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.
Jamie Dunphy
Good morning.
Now calling to order.
This meeting of the Portland City Council.
Rebecca, can we please call the roll?
Good morning.
Kanal?
Here.
Pirtle-Guiney?
Here.
Ryan?
Here.
Koyama Lane?
Here.
Nowak?
Here.
Clark?
Here.
Here.
Zimmerman.
Here.
Avalos.
Present.
Smith.
Here.
Dunphy.
Here.
And colleagues, Councilor Koyama Lane let me know this morning she had an event that was scheduled well in advance, and she'll be joining us in about an hour.
Um, Robert Taylor, City Attorney, can we please read the rules of decorum?
Thank you.
Welcome to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must 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.
The 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.
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 unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So colleagues, today we will be convening to hear the city and Prosper Portland's budget messages and to We do this by gaveling in as the budget committees for the city and for Prosper Portland.
While met as these budget committees, we are not meeting as the City Council.
So in contrast to this body's prior practice, we are packaging these budget committee meetings as part of a regular council agenda.
So we will open a council meeting, confirm our agenda for the week, and then we'll take up items, the reports related to each budget message.
Councilor Once we've taken up each report as council, we'll do the switcheroo into whatever budget committee we need to be seated as.
So if you have any questions, feel free to ask each time as we go.
So item 1 is agenda approval.
Colleagues, are there any requests to amend the agenda for the week, reorder items, or reschedule an item to a future date?
Looking around, pausing dramatically, there is Seeing no objections, hearing none, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?
The agenda is approved.
Rebecca, can we please call item number 2?
Item 2, Mayor's Proposed Budget Report to City Budget Committee, document number 2026-141.
Colleagues, today is part of the fiscal year 2026-2027 budget process as prescribed by Oregon state law.
As the City of Portland's Budget Committee, Council will receive the mayor's proposed budget for the 20— the fiscal year 26-27 and take public testimony.
With unanimous consent, I will now recess this meeting of the Portland City Council until no later than 1:30 PM today and reconvene this meeting of the City of Portland Budget Committee.
Checking for consent.
Rebecca, will you please call the role of the budget committee.
Kanal.
Here.
Pirtle-Guiney.
Here.
Ryan.
Here.
Koyamalane.
Murillo.
Here.
Novick.
Here.
Clark.
Here.
Green.
Here.
Zimmerman.
Here.
Avalos.
Present.
Smith.
Here.
Dunphy.
Here.
Colleagues, in this first convening of the Budget Committee, the mayor will deliver his proposed budget and budget message.
These documents have been delivered to you as part of the meeting's materials, and the full document is available online at the city budget website.
Before turning it over to, I believe, CFO Biery, and yep, uh, before turning it over to the mayor, the CFO Biery will provide us with a brief overview of how the budget was balanced.
We'll then hear from the mayor and move to technical clarifying questions.
And I want to prioritize getting to public testimony today.
So with that, I will turn it over to CFO Biery and the mayor.
Great.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Council.
Good morning.
For the record, Jonas Biery, the city's chief financial officer.
Our main objectives today are to hear the mayor's fiscal '26-'27 budget message and to receive public testimony.
But first, I'd like to offer some basic information on the budget process and some key budget information.
I'll start with a word of thanks.
Production of the mayor's proposed budget is a huge moment in the annual budget process.
And while we appreciate that achievement itself, this is not exactly a moment for celebration.
In my 25 years working in the public sector, production of this proposed budget has been the most difficult task I've ever experienced.
We're in the midst of a shifting organizational culture to align with expectations of charter reform.
We're undertaking a massive citywide realignment effort.
We're trying to fundamentally improve budget processes and communications, excuse me, and doing all this in real time in an environment of severely constrained resources and extremely high anxiety.
I wanna extend a huge kudos and thank you to City Budget Director Ruth Levine, to the entire CBO team, many of whom who have spent evenings, weekends, long nights preparing the budget, and the hundreds of individuals citywide who play a part in getting this document to this point.
Thank you.
I'm amazed and inspired by the steadfast dedication of city employees to show up, to dig in, to have hard conversations gracefully, and to do the hard work to move things forward every single day.
I want to thank all the Portlanders who have taken time to share thoughts and perspectives and really good questions at community meetings, online, and at public meetings like today, and directly with city leaders.
And I want to thank you, councilors, for your patience and understanding and for your respectful and productive input during this process.
We have a lot of work remaining to get over the next Through the next 8 weeks and get over the finish line and look forward to supporting you as best I can.
