help.
Please vote for our amendments.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Hi, I'm Tara Carlson, AFSCME 189 Vice President and Building Plans Examiner for PP&D.
Keelan McClymont
City Councilors, we are deeply concerned about any proposed layoffs of workers at PP&D, any mandated halt on our reserves, and waiving of FDC fees as we move into peak construction season.
Our bureau had no intention of decreasing our staffing levels this year because of a steady climb toward cost recovery.
And yet there is still an amendment that mandates PP&D to reduce the draw on reserves and decrease bureau costs through employee layoffs.
This action will cause our community to endure additional longer wait times for critical con— um, construction, development, and community services due to the 71 layoffs we already endured in January 2024.
While waiving SDC fees will likely promote an influx of permits, we share PBOT, BES, Water and Parks concerns that fee losses will continue to strain critical infrastructure With unintended consequences on our legacy of livability.
Portland has fallen behind major city jurisdictions nationwide by not implementing a steady governance from general funds for our building department to manage the inevitable ebbs and flows of construction.
We agree with Councilor Smith that the amendment to retain 31 jobs and reduce the drawdown of reserves did not go far enough.
We stand by Smith's proposal to provide a one-time fund of $9.5 million to PP&D to preserve all staffing levels by amending Purdy-Guiney's Amendment 101.
Hello, I'm Anastasia Howard.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm an AFSCME 189 chapter chair, and I have worked for 10 years at the Portland Permitting and Development Bureau in the Property Compliance Division.
Picking up where Tara left off, management forecasts— our management forecasts that layoffs will balloon permit services backlogs and increase program losses that resulted from the 71 staff layoffs in January 2024.
Thank you.
For example, on-time plan reviews are down to 90%.
Wait times for free appointments for customers to get help with their permit applications have increased to 4 days and will likely be eliminated.
Keelan McClymont
The residential building inspectors are averaging 295 inspections daily among 13 inspectors, which hasn't proved easy.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Layoffs of commercial inspectors from 7 to 3 will decrease decrease inspections from 70 to only 23 a day, hampering the mayor's initiatives toward new construction of affordable housing and business revitalization downtown.
The Property Compliance Division was forced to shut down yearly systematic inspection programs for multifamily rentals citywide.
Demand for inspections for unpermitted construction.
Health and safety violations, and squatter houses is increasing.
We currently have 889 properties in active code enforcement alongside a backlog of 406 citywide complaints that are waiting for an inspector.
We welcome the opportunity to further discuss how we can continue our mission to promote safety, livability, and economic vitality in line with the city's compliance goals and our shared dedication to public service.
And we thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Portland City Council.
My name is Rob Martineau.
I'm the president of AFSCME Local 189 and a water operations mechanic in the Portland Water Bureau for the last 25 years.
In addition to these cuts in permits and parks, which easily connects to housing and livability in Portland, there's an additional, additional thing that I— issue I'd like to raise, and that is the The constant cutting of vacancies, that seems to be how all bureaus are forced to balance budgets.
Those vacancies of my members are real work.
Those are people that should be in the queue to be hired.
Those are Portlanders that need good jobs, and we need to figure out how we put back these vacancies.
I understand it may not happen in this budget, but it needs to happen in the next.
The work will still need to be done.
Councilmember another area that's easy to forget is Portland's 14th elected official, and that's the office of our auditor.
As a result of this budget, the one person who does the training on records retention for all of the agencies and bureaus in Portland is being laid off.
So where we talk about transparency, which all of us at this dais have done, it is antithetical to that to unfund the support to the entire city of that records retention.
And you all have one hell of a task.
You have gotten here halfway through a budget cycle, and it's always budget season in Portland.
I am encouraged at the progress that this council has made, and I am excited to— you all have a full budget cycle to really guide Portland forward as we move into our next budget season.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Good luck.
Thank you all for being here.
Keelan McClymont
May I also please share I have a letter signed by 26 park rangers and also a fact sheet about our work.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Could you hand those to our clerk and she'll make sure that it gets to all of our offices?
Thank you so much.
Um, Giles is joining us online.
Keelan McClymont
Uh, good afternoon, council members.
My name is Giles Gardner.
I'm a Portland resident and an ISA board-certified master arborist, I want to express my clear opposition to Councilmember Zimmerman's proposed amendment, which will have devastating long-term effects on Portland's tree canopy.
I'm here to urge you to preserve funding for Urban Forestry's permitting and regulation team and to protect Portland's tree code.
Cutting staffing and weakening protections will dismantle years of progress at a time when our urban canopy is more important than ever.
Mature trees are not easily replaced.
While new trees can be planted, survival rates are low, and it takes decades for them to deliver the same benefits.
Large established trees provide unmatched value in cooling neighborhoods, improving air quality, increasing property values, and reducing stormwater runoff.
These benefits are especially vital in underserved communities already suffering from heat inequity and low canopy coverage.
The urban forestry permitting and regulation team are not bureaucratic overhead.
Councilmember they're highly skilled public servants doing essential climate resilience work.
Recent staffing improvements have dramatically reduced permitting delays.
Cutting that staff now will reverse this progress.
This proposal will disproportionately harm Portland's most vulnerable communities and result in lasting environmental and public health costs.
Please don't trade long-term livability for short-term savings.
Preserve urban forestry.
Protect the trees we still have.
Thank you.
Once they're gone, we can't get them back.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Go ahead, Kai.
Keelan McClymont
Good afternoon, Mayor Wilson and councilors.
My name is Kai McMurtry.
I'm a resident of D3.
I appreciate you making this additional space to hear public testimony on the budget.
I rewatched your discussion at the close of the May 21st marathon session in response to Avalos's First Amendment to, quote unquote, uncrease the PPB budget.
As a Portland taxpayer, it is insulting to me to hear some councilors position that $1.9 million as somehow the make-or-break amount of a bureau budget in excess of $300 million, a budget that's up almost 8% and is already the largest recipient of general fund dollars in the city.
Those who opposed the redirection to parks wanted us to believe that it signaled some great concession to lawlessness.
If $2 million made us safe, then $300 million should make us safe 150 times over, right?
You know what many contribute— what else many contribute to a feeling of public safety, litter removal, lighting, amenity repairs, ADA barrier removal, all things that are being cut in our cherished public spaces by the current reduction in parks maintenance dollars.
I am encouraged by Avalos 3, Koyama Lane 8, excuse me, Koyama Lane 8, Novick 2, Murillo 7, but I gotta go to work and walk my dog and I cannot digest all that y'all are being asked to take on.
So I have to speak to my values, which unfortunately leaves me open to interpretation.
Because we are all using the word safety, but we mean different things by it.
I don't think the state's threat of violence and incarceration can build a world of true holistic community and safety.
And every year that we increase the police budget at the expense of alternative methodologies, including well-maintained parks and public spaces, we are choosing to delay real community harmony.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Benjamin Gilbert.
Kevin Christensen, Marie Tyvall, Jordan Lewis.
Thank you for being here.
Keelan McClymont
My name is Benjamin Gilbert, and I'm a tenant in District 4 and a member of the Portland Democratic Socialists of America.
I'd like to voice strong support for Green 10.
We can afford to cut from the external material and services budget, which is funding overwhelmingly directed towards consultants and redirects work away from represented city employees.
It also funds the necessary study to facilitate the expansion of Portland Street Response, protects tenants, and funds the arts.
We need to defend the uncrease.
Don't give the police more than they need and more than they asked for.
When I look at Los Angeles right now, I see what an overfunded police department looks like.
I also strongly urge councilors to support Morillo 16, which supports tenants in the midst of a housing crisis.
Also vote yes on Avalos 3.
We need accountability on police overtime.
Just look at San Francisco, where an audit found police overtime was rife with fraud and abuse.
When my neighbor was injured in front of my Northwest apartment, more than 6 police officers came and harassed them, making them feel unsafe.
I bought my neighbor a cool bottle of water to help with his head wound and walked him back to his apartment.
This seems like an overfunded police department.
It seems inefficient, and it seems like we can take care of our neighbors.
Like Portland Street Response would be better served to do this kind of work.
And we don't need 6 people showing up when one gentleman has a head wound who can just be walked back to his apartment.
I did that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Jordan.
Keelan McClymont
Hello, City Council.
I'm Jordan Lewis with Portland DSA.
I also live in the stadium hood as well.
I'm here today thanking everyone who voted yes on the police uncrease.
90 Unfilled positions don't keep us safe, and the move would save parks employees' jobs while not a single officer would lose theirs.
Police conspire with ICE and threaten cutting human trafficking work at the first whiff of accountability.
I'm also here in support of the increase to TNC Uber Lyft fees as well as Canal 717 towards a driver resource center.
I checked the Lyft app just now and a ride one way from here to Kaiser Interstate East is $15.
Meanwhile, a TriMet ride costs less than $3.
The additional $1.35 fee on rides would be a splash in the bucket for such a luxury convenience.
To be clear, I support funds being used on a driver resource center.
I'm really here against the apps themselves and asking you to take it even higher.
The Uber and Lyft apps sent out alerts telling customers to show up and stall this effort, not unlike in May when they did the same thing in Illinois, asking users to testify against a transit funding bill.
This bill failed, pushing transit over the fiscal cliff and forcing Chicago to cut up to 30% of their transit service.
These apps function by undermining public transit and union taxi services with exploited labor.
This is not the behavior of a public servant.
This is the behavior of a tobacco company.
If climate change is a problem, if road fatalities are a problem, if traffic congestion is a problem, the fee needs to be higher.
$2 Is a start, um, but please put, put it towards the Driver Resource Center as well.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you both for being here.
Checking, uh, on Kevin Christensen, Marie Tyboll, next we have Jeremy Smith, Jim Labby, Yoko Silk, Jesse Hannan.
Keelan McClymont
Good afternoon, councilors and Mayor Wilson.
My name is Jeremy Bosley Smith.
I've been following the coalescence of the District 4 Coalition over the past year and a half.
What I've seen is concerning.
Councilor Clark's Amendment 9 motions to increase funding for the District 4 Coalition by $80,000 to boost their newsletter reach.
The newsletter does not need $80,000 and can be grown organically at preexisting community events and utilizing social media to its full potential.
Right now it's only on Facebook, declining.
It's a dying social media.
We need to do better.
At the June 2nd District 4 Coalition board meeting, a $3,000 celebratory dinner at the The Longzhu Chinese Garden was planned.
This option was chosen over a community picnic that would've been open to everybody.
Coalition President Jessie Burke, who is also the chair of the Old Town Community Association, used their pulpit to speak about bottle drop concerns for over 30 minutes in the media, or in the meeting, prioritizing the concerns of her neighborhood over the 31 other neighborhoods that they're supposed to represent.
Thank you.
Zimmerman Amendment 8 motions to restore $130,000 in funding to the District Coalition Office operations and $180K to the District Coalition Office grants.
Any funds given to District 4 will be disproportionately applied to the Old Town Community Association, a neighborhood that just received $30,000 from Multnomah County for the Community Vitality and Economy Opportunity Grant.
Over the past few days, PPB has been communicating with aiding and abetting federal immigration and Customs Enforcement down at the South Waterfront.
Please vote no on Clark Amendment 9, Zimmerman Amendment 8, and the $2 million Portland Police Bureau increase.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council.
My name is Jim Lavi.
I'm a District 2 resident.
I'm here to oppose Zimmerman 2 and 3 and support Green Amendment 10.
From 2002 to 2016, I served as urban conservationist for The Oregon Bird Alliance and staffed the East Portland office out at Leach Botanical Garden.
And during that time, I served on the Citywide Tree Project Stakeholder Committee, and then subsequently, several years later, on the Title XI Citywide Tree Code Oversight Committee.
So I spent a lot of time with the tree code.
It emerged— that project emerged out of a genuine grassroots movement across the city in 2007. to protect and safeguard the urban forest by revising very outdated city tree code regulations.
Amendment 4, as it's presented before, would basically gut those efforts, those decade-long efforts to try to improve those policies and their implementation.
Yeah.
I get there's issues with the code, but the budget process is not the way to deal with it.
Those code issues.
Let's debate the code.
Let's not gut the program via the budget.
Urban forestry staff that we cut do more than inspection.
They do education and information sharing, which is a critical part of that project.
And I understand this is maybe a strategy to cut parks, to fund parks.
That doesn't get us anywhere.
A much better approach is Green 10, which partially addressed the code issues.
Councilor Smith.
Cuts to parks in the mayor's proposed budget.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Go ahead, ma'am.
Oh, sorry.
Go ahead.
Me?
Gyoko Silk.
I'm a District 2 resident and a Portland Parks employee.
I want to say thank you to Councilors Murillo, Green, Avalos, Dunphy, Kanal, Novick, Koyama Lane for your yes vote for the redirection of $1.9 million from police to parks.
Councilor Ryan, I'm hoping that I can see you uphold supporting Parks like you used to do when you were our commissioner, when I'm also a Parks employee under you.
I cannot believe that this decision about $1.9 million redirect is being contested.
Honestly, PPB got exactly the budget they requested plus some, and this redirection is just slightly reduces their increase while all the other bureaus are facing massive cuts.
Parks is still facing $8 million in cuts.
Please stop spreading the false narrative that this is somehow defunding police.
It is not.
Thank you.
This redirection of $1.9 million is helpful for parks maintenance, but it isn't even enough.
Please work to fund parks fully.
I was a part-time casual staff for PP&R years ago and have been an FTE union member for the past 10 years.
I know firsthand the incredible value of city nature programming, for example, that is still on the proposed cut list.
These high ROI programs that serve over 7,000 youth a year are still posed to lose poised to lose all funding for casual staff, which is over 100 positions.
What makes these programs— which will make these programs impossible to run and reduces valuable job opportunities for our Portland residents.
The Police Bureau budget is 67% larger than it was 10 years ago.
More police don't keep crime off the streets, but engaging youth programs does.
Healthy park systems do.
Programs that provide childcare like recreation summer camps do.
They are an investment in our city's welfare and Portland's future.
Funding youth programs is funding public safety.
Funding parks is public safety.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Jesse Hannon, Tim Larson, Nike Green, Eric Knox.
Go ahead.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, councilors.
My name is Jesse Hannon.
I've lived in Portland most of my life.
I'm a District 3 resident.
I'm honestly a little confused why we're even my understanding is that the Portland Police got the budget increase they asked for, and Portland Parks, even if they were to receive the $1.9 million budget bonus, would still be looking at an $8 million shortfall.
I think we all understand that we— the Portland Police Bureau is not underfunded currently, and the Portland Parks Bureau is.
Especially youth programs are well known to reduce crime in the city, and we seem to have hit the maximum of how much police funding will even do that.
So I'm urging all the council members to please retain the $1.9 million with the Portland Parks rather than give it to the police department, which didn't even ask for it.
Thank you.
My name is Tim Larson, and I've spoken to the— your predecessors and City Council and Dan before, and it kind of reminds me of speaking to an assembly at the deaf school in Washington, in Vancouver, without having a sign language translator.
I hope that I have got your attention now because this is really important.
What does defunding the police mean, or taking money away from from the police budget mean.
First, there's the existential crisis for business community in Portland.
Downtown Portland property values have plummeted 57% since 2019, from $3 billion to just $1.3 billion.
There was an article in the paper the other day that the Old Town Pizza owner had purchased the Merchant hotel building that he was in for $2.5 million, while just in 2017, the previous owner paid $12.5 million for that building.
Then we have the human crisis.
I'm a rideshare driver myself.
In the last 2 years, I have given rides to a 78-year-old man who was stabbed 3 times at an East Portland MAX station, a 40-year-old— 74-year-old Hispanic woman who was hit on the head by a 38-pound rock wielded by a homeless man, causing 3 life-threatening cracks to her skull and sending her to the ICU.
By the way, this was the same mentally ill homeless man who just weeks before had critically injured a woman doctor who was jogging on Northwest 23rd.
We need more police.
We need police to protect us.
Thank you.
My name is Nike Green.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I am the CEO and founder of Triple Threat Mentoring, a 50-year-plus resident and in District 2.
We're a small, deeply rooted Black-led organization which was recently awarded funding through the Portland Children's Levy for mentoring.
Mayor, Madam President, and council members, we're grateful for the opportunity to be here today and share our perspective, especially given that we were previously asked not to lobby or provide any testimony.
Keelan McClymont
So here we are, not just sitting in front of you, but in the room, the balcony and watching online.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We're a coalition of organizations including the Ethiopian Eritrean Cultural Resource Center, ELSO, Hala Mentors, and Triple Threat that were significantly impacted by the decisions you made in the last council PCL remand.
Keelan McClymont
Our organizations work within Black communities within workforce development, science education, college and career readiness, and intensive mentoring.
Across all of our nonprofits, over 90% of our board members, staff, So we are disheartened by the decision to reallocate funds to previously funded organizations, many of them larger legacy nonprofits, at the expense of smaller Black-led orgs that have long been underfunded and overlooked.
So what is our ask?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That you would fully fund all newly awarded grants for at least the first year to prevent gaps in our services.
Keelan McClymont
If review is necessary, we ask that you do a partial remand to limit it to only the first year.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilmember the specific hunger relief funding lane in question rather than delaying the full cohort.
Thank you for listening.
Keelan McClymont
My name is Eric Knox.
I am the executive director and founder of HALA.
I've been in Portland for 35 years.
I've been in mentorship for 31 years.
I live in the community I serve.
I don't drive into that community.
I fully embody this work because I believe, especially for my Black And brown babies.
You can't be what you haven't seen.
I have the resources to not live there, but I do because that's the heart and essence of mentoring.
So today I stand with my sister Nike and the other 2 Black-led mentoring organizations, ELSO and Ethiopian Eritrean Cultural and Resource Center, harmed by your recent remands of the PCL, Portland Children's Levy, which protects previously funded groups For another year while leaving thousands of Black families and youth in limbo.
We applied, we interviewed, we planned with integrity.
HALA was recommended by a community-led, equity-rooted process for a reason.
For over a decade, we've centered lived experience equity and delivered real impact.
Now we ask the council to honor that process and protect the progress.
One, fully fund all newly awarded grants for at least 1 year to prevent gaps.
And services.
2, If a review is necessary, limit it to Hunger Relief Lane.
Don't stall the entire cohort.
Request a report from PCL outlining the safeguards and fairness measures built into the process.
This is about community trust, continuity of service, and the city's own commitment to equity.
We're not asking for special treatment, just consistency.
We're not asking for charity, we're just asking for respect.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you all for being here.
Keelan McClymont
Todd Littlefield.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Todd Littlefield.
I live in District 1.
Good afternoon, councilors.
Mayor Wilson, thank you for your hard work, persistence, determination.
Your budget is thoughtful, restrained, with the right priorities.
After seeing the lawlessness and chaos which occurred Saturday night, which my neighborhood and many in Portland have lived with on a daily basis going on a decade now, I Googled Why do we have laws?
The AI-generated response: Laws are crucial for maintaining order.
They establish standards of accepted behavior, ensuring fairness.
In essence, laws are the foundation of a well-functioning society.
Without laws, society would be prone to chaos and conflict.
They are essential for ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live a safe, productive, and fulfilling life.
When Portland does not have enough officers to send and stop anarchy Saturday night at Lloyd Center and several other locations, we have a major problem.
It's a miracle no one was killed.
Have there been any amendments to improve the budget reflecting funding and mandating the hiring of hundreds of more officers immediately?
D1 medium income is far below the other districts.
We have 40% of the city's children.
Councilor yet we have councilors who voted to drastically increase the cost to play golf, thus robbing our children of the opportunity to learn or enjoy the game.
What are the council's morals, priorities, standards, and values?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Marie is joining us online.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Marie Tyvall.
As a person of white privilege, I applaud Councilor Kanal's comment about the $8.5 billion for displaced Albina Black families and that it only begins the process of making people whole.
I urge you to vote no for Councilor Clark and Zimmerman's budget amendments funding the District Coalition Neighborhood Association system.
Clark and Zimmerman apparently are determined to make people whole, but these are primarily white privileged folks who will benefit from this inequitable system.
For example, Councilor Clark will donate $2,000 each to the District 4 Neighborhood Associations whose past actions in the '90s contributed to today's segregated Portland, as documented in the 2019 report on our racist land use history.
Councilor Clark also proposes $80,000 of taxpayer funds for the District 4 Coalition newspaper propaganda media that prohibits letters to the editor from the public.
Last week, the taxpayer-funded District 4 Coalition announced they will start a neighborhood watch program with the police.
Portland's neighborhood watch program was dissolved in 2019, like because studies show the program incites racial profiling and vigilantism.
You may remember 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer.
Finally, last week Leslie Hammond announced the District 4 Coalition will spend $3,000 of taxpayer funds for a celebration of success dinner held exclusively for board members and their significant others at Lonsdale Gardens.
District 4 Coalition may hold the distinction for being Portland's only tax taxpayer-funded organization currently flush with cash.
Thank you.
Next up we have Deanne Salazar, Patrick Tran, Audrey Kanes, Micah Meskel.
Welcome, go right ahead.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, councilors.
I'm Deanne Salazar.
All right, District 1 tenant.
First, quickly, I support the rideshare union demands.
Now, let me be frank, councilors.
I ask you, why are you so eager to view department budgets as indispensable except for the police budget?
If we need to plug gaps, then we ought to reject the notion that any specific department is solely the one to bear that burden.
That's not to reject police accountability, police reform, or say that the police budget is perfect.
Thank you.
But at the current moment, this feels more like a vendetta than a targeted move to sustain parks, especially through targeting police recruitment funds.
That's not good governance.
That's grandstanding.
I hope I'm proven wrong about this, but at this moment, I voice my concerns about this budget.
I hope this does not become a pattern.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a diverse progressive city, provides a better model through progressive Mayor Cavalier Johnson.
Thank you.
Because accountability and fairness are what truly matters.
That's what Portland believes in.
Let's turn that value into our budget commitment by adopting the mayor's budget and funding the auditor's office fully.
Lastly, as a PCL community advisory councilor, I oppose the top-down budget reallocations.
Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Uh, today I join my nonprofit colleagues from earlier.
My name is Patrick Tran.
I work with ELSO Inc., a nonprofit founded by 2 Black women and led by the board constituents and staff that are all 90% Black.
I'm honored to speak today with their trust.
I would like to address the integrity and equity of the PCL grant process.
In my 15 years as a nonprofit fundraising executive, this is the most inclusive and equity-focused process I've seen, public or private.
PCL brought a BIPOC consulting firm to help hundreds of community voices and lived experience that this committee questioned last week.
The Citizen Oversight Committee leveled the playing field, giving new community groups a real shot and fixing flaws like outlier scores.
Equity and fairness in action.
For a year, community-rooted organizations went through an exhaustive equity-centered grant-making process.
We showed up, we followed the rules, and under PCL's well-thought-out process, no organization had any issues with the process.
That is until the recommendations came out.
The decision now before this body risks undermining the process and sending a message that even when BIPOC organizations meet the bar, their funding is still negotiable.
Especially when lobbying and bias comes into play by organizations with more resources and connections to city leaders.
That is the core of what happened at last week's meeting, not the equity-centered process that has been years in the making.
That meeting and decision were not equitable.
We urge you to honor the process, respect the recommendations, and restore the funding to the youth that we serve.
Thank you.
Councilmember Micah.
Mayor and councilors, my name is Micah Meskel, and I'm representing the Bird Alliance of Oregon and our 10,000 local members.
I urge you today to not support Councilor Zimmerman's attempts to defund the urban forestry program or shift any of its capacity over to PPMD.
Please see a letter submitted yesterday by over a dozen local health, environmental, livability organizations on why we collectively The mayor's proposed budget already included a 9 FTE reduction to urban forestry to align with the city's overall budget reductions, and any additional staffing cuts to this team would severely impact its ability to meet the city's and community goals.
We understand this is a tough budget year but urge you not to further cut this program's budget as it will have short-term and long-term impacts on the city's trees.
Thank you.
Additional cuts to Urban Forestry regulatory or code compliance team, which protect our current tree canopy and is a valuable asset of our community, valued at over $9 billion.
This, this group, the code compliance group, educates the public on the importance of trees and supports Urban Forestry's entire scope of work.
Any further defunding of this team could roll back much-needed progress in managing this asset and, and finally facing our deferred maintenance problem.
The community has worked for years with the city to align the urban forestry program capacity with demands for services, balancing robust and cohesive set of non-regulatory and regulatory tools, improved inter-bureau coordination and accountability.
Further cuts would have dire impacts for longer-term public health.
So please oppose, um, Councilor Zimmerman's attempts to defund.
Thank you.
Jacqueline.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Hello everyone, my name is Jacqueline Rivera and I'm currently 22 years old.
I was born and raised here in Southeast Portland and I started working with Portland Parks and Recreation when I was 15 years old.
I got denied the first time and then reapplied and completely fell in love with this job.
Portland Parks and Rec has given me so many amazing opportunities, so it saddens me to hear that we aren't going to receive enough funding.
I specifically work with the Youth Conservation Crew, which this crew I've loved it.
I've been with them for like about four or five years, and I'm back now being a crew leader for a group.
I will be I will be leading a youth group of nine kids from ages fourteen to eighteen, and I believe it's really important to have these kids come out with us and explore parks.
If it wasn't for Portland Parks and Recreation, I don't think I'd be outside.
Outside doing all of this nature work.
So I give a big thanks to everyone that has led me into this position.
I did give a speech to Mayor Ted Wheeler back in 2020 for Portland Parks and Rec funding, and thanks to him, he was able to give us funding.
And also thanks to my position with Portland Parks and Rec, I've inspired other people in my family to pursue careers outdoors, such as Metro.
My sister Daniela, she's currently 16 years old, and she gives tours for Metro at the Oregon Zoo.
I believe it's really important that we get more funding so we get youth educated on why it's important to keep all these parks healthy and safe, because Portland— keeping Portland parks doesn't only make a healthier city, it keeps everyone happy.
And we have beautiful parks, and I hope we can continue to protect them.
Thank you guys so much for listening to me, for being here.
Thank you.
Next up we have Ernie Munch, Daniel Barbato, Anand, Anand Jain, and Henry Kaiser.
Henry is joining us online.
Go ahead, Henry.
Thank you, Councilor Clark.
Henry, can you hear us?
All right, we'll come back to Henry.
Uh, one more time, Ernie Munch, Daniel Barbato, Anand Jain.
Okay, we'll move on to Carol Orloff, Robert Ball, Janet Parker.
Okay, I see Henry is connected.
Go ahead, Henry.
Is it my turn?
Yep, go ahead.
Keelan McClymont
Okay, I'm Henry Kaiser, uh, and I am co-chair of the Health and Safety Committee of the City Club of Portland, and I Uh, speak today to advise people of a July 23rd meeting looking at the issue of mental health for the homeless and access to it.
There's a lot of myth and misinformation.
If people come to this meeting, they'll find out what's possible, what can be done to overcome, uh, the challenges, to make it affordable, and to make it effective.
Uh, this will be— take place from 6 to 8 PM at Kel's Restaurant on 2nd Avenue.
And, uh, if we can deal, uh, bring mental health to the, uh, homeless, I think we'll do a lot to deal with the homeless issues that are challenging our community.
Thank you very much.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
All right, I believe we have Janet Parker online.
Janet, you're muted.
Can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay, thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Uh, my name is Janet Parker.
I live in District 4.
The main thing I want to say today is that I don't want any budget cuts to anything to do with public safety in my neighborhood, and I'm nervous about recent news that at least 2 new homeless shelters will be opening in my neighborhood in the very near future.
As a member of Stadiumhood and Friends of Couch Park, I've been impressed with and inspired by the efforts of my neighbors in drawing attention to the serious problems of the flagrantly open use of fentanyl all around us, the homeless mentally ill, and a chronic problem with tent campers, graffiti, vandalism, and all kinds of garbage on the streets and sidewalks.
I live in the south end of the Alphabet District between Trinity Episcopal Cathedral and St. Mary's Catholic Cathedral and School in a 4-unit condo building built in 1884, which was a wonderful place to move to when my husband and I relocated here 16 years ago.
Tried to sell our beautiful home last year, and though all who came to look at it couldn't believe it hadn't already sold, not one person made an offer on it because of the neighborhood.
My now ex-husband moved back to New York in late 2023, and I recently bought his share of the house because I still love this neighborhood for all the reasons we initially chose to settle here.
I'm doing what I can to help keep this neighborhood from being destroyed by all the stressors on it.
You really can't do it without your help.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you for the time.
Go ahead, Jamie.
Keelan McClymont
Greetings, Councilor and Mayor.
I'm Jamie Partridge.
I'm a retired letter carrier living in Northeast Portland, District 2.
I am Speaking in favor of a number of amendments here.
The current proposed budget increases police funding from the general fund, bringing the Police Bureau's total budget to $318 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year.
Portland Police Bureau is the city's largest share of the general fund, 34% in 2024-25 and in 2025-26.
Councilmember 25, 26 would bring it to 38%.
This all the while Portland is looking at a huge $65 million budget deficit, or maybe it's more.
Uh, Mayor Wilson is proposing to cut every other public service except the Portland Police Bureau at a time when we could be making cuts, should be making cuts to police and investing in the services and programs that truly make our communities safe.
In a time when white supremacists are in control the federal government and targeting vulnerable communities.
See Los Angeles, the historic connection and overlap between white supremacists and the police in this region.
Specifically, it's illogical to prioritize police for crisis response.
Recently observed Portland police assisting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement removing protesters attempting to defend our immigrant neighbors.
It's a clear violation of our sanctuary city guidelines.
I support the Green-Dunphy amendment to increase the police fund, parks, et cetera, and in favor of the Green Amendment 10 for housing tenants, parks, arts, and Portland Street Response.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay, checking for Ernie Munch, Daniel Barbato.
Keelan McClymont
Anand Jain.
Carol Orloff.
Robert Ball.
Megan Murphy.
Corinne Frechette.
Misha Litvak.
John Hollister.
Darren Campbell.
Good afternoon, Council.
My name is Nikhilesh Desai.
I live in District 3.
I'm a city employee.
However, I'm here today on my own time representing my personal views.
I'm here to speak in opposition to the amendments to eliminate urban forestry permitting, staff, and funding.
I'm going to begin with a quote from William Sullivan, a researcher at the University of Illinois.
Lack of green infrastructure in the urban environment is the greatest predictor of mortality among low-income communities.
Like sewers and city streets, our city's trees across all property types function as infrastructure.
Trees play a vital role in mitigating the effects of climate change and in improving our public and environmental health.
The city tree code is an implementation tool of Portland's urban forest plan.
This plan reflects industry best practice for managing green infrastructure, and it was written to intentionally align with the city core values.
Together, the tree code and management plan work to.
Protect and grow our urban forests so that all Portlanders will have access to shade, clean air, mental— better mental health, cooler neighborhoods, and more.
Trees are an investment in our future.
If these amendments pass, they'll have a devastating effect on the livability of our city for generations to come, with immigrant, refugee, people of color, and low-income communities, uh, suffering the most— our most vulnerable communities.
Thank you.
Councilmember go ahead.
My name is John Hollister and I live in District 4.
In mid-2020, City Council voted to defund the police by $15 million.
Then in November 2020, City Council tried to reduce the police budget by another $18 million, but Commissioner Ryan cast the deciding vote against this ridiculous proposal.
Thank you, Dan.
I love you very much.
Um, 5 of you who publicly supported The Defund the Police campaign on their website would have voted to cut another $18 million in 2020.
Thank God you weren't in office at this time.
One of you said diverting $1.9 million from the police wasn't a cut, that no one would lose their job.
Last year, Portland had the highest number of police retirements in history.
You're voting not to replace any of them.
Nordstrom, multiple Safeways, REI, Walmart are all on month-to-month leases as they plan their You think Portland has a budget shortfall now?
Just wait.
Oh, one correction, REI and Walmart have already left.
Commissioner Novick, I campaigned for you because you, you put public safety first.
I feel betrayed.
This vote is on you.
How do you want to remember— be remembered in 2026 at reelection time and beyond?
Commissioner Dunphy, I also campaigned for you.
We discussed this.
You put public safety as your number one, and I, I feel the same betrayal.
Nick Fish is turning over in his grave.
I believe he's cremated, but you know what I mean.
This vote is on you.
Actually, Trump is hoping you vote to take all $1.9 million away because he'd love to send the National Guard here, like, like when Portland can't handle the big next, next big incidents, just like he's in LA and New York.
Very much.
My name is Misha Litvak.
I'm the vice president of AFSCME Local 1790, representing frontline behavioral healthcare workers in our city's homeless shelters.
I myself am also a case manager working at one of the village model shelters.
I've been here a couple times before now.
So these cuts to our services, they, they punish the workers.
This is like an austerity measure that punishes workers.
It leaves us less able to do our jobs.
I'm hearing all this about the police are not able to do their jobs and their budget's getting increased, or people are wanting to increase the budget.
We don't get that same treatment.
Right now we are being punished for, I mean, basically policies and practices that are being enacted by people who will not be affected by this.
These contractors, these CEOs, they can sign up again.
They can propose to run something else 2 or 3 years down the line.
The people who work at these programs, the people we serve, we don't have those options.
Councilor We just faced our 3rd round of layoffs since January 2025.
It's going to leave us without peer mentors, who are people who, you know, they show the way out.
These are people with lived experience.
Less budget is less staff, less safety, less services, and worse outcomes.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, uh, Council President Pirtle-Guiney, uh, Vice President Good evening, Councilors, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Jordan.
My name is Darren Campbell.
For the last 3 years, I've chaired the PBOT Private Hire Transportation Advisory Committee, and I'm here to speak on the increase to the ride fees of $1.35.
My personal belief is it needs to be more than that.
I've met with many of you and I've spoken towards this.
Thank you.
Since the time that Uber and Lyft have come to Portland, Uber has increased their safety fee, their ride fee, from $1 to $5.
And in that same amount of time, the City of Portland has increased a 50-cent ride fee to 65 cents.
This is an overdue increase.
I think it's too little.
I think incrementally you can increase it an extra dollar every year until you get up to that $5 mark.
Councilor But more, more than that, I think you're leaving money on the table.
I think you need to include taxis and shuttles, and I also think you need to add the Lime bikes and the other bikes.
These are fees that people will not blink an eye at paying.
Now, Uber and Lyft, they will come screaming saying that the number of trips are going to drop.
They're going to see less trips per year.
And I'm here to tell you they're absolutely right.
They're going to have about 1.5 to 2 million trips go right to TriMet because that's what they took early on when their trips were so inexpensive.
So by doing this increase, you're going to help TriMet as well.
I appreciate your time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you so much.
Thank you all.
Next, next up we have Jay Nicholson.
Kevin Matches, Benson Raby, Emily Stebbins.
Go ahead.
Keelan McClymont
All right, thanks.
My name is Jay Nicholson, and I'm here yet again to bring forth the concerns of represented shelter and behavioral health workers in AFSCME Local 1790.
Recent budget restrictions handed to some of our represented shelter organizations by Portland Solutions have destroyed our client assistance funds used to help people afford necessary documentation, transportation, phone services, and housing costs.
Additional cuts have been made to case management services, peer services, and the overall staffing of shelter programs.
It's a critical loss and will have a disproportionate impact on clients with disabilities and those belonging to other marginalized communities.
Many of the city's moves seem to draw from this narrative that people struggling with homelessness are apathetic.
What about people who can't work a full-time job, can't save for housing?
What about people who need the aid of peer services, case management, or assistance funds to address their obstacles to income or housing?
Do you plan to keep them in purgatory?
You can end unsheltered homelessness.
You can push people out of sight and corral them to holding spaces with nothing else to offer.
You can get them out of the way, but where does that leave them?
Councilmember Herbold, years ago, a fellow colleague shared this metaphor with me that I will remember for the rest of my life.
You don't row out to someone who's drowning and try to make them swim.
You bring them to shore and offer support.
With the acquisition of and ensuing cuts to these programs at the hands of Portland Solutions, you, the City of Portland, are sending a clear message: if you can't keep up with the boat, just drown already.
If any of you want to change this trajectory, the time to act is now.
Reinforce funding for supportive services.
Reexamine the budget decisions being made by Portland Solutions.
We aren't giving up, and neither should you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kevin is joining us online.
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
My name is Kevin Matches.
Councilors, I'm concerned about a pattern of misinformation being given to this body.
In a May 14th, 2025 work session, Councilor Kanal asked staff, quote, Does the FPDR money show up as an interagency into fire and/or police and then an expenditure there, or is the money completely separate from fire and police budgets?
End quote.
Staff falsely responded that, quote, it's completely contained within the FPDR system, end quote.
This explanation was reaffirmed by staff a second time.
In fact, the FPDR Bureau's sole revenue source is its property tax levy, and it does provide interagency revenue to PPB and Portland Fire.
Thank you.
The FPDR Bureau's expenditures include benefit payments to retired members in the city-run pension plan who were first sworn before 2007, as well as interagency revenue for PPB and Portland Fire to pay for 100% of OregonPERS contributions covering members first sworn beginning in 2007.
It is the responsibility of PPB and Portland Fire to send contribution payments along to OregonPERS, but they bill these payments back to the FPDR Bureau.
I was—.
I emailed a correction to Councilor Kanal and copied staff.
Staff acknowledged the error and thanked me for the correction on May 15th.
However, I was disturbed to read a news article dated June 6th containing a link to a memo from staff repeating the same piece of misinformation.
The memo falsely states that OregonPERS contributions are a cost subject to inflation to be covered by the general fund.
The FPDR Bureau is a topic which has been subject to baseless speculation and outright misinformation in the public record.
In my opinion, The lack of adequate discussion at council and other forums has contributed to this pattern.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Emily is joining us online.
Emily, please unmute.
Hey, can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay, good.
Uh, my name is Emily Steben, and I know you have a lot to talk about, so I'll keep this short.
I want to urge you not to make any further cuts to urban forestry.
I'm a volunteer with 350 PDX's Forest Defense Team and have been working on shade equity for several years.
Trees provide us all with so many valuable gifts: shade and cooling, clean air, water, noise reduction, and well-documented mental health benefits.
They are a public good, and it is unfair that the burden of caring for them should be shouldered by individual families.
The effect of that unfairness is that only neighborhoods where people can afford to take care of trees get to have them.
The Equitable Tree Canopy Program is just beginning to counter that effect, but Urban Forestry cannot implement it or much of the other important work that they do if the funding is pulled out from under them.
Please maintain the funding needed to protect our urban forest.
Thank you.
All right, uh, checking, uh, for Megan Murphy.
Corinne Frechette.
Keelan McClymont
Benson Raby.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, we'll move on to Kate Phillips, Amjad Hassan, Charlie Michelle Wesley, Devin Casey.
Keelan McClymont
Hi, Council.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
My name is Kate Phillips and I'm an ICU nurse and member of Portland DSA.
Growing up in Florida, I was accustomed to a lack of investment in parks with bathrooms often closed or dirty and playground equipment that was in disrepair.
When I moved to Portland, I was impressed with the beauty, variety, and maintenance of city parks.
I moved to my neighborhood in District 2 specifically to live near Peninsula Park, which is my favorite in Portland.
Parks draw community members like myself to choose to reside in the city.
I strongly assert that city parks are a higher priority than is expressed in this budget.
Beautiful public spaces are incredibly important to a healthy community.
I urge the council to fully fund parks.
Thanks.
Oh, go ahead.
Keelan McClymont
Good afternoon.
My name is Devin Casey.
Um, I am a case manager and a union steward with AFSCME 1790, and I work at a safe rest village for for culturally specific for queer and trans individuals.
Right now, as it stands, us and our sister site for BIPOC homeless individuals are facing severe budget cuts, including layoffs and elimination of our client assistance funds.
Our shelter, to put simply, is being set up to fail.
This is a step backwards and a blow for our queer, trans, and BIPOC community.
Thank you.
At a time when it's more and more difficult to be queer, transgender, and BIPOC in this country, Portland should not be aiding and abetting the likes of the Trump administration in rolling back services and safety nets for queer and trans and BIPOC Portlanders.
I implore the City Council, if there is any way at all, to restore funding to our necessary culturally specific services.
This is a chance to show up for queer and trans and BIPOC Portlanders.
Not just in words alone, but with real action.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, let's see, checking on Amjad Hassan, Charlie Michelle Wesley.
Okay, let's move on to Justin Skolnick, Terry Parker, Christopher Olson.
Keelan McClymont
I'm here for parks maintenance.
Please bear with me.
My name is Justin Skolnick.
I'm a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School.
I enrolled because sketchy theological ideas had crept into American politics, and no one could tell me why.
I have a booklet from the National Council of Churches examining the Christian Identity Movement.
It describes, quote, a theological stalking horse of the organized racists and anti-Semites who have found it useful as a rallying symbol and recruiting tool.
This is from 1986.
Today, that movement's kissing cousins set the federal policy agenda.
It is evident to the authors and to generations of religious scholars that personal behavior tends to Yes.
Behavior resists reform without a change of heart or a change of infrastructure.
The plainly discriminatory patterns of local law enforcement are not the kinds of problems you can fix with money.
You can't conjure safety sacrificing everything else on the altar of policing.
If recruitment is down because critics of police brutality found popular support, then what attracted people to the job was brutality.
Without changing the heart of the institution, new recruits can only reproduce the the problems.
So instead of feeding PPB this little treat, please keep our parks clean.
Uh, Terry Parker, District 3.