High-level summary of what's in the budget, very, very high level.
Total proposed fiscal '26-'27 budget is $8.5 billion, a total reduction of just under a percent, about half a percent, as compared to '25-'26 adopted budget.
I want to note that that $8.5 billion number includes all dollars citywide, including restricted and unrestricted funds.
Thank you.
Operating and capital budgets, inter-fund transfers, debt service payments, and fund balances.
The total general fund discretionary, which reflects the city's most flexible pot of dollars and where most of the current year gap lives, is proposed at $743 million compared to $804 million in the adopted '25-'26 budget, a decrease of approximately 8%.
The general fund is the primary source of revenues to pay for police and fire, a large portion of the city's park system, sheltering and homeless services, and many of the basic support services that keep the city functioning.
In this fiscal year, as compared to the expense requirements to maintain current service levels, the general fund was facing a gap of just over $160 million.
The mayor's proposed budget fills that gap through a combination of use of contingency and reserve draws, increases in certain fees, and reductions to current service levels.
And while that gets us to a place of mathematical balance in conformance with state budget law, this is a sobering reminder of the financial crisis that we're facing.
Thank you, Mayor.
This year's budget, along with the work underway to develop a 5-year financial stabilization plan, is an opportunity to stop the cycle of annual budget crises and to streamline so we are poised to catch the headwinds that can turn toward economic recovery.
Lastly, some other information and, and just a reminder of next steps.
The entire mayor's proposed budget, including summary information and all of the required line item details, is posted online.
At portland.gov/budget.
I will note that there was a software glitch that we were not aware of until late last night, and so we're working on updating some of those documents to reflect some information that was essentially eliminated from the PDF document.
There is an online version, OpenBook, I believe, is the platform that is up and accurate, and we're working to upload that.
So I just want to note for anyone in the public that that accurate information is up and publicly available, and we're working to get the PDF updated.
Thank you.
We've also worked to prepare additional supporting materials, including a package of highlights and key budget adjustments that distills some of the key information into more digestible one-pagers, sometimes two-pagers.
We've also— we have continuing efforts underway to supplement those supporting documents, prepare some additional supporting documents.
And so we'll hope to post that information throughout this week and into next week as time allows to do that production.
Thank you.
After today's public testimony, the next step in the budget process will be a series of work sessions over the next 3 weeks to dive deeper into specific bureau budgets and to daylight council questions and potential amendment concepts.
Council will then approve the budget as potentially amended the week of May 18th.
We'll participate in the required TS CC hearing on June 9th, and then we'll pass an adopted budget in mid-June to ensure city operations continue on July 1st.
Thank you.
Myself, CBO, city leadership will remain available to support the conversations today and over the next many weeks.
And I'll now hand to Mayor Wilson to deliver his budget message.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jonas, and thank you to Ruth as well for your hard work and your steadfast support over this last several weeks.
Good morning.
My name is Keith Wilson, Mayor of City of Portland.
Council colleagues, President, Vice President, thank you for this opportunity to present the proposed budget.
Over the years, I've often bicycled past the statue of Mayor Vera Katz on the East Bank Esplanade.
Sometimes she sits and smiles in the sunshine.
Other times she glints in the drizzling rain.
Her statue changes, reflecting the moment and the mood of our community.
And depending on the day, you might find her wearing a stickered helmet, chalk messages, flowers, a dusting of snow, a knit cap.
Thank you.
Throughout the changing years, weather, and accessories, her statue has always represented a promise, and that promise is that we can make Portland a vibrant, safe, and prosperous city while nourishing a soul of art, culture, innovation, and belonging.
Promises are often broken or forgotten in tough fiscal environments.
We're facing, as Jonas had noted, a $160 million shortfall in our general fund, and we're facing a difficult budget year.
A fiscal gap that reflects previous missteps with one-time funding, a stagnating population, a challenging relationship with federal partners, the perception of an unfriendly business climate, livability issues, and a reset in commercial property values.
While we share many of these struggles with sister cities across the nation, the policy solutions and the grit to pull ourselves into a prosperous next chapter must be ours and ours alone.
Thank you, Mayor.
The stakes are high.
We cannot afford to return to an era where we found death in tents, under tarps, beneath dumpsters, and beneath bridges.
We cannot afford to return to an era where businesses failed and families left.
Current tax revenues reflect where we were as a city, not where we are, and certainly not where we were and not where we are going.