At about 5:45 this past Friday evening, I was in the Hollywood District when a police vehicle went speeding by eastbound on Sandy Boulevard, navigating around heavy traffic by traveling east in the westbound lanes.
That was followed about 4 minutes later by another police vehicle doing the same thing.
What became apparent after listening to the TV news, officers were heading to a location on 115th Avenue and Parkrose, 70-plus blocks away, where a deputy sheriff had shot a suspect.
Last month, a motorcyclist crashed into a parked car and was killed at 57th and Tillamook.
Had there been police presence in the neighborhood, just maybe the motorcycle would've been caught speeding prior to the crash or not speeding at all.
The police were the last to respond to the scene.
Police response times are unacceptably too low.
If you want vacant storefronts along Sandy— if you want to fill vacant storefronts around Sandy Boulevard with taxpaying businesses, sidewalks that are more vibrant where people can feel safe, and if you want to cut down on shoplifting, vandalism, and graffiti, break-ins, and drug dealing, Portland needs more police officers patrolling the streets and faster law enforcement times.
The common sense road to accomplishing these goals is to restore the original $9.1 million to PPB as proposed by Mayor Wilson.
And I would also like to see you fully fund the neighborhood, our world-renowned neighborhood association budgets.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Christopher is joining us online.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, can you hear me?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We can hear you.
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Hello, Mayor, Council President, and council members.
My name is Chris Olson and I live in District 2.
Today I'm speaking on my own behalf.
First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the members of this body, who are— which are all of you— who voted in favor of last week's $8.5 million settlement agreement for displaced Albina residents.
That was the right decision, both morally and legally.
That being said, I'm concerned today about the Increasing and increasingly disturbing and false narratives coming from reactionary forces in our city who claim to speak for the so-called silent majority.
They call for more public safety, but define that almost exclusively in terms of expanding police budgets rather than investing in social infrastructure that actually keeps our communities safe.
Let's be clear, allocating $2 million for park maintenance does more for our public safety than increasing the number of armed officers or their hours.
Thank you.
For example, if an unhoused person does not have access to a public restroom in parks due to a lack of maintenance, where do we expect them to go to the restroom?
In doorways, in front of businesses, onto our streets?
Public infrastructure makes our city safer and healthier for everyone.
And on the topic of small businesses that we keep hearing that are disappearing and going away, that are justifying harsher policing and anti-homelessness policies.
Let's be clear, a lot of these beloved businesses like REI, Sizzle Pie, Hot Lips, Shoofly Bakery— why did they close?
It's because in most cases the workers attempted to unionize and were met with retaliation.
It's, it's very clear our, our safest communities are those that are those with the most resources, and all the people of Portland deserve to be invested in, not criminalized.
So let's stop with this fear marking and, uh, fearmongering and build a city that works for everyone.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Thank you, colleagues.
I know a few people are looking to have a quick break, so I think we're going to take a 10-minute break now instead of waiting until the end of public testimony.
Folks, when we get back, we will have about another 40 or so minutes for public testimony, so we should be able to get through all or almost all of the people who are left who have signed up.
Colleagues, let's meet back here at 3:15.
We will be on a 10-minute recess.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Welcome back.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We are calling today's City Council meeting back into order.
Thank you for everyone's patience.
We are picking up about 2/3 of the way through public Testimony, and we should have 30 to 40 minutes left that we can do for public testimony.
So I'm hopeful that we can get through everybody.
Keelan, could you call up our next panel, please?
Great.
Yes, thank you.
Uh, we have Henry Hazelton, Christopher Ward, James O'Loughlin, Leah Dawkins.
Please go right ahead.
Keelan McClymont
Good afternoon, Council.
Um, my name is James O'Loughlin.
I'm a labor representative with LIUNA 483.
I represent parks workers, transportation workers, environmental services workers, and basically everything else the city does.
First, I want to say thank you to everyone that's spoken on behalf of sufficiently funding parks and protecting our urban forestry workers.
That work is— it's so essential to protecting the city, especially moving forward through our climate crisis.
I'm here today to speak about A less visible component of our work, the Environmental System Development Group in PBOT.
This group is funded by funding from BES that has been reduced in this budget cycle that would lead to about 24 FTE terminations.
Nearly half of those are filled.
These workers basically maintain and repair all of the equipment That collects water throughout the city, redirects it to our wastewater treatment services plant.
And BES has robust ability to fund these positions.
If they don't fund these positions, the alternative plan is to support emergency work that is likely to cost more.
But with $300 million in contingency and redundant supervisor positions that have been created, The $1.2 million to just keep the staff we have would be worthwhile investment around this council's priorities.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Chris Ward.
Welcome, councilors, to your new role.
I want to speak to you as a tree care provider in the Portland metro area and as a citizen, and I want to urge you to continue your support for urban forestry and all of its services, including permitting and regulation, at full capacity now and in the future.
We live in a historic period characterized by changing warming climate.
The urban forest canopy provides important necessary services for human survival.
The future livability of our city depends upon investments in urban forestry now.
Why is that?
Consider the urban heat island effect, wherein the absence of tree canopy in urban centers equates to increase in surface temperature compared to the surrounding rural areas.
Portland State scientists in a recent paper noted that Portland's annual temperature has increased by 3 degrees since 1940 and an average 4.6-degree increase in the summer temperatures in that period.
They were able to show that surface temperature throughout Portland decreases linearly with canopy coverage.
Let's look at this effect as seen in the various social strata in Portland.
What about the homeless?
Where do they go to escape the heat?
That's right, in tents under the trees in the parks and the right-of-ways.
What about you?
Where do you go to escape the heat?
That's right, in your house under the cooling shade of the trees.
This brings us up to a 3rd point.
Most of the tree canopy in Portland is on residential lots.
You take away the tree code and there's no end to the removal of trees and all sorts of reasons valid to frivolous and so forth.
Having a tree code is an expression of Portland's public will.
Don't cripple this institution.
Make the wait times for permits up to 3 months.
Private property owners, tree service providers, contractors, developers, and many other interested parties depend upon the efficient and timely inspection regime for their tree permitting needs.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We appreciate you being here.
Charlie Michelle Wesley has joined us online.
Keelan McClymont
Hi, uh, yes, Charlie Bichelle Wesley, Northwest tribal member.
I'm mainly here on behalf of Portland Cop Watch.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The city budget is a police accountability tool that has been sorely underutilized, so we at Portland Cop Watch were encouraged by the councilors' efforts to use it to require PPV transparency, closer oversight, investment in safer, proven, publicly supported efforts like PSR.
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
However, until public safety for all is the case, we do not support any additional funding, nor do we believe the police budget should be exempt from cuts.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Just a few weeks ago, the city paid out $475,000 on 2 settlements for police brutality and violating constitutional rights.
Keelan McClymont
This is not accountability.
Personally, for hours I sat in overflowing auditoriums of community members begging, pleading, and rightfully so, demanding funding for their beloved parks and recreations.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So many, uh, and many supportive services.
Keelan McClymont
We were so grateful for those few city councilors that went to bat for us, who listened to us, who value us, to bring at least a minimum of $1.9 million funding to community while $21 million goes to cops.
These councilors bring an anti-discriminatory conscience to this chamber versus those serving the privileged powerful and who are more willing to ignore these community members as collateral damage.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
When election rolls around, we will remember who broke promises versus those who fought for us and met our needs.
Keelan McClymont
Support our community, not policing.
Let them figure out how quality over quantity is a solution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, uh, checking Henry Hazelton, Leah Dawkins.
Okay, next up we have Shelley Bigley, Babs Spinelli, Tony Gracia, Rain Talley.
Go ahead, Babs.
Hi, thank you very much.
You— I assume you can hear me okay, correct?
We can hear you.
Thank you.
Babs Vernelli, 77-year-old lifelong Portland resident currently in District 2.
I've had the privilege and honor of meeting all of you at various points over the last 2 years.
While I sometimes disagree with some of the things some of you say, I have never doubted your commitment to improving things in my beloved City of Roses.
All right, I'm just going to highlight a few things.
By the way, I am wearing my Ruth Bader Ginsburg T-shirt today because that reminds me to never give up.
Okay, as for me, I support parks, support expansion of Portland Street Response and the program through the fire department, Community Health Assess and Treat.
Keelan McClymont
I support city-county collaboration on transition from shelters to housing, including mental health and addiction treatment.
Thank you.
As necessary and help with applying for jobs.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
In terms of the police, the piece that I do support is that allocated funding goes specifically to training, including training in sensitivity, so that officers can get on the job as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Ultimately, perhaps, uh, we will be able to reduce overtime hours.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate all the members who have testified today.
We are coming out in droves to make our voices heard, and we know you are listening.
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
You're muted.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
There we go.
Hi.
Oh, go ahead, Shelley.
Hi there, um, my name is Shelley Bigley and I'm born and raised in Portland.
Uh, I've been a restaurant owner in Portland since 1991, and specifically I would like to express to the council the importance of public safety.
In my experience in District 2 over the last 5 years, my security costs have dramatically gone up.
I've had to replace 12 windows, been broken into several times causing significant damages.
I've had to buy a $4,000 security door, hire private security, and remove my outside street patio due to crime and drug use.
I have never made an insurance claim for fear of being canceled.
So again, I just urge to continue police funding and adding the boots-on-the-ground presence In addition to the funding the police, I would like to see programs continue to be funded to get people off of the streets for housing, treatment, and job training.
I applaud Dan Ryan for all of his efforts for our business owners and Portland residents.
Uh, please listen to him and people like me that don't want to give up on our Portland.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, I hope you can hear me.
Um, thank you so much for having us.
My first comment is, uh, please keep on funding, uh, police and law enforcement.
Uh, in Old Town, we suffer from, uh, big issues with human trafficking, uh, drug interdiction needs.
Uh, please don't give up on that.
We're working really hard.
Thank you.
For very little money, and for some of us, we're volunteers.
Keelan McClymont
I'm also a resident in District 4.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I witness a lot of crime, a lot of difficulties for people, and we just beg for police.
So if there's a way for you guys to actually vote for this, that would be great.
It's also extremely difficult for working people to testify, so just— I appreciate the people that are here, and that's it.
Please fund our police.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, uh, checking for Tony Gracia, Rain, Tally.
Tony Gracia's here.
Keelan McClymont
Oh great, thanks.
Would now be a good time for me to go?
Yeah, please go ahead.
Okay, uh, my name is Tony Gracia.
I'm an owner of a business that has been around since 2013.
We started in Northwest Portland And then in 2020 moved to the St. Johns area where we operate now.
We do fitness instruction, things like personal training as well as martial arts instruction.
I'm a jiu-jitsu coach.
And just like the previous speaker said, as a business owner, it's pretty difficult to carve time out of our day in order to be at something like this.
In fact, I literally was just on a call with a mom who wants to get her kids into my jiu-jitsu classes.
And had to excuse myself from the phone call because I heard it was almost my turn to talk here.
Now, I would also echo what the previous speaker said, where the crime and the public safety is the top priority for me personally.
My business has had a ton of different issues, the most frustrating of which is we had one individual repeatedly vandalize our building by defecating on it, literally taking a poop in his hand and smearing it on our storefront windows on multiple occasions, urinating on our building on multiple occasions.
And all of this is caught on high-quality video camera.
I reported it to police every time and nothing would happen.
It wasn't until he tried to set our building on fire during business hours with our members inside of the building that he finally got arrested and charged with something.
And it's absurd that it should take this many instances for something to be done about it.
And just a couple months ago, a different individual defecated on my storefront window again, and he was finally arrested and released the same day.
And so I urge more funding for police and public safety.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Uh, Lydia Mogues, Amy Wexler, Zulema Figueroa.
Emma Darden.
Good afternoon, council members.
Keelan McClymont
My name is Lydia Moges, and I'm here representing the Ethiopian and Eritrean Cultural and Resource Center and standing in solidarity with our coalition partners, ELSO, Hala Mentors, and Triple Threat Mentoring, that were significantly impacted by the decisions made in the last council remand for the Portland Children's Levy mentorship awardees.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We are located in District 1 and serve in District 1 and 2.
We're grateful for the chance to speak today, especially after being previously asked not to provide testimony or lobby.
But I must speak honestly.
The outcome of the sessions are deeply devastating, not just for EE CRC, but for all of us who have spent the last 5, 10, and more years building trusted, culturally specific programs that serve Portland's Black youth and their families.
At EE CRC specifically, our work centers on intensive Black and Black refugee youth mentoring, career development, trauma response, and extensive education.
Keelan McClymont
The founder and executive director and 95% of our staff, board, mentors, and those we serve identify as Black.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We placed our trust in the PCL grant process, one that centered equity, lived experience, and community voice.
Your recent decision undermines that process.
It sends the message that even when BIPOC organizations follow every rule and meet every standard, our success is still negotiable.
That is not equity.
It is bias.
Again, we urge you, honor the process, respect the recommendations, and restore the funding our youth deserves.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, um, Portland City Council and Mayor Wilson.
Keelan McClymont
My name is Selena Figueroa.
I'm a Local 483 shop store and utility worker too, uh, in the Environmental Service Division in the maintenance operations at PIVOT.
I'm a resident of District 2, St. Johns.
Um, I'm here in support of labor brothers and sisters, uh, workers who day by day are in the field maintaining and repairing our sewers and stormwater systems.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Um, we are essential employees who are in the field of rain, hot weather, In freezing weather conditions.
We work like from 8 to 12 hours a day whenever it's needed.
My job consists with multiple tasks from traffic control, such as flagging, taking a lane in Columbia Boulevard for the backdoor operator to clean catch basins, cleaning sewer lines, or for the TV truck.
Thank you.
To be inspecting and maintaining sewer lines as well.
Keelan McClymont
Additionally, my job is to inspect and clean stormwaters like trash rack around the city.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
This service is super important in our community, especially during the rainy season.
Keelan McClymont
Our labor force makes sure that our stormwater sewers are clean and flowing.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The impact of this budget could reduce the labor force that services sewer stormwater.
A simple example is like it will be, you know, when it's a rainy season, you know, can be flooding and debris and those catch basins, so therefore jeopardize the safety of the pedestrians, also the drivers.
Keelan McClymont
So I'm here to ask for more funding from BES to our division, PYSC Environmental Services Division, so that we continue with our essential environment service.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you for your time.
Thank you both.
Amy Wexler is joining us online.
Thank you so much.
Amy Wexler, and I'm the executive director for Alliance Good evening, Mayor Wilson, city councilors.
It's my first time testifying in front of this new configuration, and I welcome all of you.
I am a resident of District 2, and if you're not familiar with Alliance for a Safe Oregon, we are a statewide gun violence prevention group, and we work across a number of areas, including we have an equity table which convenes community violence interruption organizations, and I am asking you to fund community violence interruption and for the city of Portland.
I'm sure you're aware there's great need for this.
Black and brown community members are on the front lines of our gun violence crisis in this city, and we really can prevent gun tragedies by properly funding this work.
Additionally, we ask that you fully fund Portland and street response.
An unarmed response is often what's needed, and police gun violence is also gun violence.
So we are asking for community safety to be seen in the most broad sense possible, and that would also include funding parks.
Respite areas for, for people are—.
Creates community safety and community.
So thank you so much, and I look forward to working with all of you in the time to come to make Portland the safest place possible for all and to prevent gun tragedies.
Thank you.
Uh, Emma Darden.
Okay, moving on to Jay Amaechi, John H., Lance Nippert, Ross Freeman-Levin.
Go ahead, Jay.
Hello, Mayor Wilson and members of Good evening, members of the council.
My name is Jamie Dunphy.
I'm the organizing director of Unite Oregon.
I'm here because the people we represent are tired, tired of our essential services being starved while the police budget consistently consumes resources meant for our well-being.
The $2 million to parks originally diverted from police represents a crucial step towards correcting that balance.
Do not reverse it.
For far too long, Portland's Black, brown, working-class, and houseless communities have been defunded by the overwhelming priority of policing.
Thank Policing.
You.
Our social services have suffered chronic underinvestment as police budgets balloon.
Keelan McClymont
The $2 million in parks and rec is no extravagance.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It's a down payment in investing on what actually keeps us safe, healthy, and resilient.
Do not cave to the reactionary voices calling for law and order.
These are the white moderates that MLK warned us about who have always prioritized their own comfort over justice, and history has always proved them wrong.
Police and their Thank you.
Police supporters stood against the marches that gave us our civil rights in the name of law and order.
In fact, they stood against every single movement demanding dignity for poor and oppressed people in the name of public safety.
Their panic now is the same old song, one that sacrifices our community to prop up a violent, repressive system.
And I hope that you have the wherewithal to see through it.
Keelan McClymont
Pouring money into the police amid Trump's authoritarianism is the farthest thing from safety.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We've watched officers brutalize disabled people, And recently we've seen them protect and work with ICE as ICE terrorizes our immigrant community.
Make no mistake, overfunding the police fuels fascism, and sensitivity training and hiring more local or Black or brown police will not fix the toxic racist culture of PPB.
But on the other hand, Parks and Rec feeds hungry kids, shelters the houseless in heat waves, and gives youth alternatives to the streets.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Mitch Green.
Thanks.
Keelan McClymont
John.
My name is John.
Good afternoon.
I'm here today to strongly oppose any new funding for the Portland Police Bureau.
I also would love some clarification because I know that last year it was $295,000, and then the proposed budget says like $316,000 or $318,000.
So curious what the actual proposed increase is going to be.
They already have the largest budget in the history In their history, they do not need more.
Since 2020, after a brief 5% reduction, their budget has increased by nearly 28%.
Meanwhile, vital community programs continue to be cut.
I want to challenge the misinformation driving the push for even more police funding.
One, the claim that we need more police to reduce crime.
This claim is not supported by research.
Roughly, there's 30 independent studies showing that the size of police force has no consistent consistent impact on crime rates.
There's a study by Y.J.
Lee et al.
That put it, policymakers who want police to have an impact on crime would be better suited investing resources into new evidence-based strategies than funding surges in police hiring.
Wow.
I'm gonna just talk, I have 4 points, so I'll just mention one other one.
One of the main arguments that's used is around our police force being much smaller than like the average per capita.
This argument's absurd.
If you look at the cities that have the largest police per capita, these are cities— DC wins, Chicago second, Baltimore's third, New York City's fourth, Philly, Detroit, Memphis— these are all the places with the most police per capita.
Obviously those cities are not the safest cities.
Those are some of the cities with the highest crime rates.
And then other places like San Jose are very low and they're very safe.
So that's— that argument just doesn't work well.
That's it.
Thank you.
My name is Lance Snippert.
I'm a resident of District 1, beautiful East Portland.
Thank you.
Portland Police Bureau has been documented on video aiding and assisting Immigration and Customs of Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE, in deportation operations in the city of Portland.
This is a clear and direct violation of Oregon state law, and aside from being morally repugnant, no further funding can go to Portland Police until this matter is investigated, and all funding must be frozen from them until done.
The PPB are already underfunded according to them and stretched too thin, again according to them, providing basic public safety to the citizens and businesses of Portland as it is.
Diverting the resources they already have to aid a fully funded federal agency in their operations is a double use of my tax dollars and is a misuse of Portland and Oregon taxpayer funds.
Portland is made better by immigrants.
Our communities are more vibrant, more alive, and happier when immigrants are welcome and feel safe among us.
As a non-immigrant in the sense that I was born within the U.S., my daily life is easier, happier, and better with immigrants around me.
Thank you for your time.
I yield the remainder.
Ross is joining us online.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes, can you hear me?
Keelan McClymont
We can hear you.
Excellent.
Thanks for the opportunity to address you, and thank you to all the people who've spoken ahead of me.
I'd like to echo Jamie Partridge's comments, especially, uh, being a fellow volunteer at a local Community Access Radio Station in the past with Mr. Partridge.
His comments were especially right on spot for me, as were many of the other people's about retaining services for transition for homeless people and supportive services for houseless and addicted people.
I do not think that additional funding for law enforcement is going to address the mental health issues or the addiction issues that I witness on the street in front of my house every day.
Even though there is a drug house on my street, actually 2 of them, and nonstop drug trafficking, I don't think law enforcement is prepared to address those issues effectively by arresting people and putting them in jail.
I think we need more support services, parks funding, maintenance funding for parks.
I just don't think cutting social services is the right way to deal with issues of addiction and houselessness and crime.
So thank you all.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I'll just shut up and listen.
Thank you.
Walter.
Hello, my name is Walter Valenta, and I live in Bridgeton in District 2.
I'm speaking for myself.
Um, it took many years for us to create the situation we're in now, and it's really hard to try to solve everything with this budget.
So I believe what needs to happen is we've got to focus on the most important things and get them fully funded and get them to work and then build off from there as we bring Portland back from the places that we've been.
To me, it's— those priorities need to be having Portlanders feel safe and having Portlanders see that major strides are being made in our resolution of homeless and people that are living on the streets.