Sustaining progress and success will require us to implement Hard, important reforms necessary to return to fiscal growth and sustainability.
The 4 cornerstones of my proposed budget are shared vision, shared priorities, shared necessity, and ultimately shared sacrifices.
We must meet the moment with innovation, grit, patience, and compassion.
We must reaffirm and sustain our successes in public safety, compassion for our most vulnerable, Environmental stewardship and economic viability.
And that's why my proposed budget keeps every fire station open.
It funds every park and community center, and it keeps every Portland police officer and investigator on the job.
Colleagues, you have a challenge ahead of you.
You will grapple with the reality that fiscal year '26-'27 marks a moment when Portland's balanced budget must stretch farther.
It must carry more weight and bridge a deeper chasm than we have previously demanded of city I've done my utmost to set you up for success and to blunt the impact of our most painful cuts.
With the help of staff, I've sought every efficiency, prioritized workers and programs, reviewed all accounts.
I've tapped reserve funds where possible.
Despite this work, you will still be forced to make far more difficult decisions than our city government has faced in many years.
Thank you, Mayor Wilson.
As we go through the budget process, elected leadership, city staff, and the public may feel moments of discouragement, frustration, and loss, and I share those feelings.
But I also ask that you join me in turning those feelings into action, into optimism, solidarity, and ultimately collaboration.
I must also share a word of caution.
We cannot put the brakes on our recovery, and we cannot delay our renaissance.
When— When operating in a time of constraints, we must be cautious not to prioritize individual programs over the whole or to refuse to compromise on cuts that must ultimately be spread across the entire enterprise.
In rising to this challenge, I believe we can together emerge more unified, more focused, and more resilient.
The strongest cities are forged not by limitless abundance, but by the decisive moments when facing the deepest challenges and threats.
And we cannot face these challenges without one another.
We must face them with the determination and shared values that define our community.
And we must face them with the determination and shared values that define our community.
We can remain focused and committed to the promise that every Portlander deserves a clean, green, safe, affordable, and economically activated city that reflects our values and our priorities regardless of the fiscal headwinds that our city faces.
In Portland, we are doing the hard and important work in our budget, our streets, our parks, and every corner of our city.
We've restored livability and public safety to our downtown and made strides across the entire city.
We're ready for the next generation of investment and innovation, businesses and good careers to come to Portland.
Mayor Katz would say, when we don't address the problems in front of us, it sends a message of helplessness.
My first year in office has proven we're not helpless and that we can take charge as a city.
Here's the statement of values you will find in my budget.
I believe in public health and safety, quality services delivered on task, on time, and on budget, and environmental sustainability.
I believe in taking action even when resources are scarce.
I believe Portland is in a state of resurgence and renewal and that our renaissance has already begun.
With that said, I'd like to highlight critical points in the budget per our budget requirements.
The City of Portland has stepped up to respond to the humanitarian crisis and most urgent challenges on our street.
We will no longer exchange funds with Multnomah County for homeless services and instead focus on providing outreach and core shelter services to our most vulnerable neighbors, as well as public space activation and maintenance.
Although Portland Solutions provides important programmatic services, reliance on one-time funding has required us to realign some funding sources.
Thank you.
And reduce some services.
Despite realigning funds previously traded with Multnomah County to our shelter program, city shelter services will see a net reduction of 31% to $39.9 million.
As part of a broader city general funds cut, city outreach will be reduced by 37% to $2.8 million.
Impact reduction programming, which totals $15 million, is proposed To cut its reliance on general fund by 10%.
The Public Environment Management Office will use 68% fewer general fund dollars by realigning previously appropriated Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Funds dollars to conduct approved fund-aligned programming.
The Portland Police Bureau will maintain core mission capabilities and meet budget cuts with a 35% reduction in external materials and services, Yes.
Of $5.9 million, 20% in technology and fleets, a reduction of $3.5 million, 80% in the Public Safety Support Specialist Program, or a $4.5 million cut, 10% reduction in operational overtime, which is $1.7 million, and a 50% precinct administrative staffing reduction of $1.6 million, and a reduction of 35% in our Victim Services Unit, Or $319,000.
Portland Fire and Rescue will not close any stations, but will reduce engine replacements by 20%, which will reduce $1.2 million and eliminate 1 engine at a station that currently has 2, a reduction of $2.5 million.
They will also reduce 3 2-person medical rescue units from 24 hours to peak hours.
24 Hours.
Without fully eliminating the units and 2 administrative staffing positions, one of which is vacant, which will reduce $275,000.
Community Health Assess and Treat, or CHAT, will be funded by grant funding at the $3.7 million level, which is a 12% reduction.
The Bureau of Emergency Communications will reduce training, travel, and continuing education, or a $382,000 reduction.
Thank you.
They will reduce operational overtime by 50%, by $422,000, and reduce 2 911 call taker positions and vacant supervisor positions, or a reduction of $520,000.
The Bureau of Emergency Management will reclassify 1 vacant position, saving $104,000, reduce the vehicle fleet by half, reducing $51,000, and eliminate 2 vacant positions, Or $428,000.
Cuts to other areas will allow us to preserve crucial violence prevention resources.
Ceasefire will lose a single coordinator position, which will reduce $189,000, and Ceasefire and the Office of Violence Prevention will reduce future grants by a total of $1 million.
We will also downsize Portland Street Response by 2 aftercare teams, which will yield a $659,000 reduction.
Thank you.
In addition to reallocating pass-through funds historically sent to Multnomah County's Homeless Services Department, the bureau will take slight reductions in external materials and legal services, which will reduce $675,000.
Funding agreements with the Bureau of Technology Services will be reduced by $252,000, and we'll eliminate 2 vacant data analyst positions, which will yield a $298,000 reduction.
Second.
Most other services will remain intact.
Prosper Portland will expand their Prosperity Investment Program grants by $1 million while making reductions to city workforce development funding by $260,000, or a 15% reduction, and small business support will be reduced by $532,000, or 20%.
Prosper will also reduce staff positions for economic and urban development, yielding a one— 100% reduction.
$4.08 Million reduction.
Portland Permitting and Development will take a $2.9 million reduction in the tree permitting program.
For other permitting programs, fees will be raised by $3.2 million to cover existing service levels.
Our parks levy supports about half of the Portland Parks Recreation operating budget to perform park maintenance, protect nature, and provide programs.
Rising costs and reduced city revenues are creating additional pressure beyond what was assumed when the levy was developed.
Thank you.
Transitioning our parks to a sustainable system will require strategic changes to service delivery and new funding sources.
This budget includes $2.8 million of new or alternative revenue sources for parks and service reductions that avoid impacts to levy commitments, legal requirements, and community priorities.
No community centers will be closed, but hours and days of operations will be reduced.
There will be some reductions to parks and natural areas, which will yield a $1.2 million reduction, Facility maintenance, a $1.8 million reduction, and security and emergency response will be declined by $600,000, as well as operational efficiencies, which will yield a $2.3 million benefit.
My budget relies on the passage of a transportation utility fee and street damage restoration fee to keep pace with rising costs and supplement transportation taxes that no longer reflect fiscal realities.
Thank you.
It will provide a stable, dedicated source of revenue for maintenance, cleaning, safety upgrades, and infrastructure longevity.
We will reduce 311 operating hours and staffing by 4 full-time equivalents, which will yield an $888,000 reduction, and realign the 311 performance office to the city administrator's office.
We will reduce fleet and facility costs by at least Terminations, contracts and service reductions, and reducing to vacant fleet position reductions.
Those are comments to be read into the record for the proposed budget.
I'd like to just conclude by stating that it was a very difficult thing that we went through, and I am very appreciative of the efforts that this council brought forward, the time that we spent both individually and collectively as groups discussing this budget.
Thank you.
This is going to be hard and important.
I do want to obviously thank our City of Portland employees.
They've been helping us through this very difficult process.
I don't want to understate the difficulties that a changing organization will have on others.
The culture that we're working to build as a community that's based on a city with a one-city approach.
Thank you.
And I just ask that we continue to provide them the grace of communication, transparency as we bring forward these changes, and then also grace amongst ourselves as a professional group as we bring and we deliberate these changes that we know are gonna be necessary to right-size this budget.
So thank you for this opportunity, Council President, Council Vice President, Council colleagues.
Thank you, Mayor.
So colleagues, I'd like to prioritize getting to public testimony.
We all know that the budget The budget arrived in our inboxes yesterday around 4 o'clock, around 4:20 on 4/20.
So I'm aware that we will— that very few of us will have fully read and processed all 1,100 pages of this.
Luckily, we have at least another 3 weeks of public process ahead between now and votes to approve this budget.
Before we move to public testimony, are there any truly technical questions regarding readability, accessibility, or otherwise ensuring that we have the capacity to engage today.
Okay, Rebecca, how many folks do we have signed up for testimony?
Thank you, George.