Now, if anybody that knows me knows that I care a lot about parks, and I've been on the 40 Mile Loop Land Trust for over 20 years building parks.
However, the most important thing the city can do to help the 40 Mile Loop right now is to make the trails we've already built safe to use.
People don't feel safe on them, and people are using the trails as a place to live.
So by solving those issues, we're solving things for parks.
So when we changed the city structure, one of the reasons why we did is that the old created silos, and I hope I'm not seeing the new council creating a new set of silos that were going on.
I really implore you to find a unified voice as we tackle the most important things, get them done right, and move on to the next things next year.
And to me, those are fully funding people feeling safe with public safety and making sure that we make a dent in the real problems with homelessness.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Next up we have Brittany Gadbury, Matt Nicholson, Rod Such, Tommy Jarvis, Bill Crane.
Go ahead, Matt.
Matt Nicholson is joining us online.
Keelan McClymont
Uh, my name is Matt Nicholson.
I'm an architect.
That lives in District 4 in the Reed neighborhood.
I would like to urge the council to vote no on the Zimmerman 02 amendment.
This proposal is a bad faith effort to change policy via the budget process.
The tree code deserves our full support because trees are part of our city's essential infrastructure.
The tree code is the tool for creating and protecting that infrastructure.
Trees protect us from extreme heat by increasing shade they increase our property values, make our streets more walkable, and provide habitat for wildlife.
All of these benefits are key to what makes Portland special.
In addition to the great environmental harm that this proposal would cause our city, it would also make the tree permit process less efficient.
With or without a staff, the tree code will still be the law, and residents will still be required to abide by the code.
But without a full staff, callback times will go from days to weeks or months.
Councilmember and now is certainly not the time to make our tree permit process slower.
Portland is facing an imminent mass die-off of ash trees due to the arrival of the emerald ash borer.
Cutting Urban Forestry's regulatory staff will make it harder to implement the pest management plan.
The tree code was adopted by the residents of Portland because it was a bold long-term plan for the future health and well-being of our city.
It is worth standing up for because it provides huge benefits to all residents of Portland.
Thank you.
It has taken decades to get us to where we are today, and our urban forest will quickly disappear if we don't protect it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Okay, uh, checking to see, uh, Brittany Gadbury, Rod Such, Tommy Jarvis, Bill Crane.
That completes testimony.
Thank you, Keelan, and thank you so much to everybody who is still here with us right now for listening to your fellow Portlanders share their thoughts and experiences with us.
Colleagues, we are now going to move into, um, adopting some amendments, or at least debating some amendments.
And I had sent out a run of show to everybody and also talked about this a little bit at the top of the hour.
And I am pulling up— not as quickly as I would like to— the amendment list.
I'd like us to We voted on a couple of carryover packages last time and then had a discussion in a work session, which included the idea that in order to save time, we batch some of those carryover packages that were left into one, uh, one amendment.
And I am now looking for that number.
Keelan McClymont
4.
4.
14.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Pirtle-Guiney 14 is the council carryover package.
It includes the carryovers from council offices that we had not yet addressed, plus a carryover from council operations to next year.
The details are in the packet of amendments, Attachment I.
And if there— I would like to start with Councilor Dan Ryan.
I would like to start by moving this amendment so that our colleagues have some assurances that what they're hoping happens with the remainder of their office budgets actually does.
I would love to have a second.
Second.
Thank you, Councilor Clark.
Is there any discussion about Pirtle-Guiney 14?
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Madam.
Thank you, Madam President.
I'm just going to start by asking a couple questions, if that's okay.
And maybe this is something that I'm not sure if CBO is the best responder to this or what, but how typical is it to use the OEO for councilor office carryover into not next year's budget for the same council office, That I think is a separate question, but over into the bureaus.
Is that something that's—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Go ahead, Director Levine.
Sure, yeah.
Typically our policy is to do all carryover, whether it's council office or otherwise, in the spring technical adjustment ordinance.
I think since this was just the first year of you all going through that process and through the supplemental budgeting process, We— there's no reason it can't be done in the OEO.
And so we said that was a fine practice.
I mean, I think council has the authority to allocate general fund underspending to any other purpose as long as—.
Yeah.
So it's, you know, I don't think there's an issue with sort of essentially deappropriating it in the current fiscal year and appropriating it for a different use next fiscal year, which is essentially what's happening here.
Keelan McClymont
Okay, thank you.
And then I hope that this will be taken in the spirit of just wanting to provide an opportunity to respond to the comments that were made about it.
But I do have a question for Councilor Clark because there was some questions around $80,000 for the District 4 Coalition's newsletter reach.
And I just wanted you to speak to Sure.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks, Councilor Kanal.
I think some of the people who spoke today misunderstood what's in the amendment.
It's actually— it is $80,000, and I've identified $15,000 for Voices, which is the District 4 Coalition newsletter, to help with their fundraising to keep that going.
And the remainder is divided up between the 32 neighborhood associations.
So it comes to something around $2,000 for each neighborhood association, which should provide them funding for several years.
Keelan McClymont
Okay, thank you for that information.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Green.
Keelan McClymont
Uh, thank you, Madam President.
Um, looking at Pirtle-Guiney 14, that's what we're talking about right now, right?
It is.
Okay, can you Tell us how this is connected to what the Finance Committee dealt with yesterday, if there's any connection.
I think that there's a little bit of an overlap here, but, but not completely.
Can you just explain that a little bit?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
When there are expenditures from this biennium that bureaus or offices wish to carry over into the next biennium, that requires 2 It requires deappropriating the funds, or I'm sorry, I said biennium out of old habits, fiscal year.
Fiscal year.
It requires deappropriating the funds in this fiscal year, which is done through an overexpenditure ordinance, which the Finance Committee discussed yesterday, and then appropriating those funds into next fiscal year's budget, the '25-'26 budget, which is what we do through our budget amendments.
So many of the things on this list likely look familiar to folks who sit on the Finance Committee or who looked at yesterday's Finance Committee documents.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
And so, like, for instance, Green, whatever it was, we dealt with on May 21st.
So it's not on this— in this ordinance, but it is in the OEO package that the Finance Committee— so I just want to be clear, this Pirtle-Guiney 14 is just carrying forward the OEOs that councilors had submitted that didn't get heard on the 21st.
Is that right?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Correct.
We heard your amendment and I believe one other and didn't have time for other councilors.
We discussed grouping them in an effort to reduce time.
Keelan McClymont
I think that's my questions for now.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilors, any other discussion?
Councilor Avalos?
Yeah, I'm actually confused though.
Keelan McClymont
So what are you saying?
Because yesterday the OEO had the council ops, Clark, Smith, Koyama Lane, and Green.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
This one has all of those except for Green.
I don't understand why.
We voted on the amendment to reappropriate those funds as requested by Councilor Green on the 21st.
Okay.
We didn't get to these other requests at that time.
And then we're doing it via an amendment.
Why?
There are 2 actions that need to be taken.
The OEO had all of those amendments reflected in it because that's the deappropriating of the funds from the '24-'25 fiscal year.
We had only reappropriated one of those sets of funds, the amendment that Councilor Green brought forward.
This is the reappropriation of the others that our colleagues brought forward as well as carryover that Council Operations has asked to use next year.
Okay.
Councilor, you and I had had some conversation about what we thought of this practice generally.
I see this year frankly as a courtesy to our colleagues.
Councilor Ryan.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, colleagues, I'm trying to make the decision here that's principled for me.
And one, I, I didn't vote yes on the amendment that we did, the vote that we took in January.
I thought we went too far on our council funding.
And so I wouldn't— I'm not going to vote to deappropriate and reappropriate.
I think These funds should go like they always have been traditionally, which is to be deappropriated and then into the bigger picture funding.
I'm just against the principle of using our office funds to do one-time funding in the next year.
And so even though I like some of them and I don't like some of them, I'm just gonna make a decision to vote no on these.
I just wanted to say that upfront.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Madam President.
I, I just wanted to, um, ask if you could speak a little bit more to the, the last thing you said a moment ago, Madam President, which is, uh, that you see this year as a courtesy to our colleagues.
Does that imply that we're going to have a conversation about what our communal— our community practice is here as a council going into next year's budget?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Some of our colleagues, uh, have raised concerns, as Councilor Ryan just did, about about this practice generally, but because this was an option that was put on the table and because we have already done so for one of our colleagues, while I do personally share some of Councilor Ryan's concerns, I, from my perspective, we should extend that same courtesy to all if we're going to extend it to one.
Thank you.
Colleagues, any other discussion on Pirtle-Guiney 14?
Okay, Keelan, could you please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
I too share some of Councilor Ryan's concerns, but I found that last argument compelling from the council president.
I vote aye.
No.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
I also share some of Councilor Ryan's concerns and hope that we will come up with an overall policy before this time next year.
Aye.
Clark?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Due to the concerns raised, aye.
Zimmerman?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Avalos?
Reluctantly voting aye because I have a lot of those concerns too.
Dunphy?
Aye.
Smith?
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The amendment is approved with 12 yes votes and 1 no vote.
Oh, sorry, 11 yes votes.
I'm going to write down 11-1 on my page.
Sorry.
Thank you, Keelan.
Colleagues, we are now moving into something similar to the work that we were doing on the 21st, where we took amendments category by category and everybody had the Thank you.
Council members had the opportunity to bring forward their highest priority amendment or package, not meaning everything under the sun, but we know that in some cases amendments were broken into a couple of different structural amendments even though it was one concept.
And we're going to pick up with the policy areas that we did not get to on the 21st.
I know that there are many new amendments or policy areas where, colleagues, you had a number of priorities that you were hoping to bring forward.
After we do this run-through of all of the topic areas and then talk through some budget notes on the run of show where it says additional amendments is where we will come back to those other things.
So they are not off the table.
We're just trying to do this picking up where we left off before.
Thank you.
We are going to move into the parks policy area.
Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue to talk about an amendment around parks, or are you in the queue for something else?
Parks.
Fantastic.
Would you like to kick off our conversation around amendments related to parks?
Keelan McClymont
Thanks.
I appreciate this, the conversations around the dais that I've been able to have with many of you regarding my efforts in the tree regulation work.
And also just the public comments, right?
I think that there's been a lot of recognition in terms of the importance of the urban forestry program in the City of Portland.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the last few weeks has been, even on this dais at times, a mischaracterization that somehow my original amendment was removing all aspects of urban forestry.
And I will own that with only it must have been the way I delivered it.
And that I have always said that maintaining the outreach, the science, the tree planting, the tree maintenance programs in urban forestry was important and remains a priority for me.
I also heard from my colleagues about a willingness to admit that we've got some problems in tree regulation and how we apply the code against Portlanders.
And so I've developed 2 amendments, and I have sent those to, to many folks.
Um, and, uh, I'd like to read in the first one and then the second one, uh, if that would be all right, and, uh, and then have discussion.
Council President?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
You'd like to read in both of them together and then discuss, or separately?
I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, I, I, I guess I'm open I'm open to— let me describe both, and if we want to discuss one at a time, I think that's fine.
But let me introduce both.
Perfect.
So Amendment 1, amend to move 100% of parks levy funds, which equates to about $2.1 million, from the tree regulation program within the Urban Forestry Division and reallocate the parks levy funding, $2.1 million, to the parks maintenance program.
This restores $2.1 million to the parks maintenance program that was reduced in the mayor's proposed budget.
Parks levy funds are not intended to fund code compliance and enforcement officials, and their use is better aligned within parks maintenance.
This is particularly sensitive as the city prepares to refer a levy to voters in November '25, and the city should take every effort To ensure voters know that their support for the levy is dedicated to meaningful recreation and maintenance programs.
This amendment does not make any changes to the Urban Forestry Division programs of science, outreach, tree maintenance, and these are contained in programs in different parts of the urban forestry budget.
So that's my first amendment.
It's just the parks levy moving into parks maintenance.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second.
And Councilor, to be clear, this is a change to Zimmerman 1, you said, not a new numbered amendment?
Keelan McClymont
Correct.
Thank you.
I made it clear last time that I— the budget office had me break up previous amendments into many steps.
I'm going to go ahead and push back against that and just deliver these in a little bit more clear message.
And I've also adjusted them significantly.
These are not just a repackaging of the old 4.
This is a significant change.
And the, the biggest change coming is Amendment Number 2.
Amendment Number 2, amend to move all aspects of tree regulation program and staff from the Urban Forestry Programs in the Parks and Recreation Bureau to the Portland Permitting and Development Bureau.
Code enforcement, permitting, and compliance work requires evaluation and critical application skills and organizational culture to fairly and appropriately apply city code.
The Parks Bureau is poorly positioned and untrained to be able to provide such a service to the Portland community.
Rather, placing tree regulation inside of Portland Permitting and Development, PP&D, allows a system of oversight, organizational culture, and holistic application of the Tree Code Title 11.
This amendment does not cut any funding from the tree regulation program.
The bureau leadership of PP&D will have the full authority to implement Title 11 design of and work prioritization for the administration of tree regulation programs currently housed in the Portland Parks Bureau Urban Forestry Division.
So those are 2 amendments and significant changes in that to the previous amendments I had made about reducing the workforce.
That now just brings that workforce under a different oversight umbrella.
Thank you, Madam President.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
I think we should take discussion on the 2 together since it sounds like they move together and then obviously vote on them separately.
Does that work for you?
Keelan McClymont
I don't think they move together.
I think that I would say to all my councilors that even if it doesn't move over I think that the concern I have about having parks levy dollars inside the tree code enforcement remains regardless of where tree regulation is housed.
So I don't want it to sound like they're one and the same.
I'm just noting 2 changes because they're so different from my original amendments.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Got it.
Thank you.
Councilor Koyama Lane, are you in the queue to discuss Councilor Lents, Zimmerman 1 and/or Zimmerman 2?
Yes.
Go right ahead.
I appreciate all my colleagues' work during this first budget process.
We're working hard, we're learning a lot, and we're figuring out at what level do we hold responsibility for governance and policy and balancing that with managing at a line item budget level process for bureaus and programs.
These amendments brought forward by Councilor Zimmerman, and to be fair, Along with other various amendments on our very long list, appear to move to a level of management over governance.
If there is an attempt to manage at this level through the budget, then I have been clear with my colleagues that I am going to expect a high level of information to be convinced that the councilors bringing it forward have done their due diligence and necessary collaboration.
So since I'm seeing these amendments for the first time today, I have some questions that I would like to ask Councilor Zimmerman, are you open to answering some questions?
Can you clarify specifically what is the problem that you're hoping to solve?
Keelan McClymont
So I think that one thing we have seen is that Tree regulation has grown over the previous years significantly with the number of FTE, while other code compliance, code enforcement in the city has been cut.
We heard earlier that there are 850 properties, I think 880 properties that are under current code compliance process, and they've got less than half of the amount of employees in the regular PP&D world.
Thank you.
To deal with all the codes as it relates to property.
I think that's partially in what happens in government when a pet project gets to grow with little oversight.
And I think we're in that situation.
When the Parks Bureau presented to us early in this year and said that they were unaware of people being denied permits that then had trees fall on their homes, I felt that was pretty disingenuous.
Yeah.
When the Parks Bureau just a couple of weeks ago insisted that no levy funds were used in the Parks Bureau budget, well, I want to just highlight that I gave every opportunity to that director to clarify that.
But while folks have thought that the Parks Bureau budget entirely was going to be cut with this change, I want to just highlight This is urban forestry.
This one line is the $2 million from levy funding, but Adina Long told us that levy funds are not being used for parks levy.
I think if Portlanders continue to read stories like they read in the Willamette Week and the Oregonian in the years as we go to a parks levy, I think we're going to lose that levy, and we might deserve to lose that levy.
Thank you.
Given how this program is being administered in Portland.
But when I go to Portland Permitting and Development, I've learned some things over my time in the city, and those code compliance officers are applying a holistic approach of many codes, many safety regulations, and they're doing it in a culture that is trying to solve so I, I think that the code compliance professionals that exist in our other bureau can probably save this program in the long term.
I think that's going to be really important because right now I think they're out of line with the public.
And I say again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the planting, the outreach, the maintenance of trees.
I'm purely trying to make sure that we are not allowing a division of Portland city government to continue to, I think, run unchecked and fairly abusively against Portlanders as it relates to the tree code.
Just as we were sitting here, I sent a message to my 3 colleagues in District 4, one of our constituents who's had their tree code regulation bounced between PP&D and city tree regulation code enforcement officers multiple times.
And this weekend, that Tree came down on their neighbor's deck, but they had been denied permits on Thursday.
So I don't know that we have the oversight that's, that's serving the program very well.
And if we want to keep it, we, we owe it to the oversight.
And I think PP&D is positioned to do that more effectively.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And I want to understand your process used to develop these amendments.
I'm wondering if you can explain how Deputy City Administrators, city employees doing this work community members were involved?
Was there collaboration?
We also know that at the end of this year, Urban Forestry Program is leading a Title 11 tree code amendment.
How does that fit in with your decisions and amendments?
Keelan McClymont
Thanks.
We've asked multiple times for alternative packages and recommendations to come from the Urban Forestry We have not been given those types of alternative plans.
In my original amendments, I asked for what is the right number because I preserved, I think, 5 FTE.
And I said I'm open to if there's other right sizes.
So I didn't get any of that, but I'm also not cutting any of that either because I've heard from colleagues a willingness not to cut that.
So I'm preserving the tree regulation program.
Thank you.
But placing it under a different oversight bureau.
And so that part is significantly different from the original amendment.
So there are no additional FTE cuts in the movement to PP&D, and I want that clear, clear, clear.
I will continue to feel very strongly that no Portlander voted for parks levy, which I think most of us think about when it comes to the maintenance of parks Parks, kids having access to recreation, community centers being open.
I think looking at the practices that we're getting hammered for with the way code enforcement is going against the tree code, and when people have things like, we'll save trees at the expense of people, I think that's a terrible thing to tie our levy to.
And so I'm making a strategic and frankly a cultural community-based So that was my decision process.
I've worked with anything I could— was able to get from the Parks Bureau, which wasn't a lot.
I think that the braided funding model that they've used has been deliberate.
I think that's made it very difficult.
And so I'm going to not take an action today in these amendments that would require us to do that.
Thank you.
That hurts the employees in that or the work of it, but instead sets some standards.
Levy dollars are not going to be used for tree regulation and allows, I think, whether those code changes come later this summer from Title 11 or for Title 11, I think that the recommendations we get out of them will be much stronger under the guise and leadership of PPND, who I think is taking a holistic look about all of these types of things in Portland versus just the one thing.
I think that's a big difference in perspective.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm hearing your points and concerns.
I would also want us to consider beyond the individuals involved.
I'd also want to have an understanding of the structures and systems at play.
What do we know about if and how these amendments would change the structures and systems?
Keelan McClymont
I'm willing to hear from you, or if it makes sense, I'm open to hearing from DCA Szymanski or so I think that within the Parks Bureau, you've got things like the helpline, the program administration, that non-development permit, development permit, those types of groups.
None of those groups would cease to exist by these amendments.
This aspect, right, is really important when it comes to the fact that all of the services that we expect of tree code Remain intact.
They may not be as full with general fund, but we're allowing PP&D to better evaluate and say, okay, I've got, I've got $4-some-odd million instead of $6-some-odd million to accomplish this.
Where do I want to assign it?
And in a place where we've got— by the way, PP&D already has tree inspectors on their books.
This is not a line of work they're out of touch with.
So I think that the worry that we were slicing one portion of this, of this division off, and that was going to hurt us.
I think we've belayed that in this because we're just moving it over to a new section.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And what would be the reason for this being a council decision versus an administrative decision?
Keelan McClymont
Great question.
I would have loved to have seen this come out of the proposed budget.
We didn't see that.
But in a place where I think we've got a city program who is being administered in either an unfair manner or in a manner that is not treating Portlanders well, I think we do have a duty to act, and we can do that through budget.
I would've preferred to have better recommendations come out of the bureau, but I do not think that the bureau, the Parks Bureau, is really particularly interested in working on a solution here.
I think that's a fair point.
And if Portlanders love urban forestry, which I think they do, but if we think tree regulation should be part of that, we may have to save tree regulation in spite of the bureau leadership on this topic because they have gone to ground in terms of trying to find a solution here.
And frankly, since January, their appearance at this budget committee, as well as the finance committee, has been a series of months of gaslighting.
Thank you.
Who would say we don't have a problem, who have said that we actually only— we issue permits all the time.
But I want to just kind of show folks.
See this graph?
See where the line starts to drop?
That's our urban canopy.
And so when urban forestry tree regulations went into place, for the first time in 15 years, we started losing canopy.
That's a lot of canopy.
Something is wrong here.
Something doesn't make sense.
I would have loved a bureau who was willing to work on a solution, but instead we got a bureau who said there is no problem.
There's no problem whatsoever.
And this cut is getting up after the part that can hurt Portlanders.
It is not getting after the part that is going to plant any trees in East Portland.
It's not getting after the part that's going to make sure that trees are planted.
Continue to be watered and cared for.
We're preserving the best parts, and we're giving the part that's struggling a new boss to see if that new boss can figure it out.
Because the fact that we turned urban forestry on and then started losing canopy should concern all of us.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Madam President.
I originally got into the stack to talk about other things, but the chart now gives me a comment to provide that's relevant.
If you show a chart like that, Councilor, you're going to get my comments on it.
I don't know where I'm at on your amendments.
I am interested in the balance of this debate and discussion today.
I just want to note on the chart, You can't draw that conclusion on a causal basis.
There was other factors happening such as heat waves and pests.
And so I think when we lose capacity, it's difficult to tease out the role of spinning up this program.
And I know that's the argument you're making, but I don't think that's the strongest argument you have in your toolkit.
I think issues related to the parks levy is a little more compelling to me.
Thank you.
But I just wanted to share my, my complaints with the chart.
So that's, that's all I have.
Thank you, Madam President.
Just a few short points.
I am sympathetic to many of Councilor Zimmerman's points.
I'm just not prepared to support these proposals now.
For one thing, on the move to PP&D, I'm certainly open to considering that, but I confess I haven't asked PP&D what they think about it?
And it's okay, you have, and they're fine with it?
Yeah.
All right.
I'm not going to speak for them, but they got an absolutely, we can administer this and there's no change to the full program was the answer I got back.
Okay.
I mean, that's something that I don't think has— I'd still want to hear from them, but I think that's something that doesn't have to happen in the budget process.
That's something we could take up next month.
On the issue of I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that when we send out a levy, we can specify that the levy isn't spent for tree regulation.
As to removing the $2 million now, though, my concern is that the tree regulatory people don't just go out and beat people up.
They also process permit applications.
And although it may be that we should say you— that we would reach the conclusion that you don't need to have a permit to remove a tree on your own property, Right now you do.
So I'm afraid that one effect might be that people will apply for, apply for permits to remove trees, and there won't be enough people there to process the application.
So it'll take weeks and weeks for them to get a response, which is as bad as getting a no.
So that's my concern about making a cut without knowing exactly what the immediate consequences would be.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Mm-hmm.
Councilor Avalos.
Keelan McClymont
I think more than anything, I'm just— this is really hard to follow.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I mean, I'm seeing that there was some information that you gave other councilors to explain this.
I'm reading what I see in the document that's been pre-filed and is on the website.
That's not adding up.
Like, none of it's adding up for me, and I'm just feeling frustrated that I'm so confused, and I don't understand why I'm confused if I'm supposed to be looking to this document to understand what these updates are and they're not reflected.
Keelan McClymont
I get that there's probably a floor amendment thing that's going on, but also I didn't receive any information.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I— this is really complex, and I wasn't given the opportunity to think that through with any new information.
So definitely going off of Councilor Novick, I mean, I don't feel comfortable making any kind of decision on this right now because I don't have it in front of me.
I was already not really, you know, I was already concerned with it even prior to these new updates, but now I'm even more concerned that I feel like I don't have the tools to make a good decision.
Keelan McClymont
So that's very frustrating, and I'll just leave it at that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Madam President.
I just want to first start by saying I see a lot of the same problem statement, and I think there's been a clear effort here to try and narrowly approach this to resolve it.
I have a couple questions.
I mean, we did hear from Director Long, and Councilor Zimmerman's right, he did follow up a couple times about whether or not levy funds are going to code enforcement.
And I can't read the details of that graph from over here, so I, I just want to verify that probably with CBO about the use of levy funds going to code enforcement.
The other question I have about the first part of this is basically, is there— and I know, Councilor Zimmerman, you mentioned— I'm going to get to part 2 in a second.
That Part 2 does not do anything in terms of the number of FTE, but Part 1, $2.1 million, I imagine could theoretically be personnel related.
So if you could speak to that a little bit more, I'd love to, and then I'll make a comment on Part 2.
Sure, thank you.
And, and Councilor Ellis, um, I apologize for not sending it.
I've sent it to you in terms of getting it to everybody and not bringing a quorum.
I broke it up into different emails.
It is on the way to you.
You should have all the written text now in your email.
Councilor Kanal, yes.
In terms of the funding that keeps tree regulation alive, we get $3.2, I think, million in PCF funding, another $780, it looks like, in general fund funding.
$3.6 In PCF.
$3.6.
And $780 in general fund.
So essentially it takes the program from 6% $6.5 million down $2.1 million because of the levy funding.
I certainly think that when the PP— well, whomever the oversight is and the bureau director is of this at the end of it, if they have a program that has $2.1 million less, they're going to reduce the footprint.
What I'm not doing is dictating what section should survive full employment or which section Should take a full hit.
I think that the bureau director of the bureau wherever this lies will have a $4 point million— a $4 point something million program instead of a $6.5 million program.
And they need to make the choices within their set to accomplish all the same things that exist in tree regulation.
So I do think there would be some cuts, but it's very different than the previous where I only outlined tree inspectors.
Thank you.
Being sent over to PP&D in my original amendments.
I've changed that significantly so that all aspects of tree regulation survive in this amendment unless the Bureau comes and says, well, given this new size of it, we would have— we would do that.
But that—.
I'm putting that on the administration side, not in the amendment side.
I think that's— I'm just— I'm happy that it evolved that direction.
I think that's a better direction.
Thank you.
For amendments that affect whole programs because the ins and outs of how to accomplish the tree regulation with, with $4-some million instead of $6.5 million, I think, is best taken at that level with the administration.
So thank you.
Thank you for that.
So moving to the second part, I think, and I'll wait for more information on the first part here, but moving on to the second part, I'm inclined to support it, and my rationale is simply that we have seen, and I have had what feels like dozens of meetings with constituents complaining not only about code enforcement that protects the trees that are clearly failing at the expense of the safety of residents and their homes, but occasionally, and sort of the exception that proves the rule, The exact opposite in a way that is inconsistent.
I think there was an article about the— there's a tree at 11th and Siskiyou.
I think that the idea that code enforcement makes sense in a singular place is compelling to me.
I am gonna check one aspect of this, which is that, you know, we would probably need to adjust the— we might need to do a corresponding code fix.
Yeah.
To ensure that that makes sense.
And that's not a reason not to do it today in my mind.
So that part of it makes sense to me.
And I do think, as you mentioned, that it can stand alone.
I'm not 100% clear on where I'm at on the first one.
So I'm gonna enjoy listening to what other folks have to say.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor.
I am next in the queue.
And Councilor Zimmerman, I mentioned to you earlier today that I had been working on something similar because I, after hearing your presentation previously where I had pushed back that I thought the numbers were too high, I agreed that the balance was off and that as I look at the cuts in parks and the growth in parks and as somebody who is strongly in favor of expanding parks, As someone who is in favor of expanding our urban canopy and someone who frankly believes that we must do more for our urban canopy, I also am strongly in favor of maintaining more of our parks maintenance.
And I think doing something like this is important.
I'm struggling right now because I was told by CBO that while there is funding in urban forest from the levy, that there is only a very small amount of funding specifically in this part of urban forestry from the levy.
And I was told that when we were figuring out our numbers because I didn't realize you were going to bring a slimmed-down version.
So I was going to try to today to reset the balance.
So I was given different numbers and I'm—.
Keelan McClymont
That's the story of the season, Madam President.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I wanna make sure that I understand what's on your chart, because what I saw under tree regulation showed something like $4,000 in levy funds.
So I don't know if we need to have the DCA, have Sonya come up here, or if we need to turn this to Ruth and Jonas to get an answer.
But I'm hoping we can figure out why we were given different numbers.
Keelan McClymont
I would agree.
And we were given these by CBO that last year was 1.58 and this year was 2.1 and continued to say that this remains part of the problem with this braiding of it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Jonas, can you, can you help here?
Keelan McClymont
I will attempt.
For the record, Jonas Biery, DCA of Budget Finance and Chief Financial Officer.
There is in fact some confusion.
And I might lean to my parks colleagues to assist.
In the approved budget, there was in fact $2.1 million of what I believe is levy-funded resources going into tree regulation and $3.6 million of PSF, $780,000 of general fund discretionary.
So Councilor Zimmerman, exactly what you described.
At some point, and I don't know, I may need some help identifying how this occurred, occurred, there was an adjustment made into the adopted that moved that amount out.
And I believe that the information CBO referenced and pulled from the system was reflective of that change.
And I can't tell you how that change happened, but I'd be happy to welcome anyone who can describe that to come join me.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Jonas, given that any changes between the approved and the adopted, I believe, are supposed to be amendments from Council.
And given that we haven't touched this line and given that there is no adopted budget yet since we haven't adopted a budget, I'm really concerned with what I just heard.
Keelan McClymont
I agree.
So let me try again to— so there's a point in the system as this gets tracked.
And so we don't have an adopted budget, but there's an entry in the budget system to start to track these changes as they happen.
As they're in motion so that the adopted budget can be ultimately produced.
There are multiple, multiple points throughout the year where those adjustments are made.
And I believe the information, Council President, that you referenced that CBO provided and pulled from the system included a number that had been changed.
And again, I'm saying I don't know how that number was changed.
And I would welcome someone who does know how that number has changed to come join me and describe that because I don't have that information.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I see Claudio coming up who does for Vibrant Communities.
Can you— I wanna make sure if we're going to pass Councilor Zimmerman's amendment that we can actually do it.
And if we can't do it, I would offer you alternate numbers, but I don't wanna—.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, we can go into budget make-believeville if we need to.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I don't want to move money that isn't actually real and isn't actually there, Councilor.
So I apologize for doing this, but—.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, and Claudio Campuzano, for the record, Finance, Property, and Technology Manager for Vibrant Community Support Services.
Yeah, this is a change that we had discussed with the City Budget Office a couple of days ago.
I believe that it was included in the approved Is it in the adopted change memo?
It's in the adopted change memo, so it's actually something that you have not voted on yet.
And it was something that we did really as something that was intended to capture the spirit of what Councilor Zimmerman noted earlier in the process.
First of all, recognizing that the parks levy Has paid for parts of tree regulation over the last several years.
It is an allowable use of the parks levy.
We included that clarification in the response to council questions from last week, so I won't reread that.
But those—.
Thank you.
Over the last couple of years, we've published that use of parks levy in report for year 1, 2, and 3.
But given the concerns raised by council, we had included in the adopted, so as I said, you have not yet voted on it.
It is in the change memo though.
The shifting of parks levy out of the adopted budget.
Out of tree regulation.
So we would only use general fund rather than the blended funding model.
That said, I don't think that that, from a technical perspective, and CBO can help clarify this, I don't think that actually changes the effect of Councilor Zimmerman's amendment.
I think that that $2.1 million is—.
You would—.
You can reduce it from that program.
It does save— it does save parks general fund levy.
It can be used to cover maintenance.
So I think that really it was more a technical change that was intended to reflect the intent of Councilor Zimmerman from several weeks ago.
So forgive us for sort of jumping ahead.
Thank you.
Ultimately, then it would conflict with Councilor Zimmerman's amendment.
So I'd say they were mutually exclusive, what's in the change memo versus this.
But I don't know, it's not something that I was aware of, that amendment until today.
So I would look to CBO to determine whether they do conflict or not.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Jonas?
I think we need to answer that question.
It seems to me that because this amendment specifically calls out reallocating levy funding, there might need to be some slight wording changes.
But once you answer that question, I'd also like to know if there are other changes in the change memo that this council has not had the opportunity to talk about, because I skimmed this over looking through my materials, but frankly did not look for the level of detail that I might have if I knew that bureaus were making changes.
Yes.
Between the approved and the adopted that they hadn't brought to council.
So I just—.
Keelan McClymont
If Jonas answers that, I would like to respond specifically for where we got this number, if that's okay.
Absolutely, Councilor.
Yeah, so the first answer I'll give is that the actions that have— that this council has taken are on the approved as discussed previously.
So the amendments that you're discussing should be amendments to that document.
And Ruth can correct me if that's incorrect, but for purposes of making amendments, you're making amendments to the next step in the process, the prior step in the process, which was the approved budget.
So I think the question that came up was the gap in information that was provided, the gap in the numbers that were in the adopted versus the numbers that were reflected.
Right.
That CBO mentioned to you, Council President.
And I'll pause for a second before we talk about the change memo.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Yeah, I just want to— this feels like a big boo-boo, but I also want to give a little bit of grace to the fact that in terms of how we have allowed General fund and parks levy to get used.
And I think this sentence will help.
This is a conversation between one of my staffers and one of the Central Budget Office employees.
$1,582,931 Is budgeted as parks levy revenue for tree regulation in 2024-25.
Yes.
The amount will likely be smaller depending on how their actual spending ends up.
Parentheses.
They only transfer as much as is needed to cover actual expenses.
I think for me that kind of highlights this idea that the— because they have authorization to use levy funds, they kind of run the credit card, so to speak, or maybe it's the debit card against the levy funds.
I think that's a practice we should call out.
What makes it difficult though is to apply If I say in my amendment to save $2.1 million from a tree regulation, then if that same practice is used, can we really say that $2.1 million could go to parks maintenance?
I think the answer is yes.
Yes.
That is accurate because I think about, we're spending a lot of time talking about tree stuff, but I also want to, on the other side of that, we also know what's going to be lost on the maintenance side.
And I do want to add that into it, right?
If I have to make priority choices, I'm being very clear with everybody in the public, particularly within my district.
I am prioritizing better ongoing park maintenance over a code enforcement program I think is beneficial, but probably not hitting the mark right now.
But the bathroom cleaning and the playground cleaning is.
Thank you.
I'm saying, I'm saying I'm picking winners and losers.
I'm asking you to help me pick a winner and loser in this.
It's not fair.
But this use of these funds is making this complicated, which I think the reason I'm highlighting this is it has been very difficult to get straightforward numbers to all of you.
Not because I was playing hide the rock under the red cup, but because it literally might exist in 4 different ways in 4 different documents.
We've got to work.
We've got to work on that, I think.
Thank you, Councilor.
So I believe the second part of your question, Council President, was on the change memo, and I'll move to Ruth to address that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Sure.
So the change memo, as I briefly went through earlier, is— should— it does contain only things that are either like technical changes that That just align the adopted budget to things like the year-end revenue forecasts and year-end expense forecasts and technical changes that correctly budget the amendments that were voted on on the 21st.
Okay.
Plus this.
And there's this.
So yeah, I think, I think it was just a miscommunication in this case, and I— it is not— I think we need to be a little tighter going forward now.
Honestly, I think this is just a change in the form of government and how we budget differently going forward.
So yes, it should be very closely tailored to only very minor technical changes or things that are meant to align it to what you all All voted on on the 21st so that it's just correct because it's the last chance to make those technical corrections.
So that is what the technical— that is what the fund change memo Attachment B is supposed to line item.
And there are 2 pages of lines that kind of explain that.
And then Attachment C actually has more detail than Attachment B.
Thank you.
Thank you, Director Levine.
Sonia, I wanna make sure that I wrap up and get to other councilors, but did you have something you wanted to add here?
Not in a pressing way.
Thank you.
Okay.
Colleagues, as I said at the start before we uncovered this very interesting budget twist, I believe very strongly in protecting our urban canopy, and I actually have a district where I hear more often from people who are upset that trees are coming down than people who are upset that they can't take trees down.
It's very different incoming on these regulations than I think District 4 sometimes receives.
I also think that on balance, as we are trying to weigh difficult decisions, There was, in my mind, a little too much cutting in parks maintenance, and I think we could have taken a little bit more from the part of parks that has grown significantly.
So at this lower level, I'm willing to support a change like this.
I still am a little bit confused, frankly, as to whether the funds that are in Councilor Zimmerman's new amendments are available.
If our budget folks are saying they are, I am willing to trust that for today.
And if they are not, then Councilor, I'm happy to partner with you on something where we can find the funds.
Keelan McClymont
I think we heard they are available and they would make it to park maintenance today if we made the first amendment.
And we got a solid up and down from the staff on that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
This has been a very interesting budget discussion that really presages what we're going to be doing in the future.
But I don't want to speak to number 1, I want to speak to number 2.
Um, number, uh, Zimmerman number 2 makes perfect sense to me given, uh, what's happening to the Parks Bureau anyway.
In the mayor's budget.
We're breaking parks up into pieces.
One goes here, one goes there.
And this is just another piece that it makes absolute sense to me that the regulation goes into PP&D because PP&D is actually a blending of 8 other bureau permitting processes already.
This is just another— adding another one to this, to the regulatory soup.
Thank you.
So it makes perfect sense to me, and I intend to support it.
I hear Councilor Zimmerman's statement of the problem, and these complaints being outlined are very valid.
I believe they need to be addressed, and I still question whether or not this is the best way to fix it here as council.
It seems clear to me that there is an interest from councilors to make sure that this program is hitting the mark better.
And I believe it is an expectation that we're working on this with the executive branch.
And just to be clear, in general, I value giving ourselves the time and opportunity to build strategic collaborative relationships with the executive branch that will take more time than this budget process.
I also invite all of my colleagues up here to not refer to our city staff by name and instead by title, because this isn't about individuals, it's about positions and function.
At this point, I can't support these amendments because I haven't had much time to fully understand the structures and systems at play.
Thank you, Madam President.
I am glad that we had this discussion today.
I'm glad that we were able to find out information about, uh, items that were not language and items that were not put in that we didn't have information on.
And I feel confident that the Civic Life folks are saying that they have the $2.1 million.
Is that correct?
Keelan McClymont
Yes.
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Vibrant Communities.
I apologize.
Absolutely.
Keelan McClymont
Take—.
Make a reduction to urban forestry, $2.1 million.
Move it to— move it to, uh, maintenance.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Thank you so much.
I wanted to make clear that we had that because I don't want us to come down to the 11th hour and then we're short, especially because we didn't transfer over information.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, let me start by asking a question about the change memo in general, and this is about Attachment C. At the bottom, the citywide total goes down by $12.851 million from $8.651 to $8.638.
Can, can I get a little information on what that aggregate total represents?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Sure.
So hold on, sorry, I'm just trying to get the right attachment up.
I mean, I think if you look at the individual lines, it should just be a sum of the individual lines.
So for example, the Fireplace Disability and Retirement Fund, there's a reduction of $44 million of bond and note proceeds to reflect The shift from tax anticipation note revenue to interfund loan revenue.
So that's a reduction in appropriation.
All of these are from the perspective of how much money are you appropriating for these particular purposes.
And so what is the maximum they can spend?
So it's just aligning those appropriations based on the adopted budget as filed.
Keelan McClymont
Sure, but I guess let me put it another way.
When we approved a budget at $8.651 and it was considered a balanced budget, and now we're coming back and being told that we are, through this memo, we've appropriated $8.638 given these changes, should we not therefore have $12.851 million to play with the way that you've written this?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It's all funds and all sources of money.
For example, in that particular, that particular $44 million example I just gave, it's just, it had budgeted money for bond and note proceeds that we're not going to receive and therefore we don't need.
But it doesn't free anything up because we're just not issuing those bonds.
We're not receiving that revenue.
So it just is an— it's just a technical correction to the appropriation schedule based on the Okay.
Keelan McClymont
I look forward to that being clear next year.
And because I had some certainty, then I got some confusion through this process.
Sorry, Councilor, can I just jump in?
'Cause I think it may help a little bit to provide another example of what's included in the budget.
So that $8.5 million or $8.6, whatever it is, includes things like transfers between funds, right?
So money goes from one fund and it's a reduction in that fund appropriated from that fund.
The double count, because there's about $6.5 real billion dollars in the budget.
And so sometimes you'll see a small adjustment.
I mean, $12 million is not small, but in the context of the budget, maybe there's a resource from golf fees, right, that are coming in that were adjusted.
I'm just picking on a sort of example.
So that increases that amount and reduces the amount of a fund transfer that needs to come to offset that.
And so some of those balancing activities are what's happening in that scale of adjustment.
And it's not a release of new revenues.
It's just realigning the new version to be balanced with the decisions that council made to move dollars around previously.
Right.
Okay, thank you.
And I guess just to— for those who may be listening at home, not following along with this, the one thing that maybe isn't relevant to this but is relevant perhaps in general is there's not $8.5 actual billion in our budget.
There's something closer to 6, between 6 and 6.5, if I recall correctly.
And money gets double-counted when it's in one bureau's budget, gets paid to another bureau's budget, and then is expensed there.
And that's, I think, something that isn't necessarily the most well-known fact.
No, it hasn't come up yet, so figured I'd say it.
Yeah, I guess I am open to the argument about winners and losers.
And that our job is in large part to pick winners and losers.
That is a compelling argument to me about our not just ability, but frankly responsibility to make a decision like this and not solely defer to the administration about it.
Because if we don't do this, it's not as though the— Councilor Sameer Kanal.
The conversation will continue while both the park maintenance staff and the urban forestry staff are both going to be funded with the same $2.1 million.
It's that some of these people are going to lose their jobs while the conversation may continue, and then we might be hiring some of them back if over time the money is moved around between these.
The only other thing I wanted to mention is that in the event that this Second Amendment does pass.
I do think— I did want to just confirm the thing I speculated earlier, that there would need to be a small update to code to just replace references to the Parks Bureau.
And we've done this before several times over the course of the— the last council did it in the second half of last year, updating code to fix the references to bureaus and service areas that did or didn't exist at the time.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Novick.
Is DCA Oliveira here?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I believe he's in the back of the room.
Keelan McClymont
Good afternoon, DCA Oliveira.
And this might be an unfair question, but I'm just curious.
Sort of like answer as you see fit, but do you think that PP&D is— how much time has PP&D had to study whether the concept of absorbing the tree code regulation, and how easy do you think it would be for them to do so expeditiously?
Thanks for the question, Councilor.
Donnie Oliveira for the record.
Councilor, about a year ago, then BDS worked with infrastructure bureaus to contemplate a merger.
At the time of a 30% staff reduction.
So not too dissimilar from the moment we're in today.
So I think, is there a culture and a will to support council direction, something like this?
Of course.
I would say for this particular amendment, have we contemplated how it would be integrated?
No, not to the degree that we probably would like, assuming this would go into effect July 1st.
But given the sort of resilience of the bureau, I think in partnership with parks, I think we can make that happen.
Thank you.
The one thing I'll just offer is it's not just moving people over, it's how we embed them in the system, make sure that they're being supported as staff that we'd want to think about.
And until we know fully what's happening to PP&D, I think that's hard to fully give a confident answer that we're ready for that change.
But it is certainly doable.
Another unfair question.
Would you feel safer if we— if this decision didn't take effect until like September 1st or something?
Thank you for the question.
Would more time help?
Yeah, I think any, any day— I have no strong opinion on that either.
I think— how about this?
The more time that's given for staff to contemplate this change, the more effective that, uh, the change could occur.
Thank you.
Councilor Ryan.
I just want to make a couple comments before I vote.
Councilor Zimmerman, I was opposed to your original amendments, and I respect the rework that you sent out today at 129.
I thought that was great work.
I was a commissioner in charge of parks for 18 months.
Yes, I know it did seem longer based on the circumstances during those 18 months, and the big winter storm of 2024 was one of them.
I took a lot of punches from Portlanders.
I will never forget their stories.
In fact, I, I of course believed them, and I went out during the storm, during cleanup, and I witnessed so many hardworking foresters, which made it easier to take punches for them at that time.
The truth is, I think we need to do a move right now, and this is, this is the right step at the right time.
And I support this updated amendment, and I thank you, Councilor Zimmerman, for your persistence on this one.
And thank you.
I'll be supporting both of them.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Before Councilor Canale, we move on, I'm just looping back to make sure folks who are in the queue for other things didn't want to Thank you, Madam President.
Keelan McClymont
I just want to come back to this question of whether it's appropriate for City Council through budget amendments to create kind of changes for our bureaus.
And I think one of the things I struggle with is, on the one hand, that's stepping too far over into the other side of the executive branch, and I think branches that's not appropriate.
Thank you, Councilor Dunphy.
Side of the house.
But this is our opportunity to provide a budget that provides guidance to this government.
And so I think, you know, you— it's, you know, carefully crafted budget note helps us do that.
I think it is appropriate on, you know, in some cases.
And so I do think I want to defend this aspect of it.
I also don't have a credit card that we can swipe to run up a big debt.
We have to balance a budget, and there is a trade-off here.
Councilor and the thing that I really struggle with is we still have deep cuts in parks maintenance that are going to live through this, this next fiscal year.
And there were amendments that I had brought forward with some colleagues earlier in this process that did not pass that would have provided resources for that, but those failed.
And so now we're in a situation now where we have to make a choice between a diminished Relatively, you know, I think it's about a third cut to, um, the tree regulation program here from this parks levy question, uh, versus a relatively large cut to parks maintenance.
And so I'm leaning, I'm leaning towards support at this time.
I know that that's not going to be popular with some, some people, but we're not making good— I mean, it's, it's trade-offs on the margin for all of this stuff, and none of it feels good.
Um, and I'll just, I just leave it at that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I just wanted to air the Councilor Smith, were you back in the queue for something on this amendment, or are you in the queue still for something later?
I'm not in the queue at all.
Okay.
Councilor Kanal?
Keelan McClymont
I apologize, I just forgot one question for DCA Schmanski, and it's based on something Councilor Smith Councilor said.
Clark said earlier.
Can you speak to other potential org chart bureau changes to parks that are in this budget or not?
I believe the comment was that it's being separated out into parts, or I don't want to— that's not a quote.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah, I heard that too.
Sonia Szymanski, DCA for Vibrant Communities.
I wasn't entirely sure what you were referring to, but I'm sure that it's Uh, I was under the impression that Parks is moving into the Public Works service area.
Yes, the bureau itself is moving.
And perhaps not all of Parks.
Another piece of Parks might move into, um, DCA Oliveira's, uh, service area.
I see Councilor— or I, I see City Administrator Jordan Making an aha face.
Keelan McClymont
Excuse me, just to be clear, part of vibrant communities is moving to economic and community development, not part of parks.
So, okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Councilor Novick, did you want another bite at the apple here?
Keelan McClymont
Uh, yes.
Um, questions for Councilor Zimmerman.
For one, Zimmerman 3 talks about increasing position authority in PP&D by Those are up.
I'm not even proposing those.
Okay, so you're proposing moving the authority from Parks to PP&D just as a standalone administrative thing.
Would you accept a friendly amendment to say that that would take effect on November 1st?
I'd take a friendly amendment for September 1st.
What about, what about October 1st?
I love negotiation, but I, I, if I'm— if I appreciate it, Councilor.
So I, I think getting through the summer is appropriate, but, um, I am acting with urgency because I think we do have serious concerns.
So I'm going to stick to— I'm amenable and I'm happy to entertain that at September 1st.
As a date, which is similar to some other right-sizing that the city's going through.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilors, I don't see anybody else in the queue, and I'm not sure what the resolution was there.
And I think we need a resolution before we know what we're voting on.
Was there a friendly amendment accepted or not?
Keelan McClymont
I'm debating whether to make it unfriendly.
Okay, let's do October, Steve.
Come on.
All right, I offer an amendment that the shift from, um, of regulation from parks to PP&D take effect on October 1st.
No later than October 1st.
No later than October 1st.
I think that's a friendly amendment I could accept.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second.
I'm sorry, resolve that first, come back to me.
I just— I heard Councilor Ryan second the friendly amendment and realized that I don't think I caught who seconded these to begin with.
I think I heard Clark.
Okay, Clark thinks that she was the one who seconded these, so— what?
It was a long time ago, so we have that captured.
And Councilor Clark, do you then, are you maintaining your second with this friendly amendment?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Okay, fantastic.
Sonia.
Thank you.
And I hesitate to offer a comment that might introduce a new line of conversation at this point.
Part of why I come up here was to share the question I had when I saw this, and I hadn't had long to look at it or think about it.
But my question to my team was, does this, Does this standardize what is otherwise an outlying situation where you are administering this code, PP&D is administering other code?
Does this bring you into greater alignment with how the rest of the city does things?
And what I heard from them is that it more creates an anomaly than resolves one.
And I welcome better thinking about this because I am not the expert structurally here.
My understanding is that PP&D administers code related primarily, maybe not exclusively, to private property development.
Hmm.
And that as a general matter, other bureaus administer code related to other things within their scope of work.
Fire marshal, parking enforcement, sewer pipes.
These codes mostly live within and are administered by those bureaus.
Park rangers, Title 20, also in parks.
So I guess I'm offering as a consideration, does this otherwise match how code is applied and administered in other parts of the city?
I think it does not.
And so that's a policy question for you all.
Keelan McClymont
Oh, I think that fair points.
However, The, the private property aspect of tree code is, I think, where we have the greatest problem, right?
That's where a person who's just at their home, who doesn't have the lawyers and developers to help navigate a really tough system, are, are not getting good outcomes when they work with the City of Portland.
And PBOT, for instance, is, as we learned in the Oregonian, able to throw some curbs down and take down trees, no problems, no questions asked from Urban Forestry.
So given the fact, I don't disagree that this is a slight anomaly, but given the fact of how much work PP&D does on the private property, so if you have, if you've got a rental property that is derelict and it's a slumlord situation, these folks are involved.
If you, when I helped shut down the 4th and Washington that private property aspect, I think they work with property owners all the time.
And I will say over and over, we have heard that some code changes are planned to come toward the end of the summer into the fall.
And if there is some realignment that says, hey, this would be better served in the, in the Public Works side of it, I'm all ears.
But we haven't seen that happen without the City of Portland being involved.
I think that's a good point.
And so for the short term, I think I have all faith in the code compliance folks at PP&D.
Frankly, I think they're very skilled and working with Portlanders well all the time.
So I think the anomaly is a safe risk and we should accept it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Is there tree enforcement in PP&D already in other areas?
Keelan McClymont
Not explicitly.
Don Oliveira, for the record, Council President, not explicitly in Title 11.
There may be things that come up through nuisance complaints, but those are typically redirected to Parks if they're specific to Title 11.
Just to follow up on DCA Szymanski's comments, it is true that largely the code that PP&D oversees with permitting is in the private sector, but in our code enforcement, we're covering everything from noise complaints to other nuisance infractions that typically the team interacts with the, you know, residents and businesses more, you know, ad hoc.
I would guess that this would be a new element, so it's not just, you know, unique, but it's distinct enough where there would be subject matter expertise that'd be relied upon coming from Parks to administer that code.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So the tree inspectors in PP&D's budget are focused on other code, not on Title 11?
Keelan McClymont
Generally in support of, but not directly, you know, that's parks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, councilors, I don't see anybody else in the queue, so Keelan, could you please call the roll on the new Zimmerman 1, which moves $2.1 million in parks Levy funds from the tree regulation program within urban forestry to the parks maintenance program, knowing that we may need to do some work in the change memo to make sure that those funds are available.
Is that how we're doing this?
Haley, I see you leaning forward.
Hi, sorry, quick question.
Were you intending to replace Zimmerman 1 and 2, or are you withdrawing Zimmerman 1 and 2 and adding 13?
Keelan McClymont
I think a full withdrawal of the old ones.
These are freshly new.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So you would be voting on Zimmerman 13.
Okay.
What we had before us said 1.
So Zimmerman 13, and this is the first part that Councilor Zimmerman went over, which is the funding change, moving the levy funding from urban forestry's Councilor Mitch Green.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Jamie Dunphy.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Councilor Dan Ryan.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Councilor Kinnell.
As I said on May 21st, I think it's really important that we have clean bathrooms and we have maintenance fully funded.
And that's a major, major lack in the mayor's proposed that we get a chance to rectify.
I vote aye.
Ryan.
Aye.
No.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Zimmerman, I really appreciate all the work that you've put into this and trying to address this problem.
My concern at this time is that I just don't feel like I have a full grasp of the impacts of this policy on the different bureaus and staffing and funding that we have.
And maybe that's not your fault.
Maybe that's the fact that Parks didn't get that information to you.
But that doesn't change the fact that I feel like this is a substantial change and we haven't, as a council, received a full scope of information to make that decision.
I would also point out that that's an issue that is not isolated with your research and amendment.
That's something that's going on overall.
So maybe everyone should consider approving my amendment to add a CBO position so that we can get more information later.
I vote no.
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
No.
For the same reasons that I complained about Councilor Zimmerman's chart, uh, not showing causation where there may only be a correlation, I think a relatively modest cut of the parks levy funds is not going to hamper our overall urban canopy in the short run.
And I do think that we need to set ourselves up for a good Thank you.
I appreciate those who gave input to help me craft this in a way that was most palatable and also, I think, addresses a pretty serious concern.
And I think we are set up better if this passes to address to that concern.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Pass a successful levy.
And so if this passes, I'm also very eager for those parks employees who work in our maintenance to continue their work and their service to the city.
So thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I vote aye.
No.
Keelan McClymont
I continue to be deeply concerned about the parks maintenance, so I vote aye.
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
The amendment is approved with 8 yes votes and 4 no votes.
Keelan, could you please call the roll on Zimmerman 14?
I'm looking to Haley to make sure that number is correct.
It is correct.
And if I could just counsel— get Councilor Novick and Councilor Zimmerman to clarify the friendly amendment language and where it goes.
Keelan McClymont
To be implemented no later than 1 October 2025.
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Steve.
Okay.
So what you have listed in the email from Councilor Zimmerman as 2, which is officially Zimmerman 14, with the friendly amendment from Councilor Novick that this would be implemented no later than October 1st.
This is the proposal to move tree regulation program staff Program and staff from Urban Forestry Programs to Portland Permitting and Development.
Keelan, could you please call the roll?
Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Ryan.
Aye.
To clarify, I'm not completely opposed to amendments that reach over and make executive-type changes or management decisions, but my bar is high for those types of amendments, and I believe that I don't have enough information to know how this will be affecting programs and all of the staff.
So I vote no.
Keelan McClymont
No.
Aye.
Aye.
No.
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Nay.
Keelan McClymont
I would very much like to have this as a conversation in a policy committee, but I'm not there today, so no.
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
The amendment is approved with 7 yes votes and 5 no votes.
Councilor Green, do you have an amendment within the parks program area that you are in the queue to speak to?
Yes, but I just—.
Keelan McClymont
Some—.
I have a new omnibus amendment that has some elements that talk about parks.
I, I guess my question to you would be, would you prefer to use this space right now to talk about things that are just standalone parks things, or can I talk about my thing now?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Well, the precedent that we set last time was that if it touches an area, you can choose which area it falls within.
So I am going to try to stay consistent to the best Uh, yes, then I would like to talk about Green 9.
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
Let me pull up my text for my own.
I'm gonna second it.
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We have a motion and a second on Green 9.
Hopefully we can hear a little bit about it.
Keelan McClymont
Okay.
Thank you, Madam President.
Um, since May 21st, I've put a lot of effort into trying to, um, fund some priorities that are of my own but also some of my colleagues, um, through a new funding source.
Uh, my previous ones failed.
The Prosper one failed.
So, you know, we did our best.
It didn't work out.
So I'm coming back Again, and I'm offering a motion.
The title is Motion to Amend Attachment D and Add a Budget Note to Reduce External Materials and Services Spending and Add Funding for Housing, Arts, and Operational Capacity.
So colleagues, the way this works is it funds Green 3, which is fund Portland Street Response Program evaluation at a reduced level, $200,000.
It funds Green 6, which provides one-time grant to Portland Center Stage at a reduced level, It's $200,000.
It funds one of Clark 2 CEI positions on a one-time basis.
It's got Dunphy 2 fund arts and economic developments at $365,000.
It has Canal 4 funding for community centers, aquatics, the Portland Tennis Center PM hours.
So it's restoring the cut hours in the evening, an alternative community session.
It also removes It moves one of the parks ranger service dispatcher roles that was being cut into, into 311 and paying for that.
That's part of Canal 4.
And then we have Morillo 9, which is restore analyst positions in the CBO at $350,000.
So the way that this is all paid for is by a 2% additional reduction in external materials and services with sunk With some key exemptions.
And these exemptions are as follows: exempting all outgoing grant subrecipients, all outgoing grant beneficiaries, and outgoing loan disbursements.
And it also excludes Prosper Portland's line item for EMS because I think that that complicates the fact that we already passed that budget.
The net effect is it makes available $1.5 $1.5 million in general fund discretionary resources, $192,000 in general fund overhead resources, and $151,000 in additional other revenue.
And all of that pays for these— for this package.
So I know that's a mouthful.
And if you look at Attachment I, it has— the CBO has created the sort of individually impacted Bureau areas that have the cuts that looks like it's part of Morello 9.
It's not, it's just, it's just a formatting piece.
So I know that there will be certainly some questions, so I'm happy to take them.
Councilor Kanal.
Yeah, so if I was a little early on that, sorry, I will second it now.
Um, I do have one question about it, which is, um, the overhead 192 If you can speak to where that specifically went, that's the only question I had.
Yeah, happy to.
Um, that covers part of, um, Morillo 9, which they're— the CBO analyst positions have that, uh, general fund overhead.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'll come back later.
Councilor Smith?
Yes, thank you, Madam President.
I'd like to verify with Let me see if Jonas or Ruth— we— I just think that you're leaving some money on the table.
I think you're leaving some money on the table.
So I want to know for sure, is the 2% that you're cutting off of EMS Is it in fact $1.5 million or a different number?
So I can speak to a little bit how that— how we got to that number.
So there's definitely more EMS in the city's budget than that, but I think this is, first of all, I believe it was general fund only, if I'm Is it ongoing?
Correctly, it's ongoing, and it is, um, it is only for things that we aren't like legally required to pay.
So like, it's one time.
Is it one time?
Keelan McClymont
The amendment says this is a one-time general fund.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Sorry.
Okay, sorry, I'm misremembering.
Um, so, um, but I think this is general fund only, so like none of the EM&S that's in the utilities, for example, would be in here.
Additionally, things that we're legally required to pay, like FPD&R benefits that are paid out as EM&S and health benefits that are paid out as EM&S, aren't in this denominator.
So I think getting into EM&S is tricky just because there are so many things lumped into there, many of which we don't really have discretion over.
So I think there was an attempt to get at sort of a denominator that made sense in order to come up with that number.
And could you explain the difference between the external materials and services versus the internal?
Sure.
So external materials and services are any external— include anything that's like contracts, grants, anything that goes out the door.
So it includes a huge variety of different types of expenditures.
Internal materials and services is only for services that are provided internally, so our central services, and those are done through interagency agreements and budgeted as internal materials and services as the sort of category in which they're budgeted.
Okay, thank you.
Councilor Clark.
Thank you, Madam President.
Um, while I really appreciate Councilor Green adding Clark 2 very much and, uh, Green 6, I'm, um, struggling with reading through the list of all the reductions and noting that the big reductions come from parks, police, and fire.
So I'm, I'm kind of wrestling with that.
I'm not really comfortable with it.
Um, I don't know if we can ask if interim DCA Causie is here, or if I— Okay, then we do, I believe, have all of the DCAs in the room, and we have I think Councilor Green wants to address this first of all.
Keelan McClymont
I appreciate the question.
Um, I was remiss in my motivation to also say that this is paired with the budget amendment, um, that directs how these EMS reductions should happen.
So that's Green 10.
Um, the budget amendment says to, to guide the implementation of the 2% reductions to EMS, Council directs the City Administrator I would like to ask the city administrator to prioritize eliminating expenditures that reflect contract bloat, excessive consulting, and overreliance on external vendors for functions that could be fulfilled by city staff.
So for instance, when I talk to labor leaders, they say, well, why are we paying consultants to do design work or pay— I think Councilor Kanal uses this phrasing a lot, which is, why are we paying other people to think for us?
I think that's a great question.
So the idea here is, you know, please do not execute— find the reduction in not hiring Solem Consulting, for instance, for a million-dollar contract to help with a strategy session.
That's the intention with this, and that's what the budget note directs.
The sort of schedule of cuts you're seeing is the kind of undirected, like, if you do nothing else and if you apply 2% to this, these are those impacts.
And so I do want to just be fully transparent that there are risks here.
And the risk is that we, that we don't get the outcome that the budget note is directing, right?
And then they start going after some of the kind of things that you care about there.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, can we hear from Interim DCA Causi?
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, and Director Causi, Director Myers is online as well if you'd like for him to come You know, if he would like to go first, that would be fantastic, and I'm happy to chime in where I can.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Director Myers, would you like to add anything here before we turn to— or DCA Myers, I apologize— before we turn to Interim DCA Causi?
Keelan McClymont
You know, I'm almost wondering, For the record, I'm Bob Causie, interim DCA for Public Safety Service Area.
I know that a lot of our team across the bureaus had DCA Myers' link to this meeting, so that might be what we're looking at right now is someone else who didn't change their name.
Go right ahead.
I apologize for that.
Yeah, yeah, thank you.
And I am really jumping into deep water here.
Uh, and, and thank you for this opportunity.
Uh, on one hand, I look at, you know, additional funding, uh, for, uh, you know, evaluation of Portland Street Response, and that's certainly something that, uh, PSR could welcome.
I look at some of the other components in here, and I do have some concern when, uh, when I see that there is a reduction to the Portland Police Bureau General Fund by $287,000, and a reduction to Portland Fire, $183,000.
Now, um, there's also a, uh, a section in PBEM, uh, for a reduction of $13,000.
And, uh, you know, knowing the, uh, the structural deficiencies, particularly at PBEM, um, I'm just beginning to get a handle on the fact that they don't have adequate Staffing.
I'm certainly concerned there.
I see the other cuts as well, as without having a lot of time to review what the impact would be, I certainly have concerns.
What I— a question that I had, and I think, Ruth, that you answered this earlier, is contracts that, that we have with current vendors.
Those are not included in this.
Is that correct?
Because we have a legal obligation to pay.
That, that is the spirit behind the exemptions that I put in there.
Outgoing recipients, um, you know, was intended to pick that up.
Okay.
Um, you know, without really knowing what the impact will be, um, I don't think I can speak much further, but I am here, um, to hopefully answer We asked the same question of our Parks DCA as well.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That's a big chunk of dough.
DCA Szymanski.
Hi again, Sonia Szymanski.
I think I saw that it's about a $700,000 EMS cut in the Parks Bureau and that an amount to be added back.
I don't know if that's correct.
I did ask, is it the same amount or is it a different and greater amount to be added back for those particular services?
I don't believe it's the same.
Keelan McClymont
It's just, it's a lesser amount, but it's also for different sorts of— yeah.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I believe that through Canal 4 that's brought in, $265,000 is added specifically to restore PM hours at a few facilities.
But the external material and services budget is reduced by $692,000.
These are all very reasonable and fair things for you to consider and to do.
I know that EMS sometimes surprises me in how directly the spending contributes to provision of services.
That's not to say it's, I'm not making a judgment about its importance or how closely it should be protected.
I will just say $700,000-ish is significant and the services that are proposed for restoration are highly valued and very important to community.
Councilor Clark, anything else?
Keelan McClymont
No.
Councilor Smith?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Oh no, that goes to me next.
Um, I, I'm trying to understand what is cut in the contracts here, um, because I'm trying to weigh these trade-offs.
There are some things, Councilor Green, that you include that I really like, and I appreciate that you tried to carve out some pieces of EMS that we wouldn't want to cut.
Thank you.
Director Szymanski, since you're up here, I'm wondering if you have a sense of what external materials and services buys within parks.
I know it buys bark chips, and I know it buys a lot of other things.
Claudio, can you give us as specifically as possible, maybe a handful of examples?
Keelan McClymont
Sure.
I would say that the single biggest item is utilities.
So specifically, the utilities necessary to run pools, community centers, et cetera.
They are— and water.
We pay water and BES bills as well.
We are, I think, the city's biggest water user, and that shows up as an external material and service.
Of course, as was mentioned, there's a lot— all of our garbage hauling, that is external materials and services.
So I would need to look closer at sort of where there are opportunities to do a $700,000 cut.
But if it's council's direction, we would do it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Is there an ability to take a cut like this on things like— and I hate to call out any service as unimportant because they are All important, but something like bark chips, for example, as a permanent cut would be problematic, as a 1-year cut might be weatherable, whereas garbage hauling as a 1-year cut would not be weatherable.
Using those as kind of standards on either side, do you suspect if you looked at the numbers that there would be a way to take a cut like that in weatherable cuts, or would we be cutting into things like water to fill the pools, electricity in our community centers, and garbage hauling?
Conceptually, yes.
And we did put forward a number of EMS cuts to meet our own cut target.
And the theory was, yes, we will scale what's scalable and we will not eat into what is not discretionary.
I think this is a question of at this amount relative to the denominator, can we keep doing that or does it begin to cut into things like Yeah, I would say that a one-time reduction is definitely much more manageable than an ongoing reduction.
Keelan McClymont
Going further than that in the moment, I wouldn't want to characterize it.
We would just need to go back.
We've spent a lot of effort getting to the reductions that we've gotten to.
We could certainly do more.
We potentially have more on the table depending on where we are.
Thank you.
Things go with the levy.
So it's— but I wouldn't want to characterize it here on the fly.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
City Administrator Jordan, I noticed that there's a significant cut in the city administrator's office, almost $500,000.
Is that a cut from contracts through Portland Solutions, or are there other external materials and services that cut could come from.
And I'd ask— we use the phrase a lot, Washington Monument here.
I'd ask that you not give me the Washington Monument, but realistically, what are these external materials and services within the city administrator's budget?
So thank you for the question.
Keelan McClymont
We currently don't do any maintenance or contracts on the Washington Monument.
So we—.
I have spoken previously about expenses in the City Administrator's Office.
And so I'm on the record saying that the bulk of expenses in the office are in Portland Solutions.
And I can tell you that the bulk of expenses in Portland Solutions is external M&S.
It's in contracts for the operation of shelters, Primarily.
And then there are other things.
But, you know, you have the city, and I might add that the City Attorney's Office is listed specifically, I think, for an EMS cut.
And the City Attorney's Office is the second biggest office in the City Administrator's Office.
Okay.
So if we're including OGR, Government Relations, Equity and Human Rights, the Attorney's Office, and Portland Solutions, those are the bulk of where EMS is.
And I would say proportionately, OGR and OEHR have very small amounts in them of EMS.
So, I'm not looking at the specific figures right in front of me, but that's my assessment.
So to come up with almost half a million dollars, I think we'd have to take at least a look at some of the programs in Portland Solutions.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Colleagues, I'm getting notes that other DCAs may want to speak to this as well.
I also see that there are a lot of other councilors in the queue, so I will put myself back at the end of the queue to give other DCAs an opportunity after other councilors have spoken.
But I, I will just say now, Councilor, I like a lot of what you're buying.
I am really concerned with the extent of some of these cuts.
I am leaning no right now because I don't think I've had enough time to sit with some of these, and I I apologize for not spending more time with it previously.
I will continue to think about it as I hear from other colleagues.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Madam President.
I kind of want to listen to the other DCAs come up.
That said, you know, I made it clear back in May that my lens would be shaped by a few things.
One, going into the weeds of operations at this elevation does start me at a no.
And so I started at a no on this one.
And sure, there are a lot of pieces of this that politically have nudged me to a yes, and these have been fascinating conversations.
So I've had conflicted debates with my own self as I listened to all the conversations over the last half hour.
I don't know who hasn't.
But clearly there will be impacts of these reductions.
And I also said I would not support amendments to the mayor's balanced budget that made cuts to police and fire.
Councilmember Herbold.
And they seem to be included here based on what I've listened to.
And now I heard that about Portland Solutions.
So this is a very well-intentioned amendment, but I will not be supporting it at this time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks.
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
I'm going to just note that there may be some space here.
There is, I think it's $800,000— where is it?
$600,000-Plus that's not allocated.
There's some restrictions on that funding, and I'm trying to understand that a little bit better.
That might be able to sort of soften some of the specific blows.
But I want to take a step back for a second and say 2 things.
One is, as it relates to unintended consequences, it's a concept that comes up, and there is a certain level— I think it's less about— the way I would frame it is less about unintended consequences and a consequence that we know the details of versus one that we have a general idea of.
We know that 2 people in the City Budget Office are gonna get laid off right now if we don't do anything about it.
We know that, that's categorical.
We know that the only person who does racial equity plans for the whole city at OEH&R is gonna get laid off.
One of the 4 people in the ADA team at OEH&R.
Some of that's not in this, some of that is.
But I know that these are things that we have to weigh.
So it can't just be a, General opportunity cost conversation, we should engage with that specific opportunity cost, which is that absent a revenue source, we are not going to find a way to save some of these positions.
And that's very concerning to me.
I think we have seen the value of both the current and a future beefed-up CBO through this process, and I want to make sure that Director Levine has everything and everyone that she needs for that.
That's particularly important to me.
Thank you.
The other thing I wanted to talk about is the contracting piece.
There are dozens of examples I can give in my 3 and a half years working at the Portland Building about work that can and should be done by city employees that is contracted out.
And it is work that I've often described, as Councilor Green put it, that is There is work where contractors are good.
Community-based organizations that do violence prevention, which are exempted from this, by the way.
That's very important.
This doesn't cut OVPs, grantees, or anything like that.
There was a testimony virtually about the violence prevention, community violence intervention money.
None of that's affected by this.
There's work that we can't do ourselves as effectively.
And I think that's a good point.
But then there is work like strategic planning assistance, and there is work like community engagement contracts where people do really well, but they're more expensive than a city employee.
I managed a project where we had the money for 3 years to fund a city— a community engagement staffer.
And we were told over and over and over again that we would get that funding or get that position authority to spend our own money.
And I can know from a different project that I worked on that the community engagement contract cost more than a staffer to do the same amount of work.
There's so many examples I could give about how we squander money, and it's to not have an ongoing labor commitment.
And that is a profoundly anti-labor practice that we do.
And I've— Councilor Sameer Kanal.
I think that this is the beginning of asking the administration to start looking at that differently and bringing these, these particular types of work back into the city, back to AFSCME and Pro-Tech and CPPW, back to all these specific unions that are doing this work.
And in many cases, there are still some FTE that has to then manage the contract.
So we're also wasting the money there.
Councilmember Herbold.
So that's my interest in this, is starting the process of going at the practice of contracting out work that could be done by unionized labor in this workforce, people who can afford to live here and do live here.
Because a lot of this, uh, you know, professional services contracting is to people in Philadelphia or Baltimore or something.
And, um, I'm sure they're great, but I want to make sure that we're working to put our Portland City budget dollars into the city of Portland.
Um, I think we have a little bit of a better idea from Parks what, what this could be used on in terms of materials and services, what's truly used on, maybe in the city administrators.
Um, I'm looking for a way to get to yes on this amendment as well, but noting that there are a couple areas that have just significant cuts, like multiple employees' worth of cuts.
And I know they're not employees, but that level of work.
So I'm going to think out loud a little here in terms of options that might exist.
Okay.
What I don't know right now is if I were to go and look at Parks and Rec, this is noting $692,000 of materials and services, but I'm wondering what the amount of unspent revenue in that bucket was in the current year.
And I could apply that question to all the big hitters here above $600,000.
Okay.
Figures and say about how much do we normally return to know if it has a substantial categorical change in service or if it's one of those we don't want to ever get right up to the edge.
And I'm going to look quickly just to see if there is a feeling of severity in terms of these numbers and what that might look like.
Sure.
That is always a difficult— it's a totally legitimate question.
It's a difficult one because a lot of spending is encumbered in one year and it gets carried over into the next.
And so what you see as underspending in the current year often is not— there are sort of encumbrances against that resource.
But looking at projections for the current fiscal year, I'm looking at—.
Councilor Herbold.
Just in general fund only for parks, we're probably going to underspend by $1 or $2 million.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah.
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
So $1 or $2 million.
And I note that because what it may— what we may end up seeing here is that in the next year we have a slightly lower— well, where I come from, beginning fund balance, but Actually, the way the city does it is we wouldn't see that reflection of savings until the fall, what we used to call the fall bump, the technical adjustment in fall.
It may be a little bit smaller than we're normally used to in our operations, but I'm sensing a workability here, and that's what I'm trying to kind of put my head around.
For Ruth Levine, our budget director, I think that you mentioned The amount of general fund contingency that we had left over last time was in around the $999,000 category?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That's right.
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
Now, loud part here is that if we were to have a bureau, for instance, come and say, hey, Mr. City Administrator, we're at risk of not paying the water bill at one of our, at one of our bureaus, our utility bill, The lights may go off.
That is exactly what contingency is for.
That's the kind of thing that, as the finance chair, I would say, yes, we have a problem.
Some sort— something spiked.
You come on in, and to keep the lights on at a community center, we're going to float you an extra quarter of a million dollars from the general fund contingency.
So if we were to potentially add A set aside from that almost million dollars that we created in excess last month as a fund to tap into.
I think I'm quite— I think I could get comfortable with this amendment because I don't think any of the groups listed here should feel like they have to do the same thing with less.
I think we're saying, please get closer to finalizing out your budgets, but if you run up against something, we have a set aside.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
That you can make the case for materials and services as a, as a fund to tap into.
And I would be curious what colleagues think about that, given that we created nearly $1 million extra in contingency on the 21st.
But thank you for that quick answer.
I appreciate it a lot.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Novick, you haven't spoken to this yet, have you?
Keelan McClymont
I have not.
Thank you, Madam President.
First of all, as to Councilor Zimmerman's last point, some of us have some designs on that million dollars.
So for example, some of us are thinking about using it, which includes some discretionary funding and some overhead, to fund some PBAM positions.
But second, I just think this is— I don't think it behooves us who believe in the value of government to decide, well, we think there must be a bunch of waste, fraud, and abuse here, so let's just vote to cut 2% and they'll find the waste, fraud, and of view somewhere.
Um, I don't— if we—.
If there is, um, contract bloat, excessive consulting, and overreliance on external vendors, uh, or functions that can be fulfilled by city staff, let's identify that specifically.
Let's not just assume that the Parks Bureau has $692,000 of those things without knowing.
Would love to offer some responses when you think that's appropriate.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Why don't, Councilor Green, we have you offer responses?
And while you're offering responses, I'll just note that I put myself back in the queue to give a couple of DCAs an opportunity to come up.
So I think DCA Oliveira wanted to speak, and I wasn't sure if DCA Biery wanted to come back up.
If you all come up, I'll give you an opportunity to respond.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you, Madam President.
Councilor Novick, to respond, if we were given budget documents with the level of specificity for me to identify specific contracts, and I wouldn't mean— I wouldn't go down this road.
I think it is an imperfect road to go down.
That's why the budget note is attached to give more clear guidance to the city administrator on what the priority is.
And I'll just use an anecdote that I remember from asking 189, and I think it was Councilor Herbold, contract struggle from last year.
They had pointed out that the City of Portland found over $1 million to buy a piece of granite from Vermont and have it moved here for the base of a statue.
That is an EMS expenditure, but they didn't have that money for, you know, on the table for their negotiation at the time.
I've heard other anecdotes where we pay management consultants Over $1 million for like a weekend of work for strategy visioning.
Those anecdotes exist.
And while I don't have a spreadsheet of all the specific contracts, I know that they exist.
And so I would very much looking forward to a world where we have that level of resolution.
And so we can be much more prescriptive.
And I'll just say, you know, I do think we need to get a handle on our external contracting consulting.
My vision for this city—.
Thank you.
And insofar as I have a voice as a city councilor in the budget process, I believe in public sector capacity.
I don't believe in outsourcing that to third-party contractors.
It's just fundamentally something I don't— that I don't agree with.
So I think we've got some other DCAs up here who want to kind of talk to it.
So thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you all for coming up.
You wanted to respond to any of the questions that we've asked of some of your colleagues about impacts.
I think we'd be happy to hear those.
And I think in doing so, the question from Councilor Zimmerman also about how much of these you have left at the end of the year, and if perhaps while difficult, it's something that could be absorbable for one year.
Keelan McClymont
All right, thanks, Council President.
I think I'll go first.
Donnie Oliveira for the record.
The one item I wanna flag for council's situational awareness Is the $75,000 in the Office of Economic Development.
That EMS allocation is part of a 2-year project for the Permit Improvement Team to upgrade PP&D's permitting software.
It is a discrete project that is both software and implementation, and once completed, it'll be done.
And I'll just offer for your consideration that while we could probably get through with that, it's a contract Not just again for people, Councilor Green, but for actual systems that we're investing in that we would ideally like to purchase what we agreed to a year and a half ago.
So my recommendation would be for your consideration is to consider that as a project that's close to, you know, completion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Great.
Just for the record again, Jonas Biery, DCA Budget Finance and Chief Financial Officer.
A couple of things I'll flag looking at the reductions.
And maybe I'll just say I appreciate the effort and intent of looking citywide at citywide contract efficiencies.
Certainly something as CFO that's a priority of mine.
The thing that catches my attention is a reduction in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, which will be the new evolution of budget and finance.
As I mentioned at previous budget work sessions, within that service area, we have already reduced our EMS in this to meet the original budget reductions to the bare minimum.
Okay.
So a further reduction to EMS, EM&S, will be a reduction to services in that, within that office.
It'll be a reduction to tax support, specialty tax support that we get from external sources, software support, specialty and surge support, background checks, translation services, employee trainings to make sure that we're maintaining our financial expertise, et cetera.
So I just wanna be explicit that there will be—.
Thank you.
Reductions directly resulting from that, at least in that service area.
I can't speak for others.
The other thing I'll mention and then maybe hand to DCA Morrissey is we also know we have upcoming enterprise efficiency work that we need to work on, and that may benefit from having some of those resources available to help facilitate that work and get to some long-term efficiency.
Some of those efficiencies identified that are likely to be identified will be to EM&S.
And so we'll actually need to— this, I think, takes us a little bit of a step backwards in implementing that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And Sarah, I don't know if you want to add more.
Yeah, thanks so much.
For the record, Sarah Morrissey, DCA for City Operations.
I wanted to flag 2 items.
One, we are unable to take a reduction for the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability, so that will need to be redistributed to another fund balance.
Due to the settlement with the DOJ.
And then the second is in the Office of City Operations.
We have the independent police review, we have the DCA office, we have almost no EM&S, and we also have 311.
And procurement— procurements EM&S is primarily co-op, and so we will not be— basic— that's basically committed to Prosper via an IGA for the implementation of that program.
So the full impact would likely sit with 311, and that would likely have a staffing impact as well.
So wanted to share that with the council.
Thank you all.
Councilor Clark.
Thank you.
Sure.
Thank you, Madam President.
I'm desperately searching for my magic wand.
I don't know where it is, but we really need one right now.
Because there's so much in this that I want, um, not just my own, um, amendment, uh, and, and Councilor Green's and Councilor Dunphy's.
I, I really want what's in your amendment terribly, but I'm afraid of unintended consequences here with this sort of haircut approach.
And I thought that we had talked earlier about not doing haircuts per se, but I also want to make a comment about the contract piece, because I totally agree with you.
And I, I think that we could bring that up, uh, in the Governance Committee and have a really good discussion about our, our philosophy around contracting.
Um, other pieces may not be so easily adapted to a resolution or, or a policy here, but I guess I'm, I'm just— I'm wrestling out loud, um, with the tension I feel over this because I really want these things, but I just think there are going to be unintended consequences that we're just— with this sort of haircut approach.
And actually, I think it was maybe— oops, sorry— uh, Councilor Ryan that mentioned the public safety side.
I, I just— I can't abide by that.
Thank you.
Councilor Morillo.
Thank you, Madam President.
So I guess I just have a few questions.
And to be clear, under Green 10, this isn't a blind cut, right?
We would pass Green 10 and then get the updates on these cuts every 6 weeks to understand the implications of every cut.
And we're gonna be working with the agencies to make the most sense about which areas it needs to be taken out of when discussing like excess outsourcing.
I guess that's not— that was a rhetorical question, really.
I'm just saying that that's what I'm seeing here.
But also, no bureau is required to cut a particular part of the contract.
What DCA Oliveira cited as a particular contract that is $75K, he's not obligated to cut those specific contracts.
That's not specified in the amendment or the no.
Quite the opposite.
So what we're talking about is 2% of EMS, which could be any contract of choosing.
So I think that it's very reasonable to find 2% in our own budgets.
And if there are impacts that we don't like with certain contracts, then we should find them elsewhere.
But these are really critical services that we're trying to support that are going to help a lot of people during a budget crunch.
So, So frankly, I really appreciate Councilor Green finding creative ways to give us more flexibility with this budget, because I feel like you're the only person that's actually tried at all to do that.
And maybe you're taking a lot of public beatings for doing so, but I appreciate it.
Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Madam President.
Others of us have tried too, Councilor Murillo.
We just didn't get our That's right.
So I'm going to add a finer point to this.
It is so very interesting that as this was presented, we watched DCA, CFO, um, you know, the CBO office identify, um, what could be Yes.
A problem.
And from day one, I have said that we don't line item stuff.
And when you hide stuff in external materials and services and internal materials and services and don't line item what your stuff is, and, and if they're FTEs in those materials— and so I have a big problem with that to begin with.
Yes.
Stop putting your stuff in the external materials.
If you're paying for FTEs, let me see that line item.
And then you come up and you say, oh, but that pays for this person or that person.
Stop.
It is meant—.
Some of this stuff, yes, we can't just take a haircut.
I agree with you, Councilor Clark.
But if we do and have a, a, a general way where we can know exactly what's in it, every time I talk about asking for money out of, um, the administrator's budget in, in, um, in the EMS or IMS, oh, that's for Portland Solutions.
Well, if you would put Portland Solutions exactly out there on how much we're paying for how many FTEs, Yes.
Then we would know what we could take and we couldn't take.
So that part is a, is an issue.
And I appreciate everybody coming up and vouching for their programs and saying this is what we can't take.
And I, I agree with Councilor Murillo, they're going to be in contact if this passes and not going to try to take those things out that we cannot absolutely take out.
Thank you.
But note to self, it would be more helpful to us if we had better line items of what's in each of these things.
If you're going to say material services, what is it?
What is it?
And, and you all don't say it because you don't want us to know.
Or maybe it was the practice that you didn't do it in the past, so you're not doing it in the future.
But for me and others who are used to seeing line items, Yes.
We wouldn't have this issue right now of saying 2%.
So we're giving you an opportunity to say where the 2% is from.
And the fact that it gives direction to the city administrator to do that, because he knows what's in all of this, it didn't take any of his power away, not one bit, because he understands what is— what can be done and what can't be done.
Thank you.
And I just want to say thank you for bringing this up because it's, it's needed, and we got to do better for this next cycle, and we will.
Right on.
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
So, um, thank you.
I, I, I have a question for both Councilor Ryan and Councilor Clark, um, which is if hypothetically, because you both mentioned one of the concerns was public safety, if hypothetically public safety was exempted, would that affect your support for this?
And I have a response, I have a comment after I have questions, I get a response if they would be willing.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilors, if either of you would like to respond, go right ahead.
Well, that's a tough one.
I think it's the public safety piece that probably pushed me over the edge.
But I do— I am concerned about the unintended consequences, and I do think that some of these things can be taken up as policies in our, um, committees.
Um, I think, you know, we're all wrestling with limited resources and scrambling for anything we can get.
And I appreciate what Councilor Smith said, uh, about finding out really what the truth is, the bottom line on these, these things.
But I'm not sure it would change my vote.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor I made other comments as well, and it wouldn't change my vote.
It's, it's not the right practice.
I had experiences as a commissioner in charge where if we didn't have outside opinions, it would have been not good for Portlanders.
So there needs to be some money in the budget for this.
And what I've listened to from all of the collective administrators today made it more clear to me Sure.
Thank you for clarifying that.
So I think what I'm struggling with is I agree with Councilor Ryan that there needs to be money in the budget for this.
And you see these $314,000 of general fund discretionary coming from parks, plus an additional $377,235 of other revenue, which is some— that money's going back into parks for the other programs.
But these are You know, large sums of money.
And then you stop and think for a second that that 3— just the first one of those, the $314,000, is part of $15 million of EMS.
That's just the discretionary EMS, right?
There's an additional, I don't know, $17 million-ish in parks for that, that is EMS that's funded through a different type of revenue.
So I think I think that's something where I struggle with the idea that they wouldn't— $15 million, when you frame it that way, to find $314,000 out of— I mean, I think there's— I want there to be bark chips.
I want to say that emphatically.
Bark chips are important.
They actually do matter.
I think there's money for bark chips in here.
And so that's That's what I'm struggling with.
Having said that, I'm gonna float something.
And I just note that if you look at the top of the— before it gets into the enumerated parts of it, again, this is Green 9, and I hope that we get a chance to talk about Green 10 because I support it and I think it helps ensure that Green 9 makes sense the best possible way once passed.
It raises a few issues.
You know, these 3 types of revenue that total $2.567 million.
Yeah.
And it spends $1.88 million, $1.881 million.
So there's $686,553 left over.
And so the thing I'm gonna float is exempting the $287,661 from police, exempting the $183,100 from fire, Exempting the $5,000 from the Community Board for Police Accountability, exempting the $31,371 for the Office of Public Safety DCA, exempting $13,044 from PBEM.
There are no cuts to BOEC here that I saw.
So that's the entirety of the public safety space.
And that adds up to $520,176, which leaves $166,377 that I think we should probably use to soften the blow to parks because parks has taken the biggest hit here.
And so that would be the thing that I would float instead of making this a budget, a non-neutral amendment that raises revenue we could use somewhere else.
It would keep it as budget neutral, but it would soften the blow on the bureau taking the biggest hit, which is parks, and it would exempt public safety.
And I would— that's an important value for me, and I wanted to just float it.
I'm not proposing it at this moment.
Thank you.
But see where, what folks think about it.
Can you say it again slowly and carefully for my slow little brain?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And cue Haley.
Exemption to police, fire, the Office for Community-Based Police Accountability, the DCA Office for Public Safety, and PBEM.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, so this was non-neutral.
It was $683,000.
I'm sorry, $686,553 up.
I would remove the 3rd line, $287,861 reduction to police.
So this would not reduce that.
$183,100 In the 4th line for Portland Fire and Rescue.
10Th line, reduce bureau program expense in the Office of Public Safety general fund by $31,371.
You go down, uh, to the bottom line on the page, $13,044 for PBEM.
You can go to the first line on the next page, CBPA for $5,000, which by the way is a charter requirement, um, not, not the, uh, DOJ.
And that That adds up to $520,176.
$520,176.
That leaves an additional $166,377, which I would reduce the second line, that's $692,000 to parks, by the $166,377, which would actually— sorry.
$692,377.
Got the number off here.
$692 Minus $166,377.
Doing math live in a Windows calculator.
$525,623 Would be the reduction, not $692.
And that would make this budget neutral.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Green, would you like to respond or should we move on in the queue to Councilor Avalos first?
Keelan McClymont
I am intrigued.
By your suggestions, I would like to hear from Councilor Avalos.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Avalos, you are next in the queue.
Okay, um, well, I'll start by responding to this proposal, I guess.
Did you in this proposal decide how the things would get reallocated?
Maybe I missed that.
It was a lot of numbers and Like, are you going to be suggesting that— because that's revenue essentially that you're cutting, and therefore we're—.
Keelan McClymont
Because all of these dollars are allocated.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So how are we going to do that?
Keelan McClymont
There were, there were dollars that were not allocated.
Oh, and this is, this is, uh, it was unbalanced in a good way.
Uh, it would end— have ended us up with $686,000.
So I'm putting it back into the bureaus if in this suggestion, which again is not a formal motion at this Councilor Smith.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, I agree with the larger sentiment that it's really frustrating to try to make any of these decisions when we operate with such limited information, when we're not getting line-by-line items when every— everybody does the whole, you know, national monument thing or whatever.
And, um, that just puts me in such a hard spot because I obviously want a lot of the things that are in the package, um, I— that our community I think needs.
And I am concerned about, you know, where those cuts are going to And, you know, we could definitely debate, you know, the reasonableness of what the bureau heads or whatever are proposing, but at the end of the day, once we make this decision, some— it feels like a lot of it will be out of our control, and I'm scared about those repercussions.
So I'm really grappling with all of this, um, and I'm gonna keep listening to see how I feel, but just— Councilor Loretta Smith.
Yeah, it's just a really conflicting feeling to get information right from your bureaus and your DCAs because ideally they're giving you the best information they can, but it doesn't— I just don't always trust it, and I don't know how to feel about that, honestly.
Um, and I, I can't make my own decisions because I don't have all of it in front of me, so it just feels like a really— I'm put in this really hard spot, and I don't want to have the negative repercussions of certain contracts getting cut or FTE getting cut.
And then it just feels like I don't know what's going to happen.
And I don't know how to grapple with that right now.
Honestly, I'm really conflicted.
So—.
Keelan McClymont
So I'm just going to answer the first question there about if any FTE are going to get cut.
This is all EM&S, so no FTE would get cut.
This would instead restore 3 positions that would get cut, 1 Park Service dispatcher, 2 analyst positions at the City Budget Office, and then additionally some hours that I don't know if it adds up to an FTE for those community center hours.
Just clarifying.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Well, but I don't know that that's entirely true because the thing is, like, and this is the thing I've largely had an issue with as it relates to contracts, like some contracts aren't just for external things, right?
Keelan McClymont
We might have contracts that pay for us to bring in staff.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And so what if there's a contract that is going to affect us or You're making a face.
What's the face for?
I'm not familiar with that.
I'm just thinking about— I'm thinking about when I was an executive director, okay?
And I have a budget, and I'm getting money from all these kinds of sources.
I'm getting it from grants, I'm getting it from individual donors.
All of those things, they're messy, right?
Like, one grant that I'm getting, it could fund some of my staff, it could fund an external contract, it funds all these things, and I don't know this, how the bureaus work with that.
I don't have that information.
So I don't like feeling like I don't know the real impact because these things are all really intertwined.
And, um, if we're going to leave the decision, I mean, I appreciate having, you know, Green 10 that like gives some more direction about how to make those cuts.
Um, I'm also, you know, and I have a bunch of budget, uh, notes that I'm like, you know, I'm putting these suggestions.
Keelan McClymont
I also, to be Quite honest, I don't know if that's actually going to happen.
I don't know if, like, how to keep, keep them accountable to that either.
Um, so I don't feel that the notes are like a solid thing for me.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Um, but I think I'm just frustrated because I don't really know the impact.
And I, I know how dollars are just, again, they're so woven together.
And so I don't think that it exactly means that just because it's EMS and that's technically not FTE I don't believe that that exactly means that FTE won't be lost, but I can't answer that question because I don't have the information, and I'm frustrated about that.
So.
Thank you, Councilor.
People keep jumping in the queue.
I want to remind us that while there's a lot we can debate, we are moving toward a vote here.
So I don't want to stop people from saying things they need to, to express I think that's fine.
It's not intended to be used to try to explain how and why they're going to vote the way they are or to try to influence your colleagues.
But I do want to make sure that we don't have folks just jumping in if we don't need to use that time and space.
I also am seeing that our interim fire chief is online with a comment, and in the same way that we gave some space to the DC Fire Department, I'm wondering, um, DCA Causie, if you mind if we hear from AJ Jackson.
Chief Jackson, uh, Director Causie is— or DCA Causie is coming up.
Keelan McClymont
I'm up here.
So, um, again, for the record, um, DCA Causie My phone was blowing up through the conversation, and Chief Jackson had messaged me and said that she does have some specific examples of, of the impact to Portland Fire.
And I mentioned to her that if we have the opportunity, that I could come back up.
So, Chief Jackson.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Hi, thank you for allowing me to sign in for the record.
My name is AJ Jackson.
I'm the interim fire chief for Portland Fire and Rescue.
And just to provide a little bit of context, I know there's a lot of questions and there's kind of fears about what's embedded in the external materials and services.
And I just want to speak for fire, and I don't want to speak for anyone else, but the majority of our EMS is really going to support our station operations, apparatus maintenance, and suppression support.
So that's simple repairs, that's fire hose, self-contained breathing apparatus, Yeah.
Um, it is a big chunk of our budget overall that goes to supporting our efforts.
And just to kind of give a little bit of perspective, as it is, like right now we are projected to go over our budget.
Um, and right now it's about at $10 million is the projected ending, which is 5% of our budget.
Um, and I guess for me and for who might be, you know, stepping in behind, behind me as the new fire chief coming in, I just want that person to have a full arsenal, right, and to not be caught kind of already on the defensive on how to support our operations and ensure that we can maintain the services we provide to the community.
So if there are further questions or line item concerns, we are more than happy to provide that information to you all so you can have a more informed decision, at least from the fire perspective.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chief.
Thank you, DCA Kazi.
Um, we have a couple of additional people in the queue.
I'll note that our colleague Councilor Koyama Lane is going to try to jump back online with us but had to, um, had to leave the meeting.
Councilor Zimmerman, did you have anything additional to add?
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
I just wanted to comment on the ideas that were put forward by Councilor Councilor Sameer Kanal.
In terms of exempting those that you listed, I appreciated that.
That helps me get much closer.
The one area that I would actually say I'd rather, because it's a smaller amount and we are in this constant negotiation with the county on our Portland Solutions stuff and our joint office stuff, I would say that extra $160,000 you noted for parks, maybe that could go back into the administration, the city administration, where I think that would probably benefit Portland Solutions in a sheltering manner.
But I— there's a couple of eaches out here.
I generally am comfortable with the EMS aspect.
The areas I wouldn't— I wouldn't want a cut applied Based on this action, if we miscalculated in this amendment, the 2%— so if we said we think there's 2% represents this number, and actually that bureau doesn't have that in EMS, the way the budget document would signal that is that they'd have to make that cut in some other way because they've got to balance.
So I want to make sure that that's avoidable, that we aren't adding or sending a signal of make this cut regardless.
I think it needs to to make sure that we are signaling only make this cut in EMS if that's happening.
But I feel like there are some conversations and some work here, and I just appreciated Councilor Kanal's adjustment because saving the public safety pieces here, the apparatus that the chief just spoke about, I know the work it takes to get a fire truck serviced, and that's important.
These are investments.
You do not want things to go down years without the right maintenance.
It gets a lot more expensive.
So I'm generally getting there, and I think we can move a few things around maybe to pass this at a different time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Morillo.
Thank you.
I'm getting a little frustrated by the fact that it seems like no one seems to comprehend what a budget note is.
A budget note is legally equivalent to a resolution, which means that it is giving direction to our agencies.
As the legislative body with the power of the purse, we can give direction to our agencies about how they're going to spend these dollars.
So when it says that they are required to check in with us every 6 weeks and give us updates, that does not mean that this is going to go, you know, randomly through bureaus without any oversight from us.
We are Quite literally the oversight body.
So I feel like this is as clear as it can be as far as engagement timeline.
Do people want it more than every 6 weeks?
What is it going to take to make people happy?
Because I, I'm just failing to see how EMS would involve cuts to FTE.
By definition, these are 2 separate and different parts of the budget that do not overlap.
Councilor Am I misunderstanding something?
Okay, Zimmerman, answer it then.
Councilor Zimmerman, did you want to say something to that before we move to Councilor Kanal?
Keelan McClymont
I, I totally agree.
I think there's one question that remains, which is if in this amendment, because it has specific dollar amount reductions that are cited If we apply it in this amendment to a bureau and they don't actually have that in their EMS, that could have a different effect because they still have to balance it.
I think it is such a minuscule percentage point, it's not really worth wrapping the axle, but it could cause pause because you're right, EMS is not people.
Right.
And given the fact that the way that we lump things together in this city's operations of budget is making this more difficult, to Councilor Smith's point.
I think if we can clarify one or two things there, your point is made.
I just, I need to jump in here.
I've been trying to respect the stack, but the numbers that are enumerated there did come from the CBO, and those were from EMS budgets.
Now, whether or not there's a preference to cut those budgets, That's a different question.
But those are EMS categories in their budgets.
I would be open to amendments or friendly approaches that could get us closer.
But really, Green 10, the budget note, is providing the vision for this.
And we are, you know, to Councilor Smith's points, ditto.
And I think that that is, you know, next time we got to have more resolution.
So.
Thank you.
Thanks for letting me jump in here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, I've had a little time to think about it and hear feedback.
I think regardless of whether or not this is the thing that makes it pass or not, this aligns with how I'm viewing the situation.
So I will make the request for a friendly amendment to Councilor Green that I floated earlier.
I am very open to saying up to that last dollar amount for that last category in case there's a rounding or a small amount as opposed to the hard and fast number of $166,377.
And if it's the gap between living and dying on this to get what we need, I'm happy to put it elsewhere, but I'd ask if we could go 50/50 on it, uh, for Parks and the City Administrator.
Councilor Zimmerman, if that's, uh, if that's okay with you.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
I— we, we're under the gun right now from the county's perspective in terms of whether or not they're going to live up to the IGA.
And frankly, I would like tomorrow to bring a note that is stern about our position on that.
And I want to be careful that we don't add to the messiness in our own, because last week hearing that they had a 40% reduction in their— potentially a 40% reduction in their sheltering, I don't want to then further contribute to it because I think that agreement right now is hanging on by like a thread of a thread.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
So that's my concern a little bit.
I'm realizing that you just put $2.1 million into parks maintenance.
So I'm happy to float it the way I said it earlier, but putting $166,377 into the city administrator's office instead of parks at the end there.
And I'd ask if Councilor Green would be comfortable considering that amendment friendly.
I am comfortable with that.
And I was the seconder.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
You were the seconder, so I assume that you are also okay with it.
So councilors, the proposal before us is now Green 9 with a number of items taken out of the reductions, generally those related to public safety, and an increase bullet added, which would send the remainder of the dollars, because this did raise more than it spent, Spent to, or actually I guess it would decrease the reduction.
It would decrease the reduction to the City Administrator's Office General Fund Discretionary with the remainder of the dollars specifically in order to keep Portland Solutions as whole as possible.
Is that a fair summary of what you're doing here, councilors?
Yes.
Okay, Councilor Avalos.
Did you remove yourself from the queue?
Okay, Councilor Kanal, are you back in the queue?
Okay, Councilor's seen no one else in the queue.
I am assuming, Councilor Green, that that's a legacy hand there.
Legacy hand, so sorry.
Fantastic.
Uh, can, can we repeat the amendment?
Yeah.
So, Keelan, I'm going to have you call the roll, but before then, um, can you, Haley, please tell us the changes to Green 9.
We are not voting on an amendment to Green 9, we're voting on Green 9.
This was a friendly amendment that was accepted to it, so it's Green 9, different from what is on the page because we have removed some reductions and reduced a reduction.
And Haley, can you share with us what those changes are?
We need the amounts shared back to us.
Uh, Councilor Kanal, can you send it to Teams?
Yep.
Yeah.
Great.
Thank you.
Okay.
Or I can— you can vocalize them here and I can record them.
Keelan McClymont
Sure.
So in the first line, and this is page 20 of the document, it's the first of the points under green 9, reduce program— bureau program expense in the City Administrator's Office general fund by $323,930.
So that's a reduction.
Reduction in the amount reduced.
The 3rd line would be struck that says bureau program expense, reduce bureau program expense in the Portland Police Bureau general fund by $287,861.
That would be struck, so it would not be reduced.
The 4th line would also be struck, reduce bureau program expense in the Portland Fire and Rescue general fund by $183,100.
If you go down to the, uh, it's in the middle of the page, reduce bureau program expense in the Office of Public Safety general fund by $31,000.
I'm sorry, That would also be struck.
It's the—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
10Th.
10Th.
Keelan McClymont
The last one on that page, reduce bureau program expense in the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management general fund by $13,044, would be struck.
The next one after that, first on the next page, reduce bureau program expense in the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability general fund by $5,000, would also be struck.
So that is 6 lines that are Sorry, 5 lines that are struck, and the very first one, the dollar amount changed from $490,307 to $323,930.
Councilors, did everybody catch that?
Okay, Keelan, could you please call the roll on the amended version of Thank you to Councilor Green for your consistent effort in trying to figure out how to make these things happen and save, uh, represented city public workers.
I vote aye.
As politically seductive as this one is, I still have to remain on my principles.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I vote no.
Let me see if she's Yeah, we can hear you.
We can.
I very much appreciate the discussion and the effort.
Um, I literally just said right before this, as much as possible, I think it's important that we try to stay at the governance level.
There are problems that we need to address.
I want to address them.
I'm not convinced that this is the right approach at this time.
This time I vote no.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
The day I start governing by anecdote and assuming there must be a bunch of waste in government, so I'm going to vote to make random cuts and hope somebody else will find the waste, is the day I join the Republican Party.
Hell no.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Well, um, I think I'm I'm being seduced.
Um, I, I want the CEI hub staffing very, very badly.
I want the Portland Center Stage.
I want all the things that are in Councilor Dunphy's amendment.
Um, perhaps against my better judgment, I'm voting yes.
Green.
Keelan McClymont
Yes.
I am, I am always glad that Councilor Green is on the Finance Committee with me.
I appreciate the way you look at this.
I think that's why we get along on a lot of stuff.
Budgets are fast.
You gotta keep up or you will get lost in the dust.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I vote yes.
I don't believe the rules allow that.
I apologize, Councilor.
You can always change your vote at the end if you need to.
Um, I'm going to vote no right now, and then I might change it.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Aye.
Smith?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Pirtle-Guiney?
I heard things from our DCAs that don't line up with the numbers on the page.
I think there likely is room for cuts like this, but I can't do it in this hatchet of a— of an attempt.
No.
6.
7-5, I believe.
Sorry, I'm looking for the official count from our clerk though.
Yeah, my, uh, vote tally tracker just crashed.
Um, I believe it was 7 yes to 5 nay.
No, but I'll verify.
That's what I wrote down as well.
Colleagues, we were scheduled to stop at 6 o'clock tonight because we also have time tomorrow.
Um, so I am going to pause us here.
Um, we did 2 things in 2 hours.
We have a lot to do tomorrow.
I am going to I encourage us all to say what we need to say to try to convince our colleagues to change their minds, to reach better policy, and to explain our votes before we vote, but to try to not say more than that tomorrow so we can get through this all.
We will reconvene at 9:30 tomorrow morning, and we are scheduled between 9:30 and 6:00 tomorrow, and that is the time we have.
Thank you.
For our budget work.
Haley, do you have something before I recess our meeting?
One request would be for councilors whose amendments were encompassed in Green 9 to send me a quick Teams message that formally withdraws your amendment if it was encompassed and you're happy with that, so we can officially remove those from the to-do list for tomorrow.
Thank you.
And with that, I will recess our meeting to tomorrow At 9:30.