Currently have— sorry, I'm just refreshing here— 34 folks are signed up.
Okay, so colleagues, we set aside 4 hours today for this hearing, uh, to ensure that we had enough time to hear from the public.
Testimony is set at 2 minutes each for the 34 individuals who signed up.
As of right now, it appears we will have enough time to hear from everyone who signed up.
So Rebecca, can we please call the first panel?
First up we have— and I'm just going to remind folks, I'll call you up in groups of 5.
You can approach the testimony table and there will be an alarm.
Everybody has 2 minutes.
An alarm will sound first when you have 30 seconds remaining to speak, and then an alarm will sound when your time is up.
Our first 5 are Rob Martineau, Minh Dan Vuong, Anastasia Howard, Alex Pierrot, and Jared Longoria.
Good morning, everybody.
Please come on up, introduce yourselves for the records— uh, record, there's one.
Uh, please feel free to share your pronouns, and you have 2 minutes.
Take it away, Rob.
Good morning.
Thank you for the opportunity, City Council.
My name is Rob Martineau.
I am the president of AFSCME Local 189, representing, uh, city employees in just about every bureau.
I want to talk a little bit about 3 things, but I'll start with, with consulting and the idea we need to pay attention to who we pay to think for us.
It is outsourcing.
It is contracting out.
That is what consulting is in all its forms.
Portland elected you to be its 12 consultants.
That doesn't mean you're the only ones, but that is very much a part of what you do.
If we need to talk more about this, I'll certainly apply my friends and family discount and be happy to talk about you more offline on this.
So I'll, uh— Thank you.
Open that shingle, hang my— for my consulting firm.
Portland should not be a great place to be a consultant.
Let's think about how we originate and develop our ideas.
Talk about a couple of phrases that will undoubtedly be used here.
One is right-sizing.
Right-sizing sounds like a term a consultant came up with that would be more palatable than telling someone they're fired.
Nobody ever described a term of a time of building or growth as right-sizing.
We call that scaling up, and it's with a lot of excitement.
Another thing that will, I'm sure, be said is that a budget is a moral document.
You will abandon your morals to pass this document.
We do not have the money, the resources to afford our morals.
Let's not be confused about the immorality we will have to accept.
Thank you.
For this budget to pass.
Many times I'm here by myself, uh, to speak to you about what my members think, what those people that I represent need.
Today I'm the Queen of England.
I want you to hear the 8 people behind me.
They are the people from your district, and they are here to tell you what they need most in this budget.
Thank you.
Good morning, councilors.
My name is Minh Dan Vuong.
I've served the City of Portland for more than 10 years as performance auditor.
I'm also a member and executive board member of our union, AFSCME Local 189.
I proudly represent 30 professional employees in the auditor's office who show up day after day to advance accountability and transparency.
And I want to emphasize, these are professional employees, not political appointees.
2 Of my members, 2 of my colleagues in the Auditor's Office are slated to be laid off under the proposed budget before you.
And my ask is simple.
I ask you to restore and fund these positions of AFSCME-represented employees in the Auditor's Office.
Our services are essential, and I hope you will agree with me on this point, are essential to good government and in high demand in our community.
Thank you.
For example, we received more than 600 complaints to the Ombudsman's Office last calendar year.
Most of those complaints were about city shelters, vehicle towing, and tree removal fines, and one-third of complainants were actually from the houselessness community.
My members, my AFSCME members, investigate and facilitate fairer outcomes.
We also provide voter education so that people can fully participate In our city's democracy.
We focus on communities facing the most hurdles to ranked choice voting.
My members, AFSCME members, advance community engagements and build relationships.
And of course, we are the auditor's office.
We audit city operations, city services.
We highlight effectiveness.
We find wasteful spending.
And we also highlight equity concerns we see.
My members, AFSCME members, made audit recommendations on topics of high concern to community members and to you, such as arts tax programs, climate justice, and asset management.
Our community, my members, are looking to all of you to provide leadership and come up with solutions in this budget process.
Let's find a way forward that saves union members' jobs and protects the public-facing services of the Auditor's Office.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I believe Amanda Liston is speaking for Anastasia Howard.
Hi, hi, uh, Council President Dunphy and City of Portland, City of Portland councilors.
Thank you for opportunity to speak.
My name is Amanda Liston.
I'm a Code Specialist 3 with Portland Permitting and Development Tree Permitting Team, formerly part of Urban Forestry.
I'm here to emphasize that Portland's Title 11 tree code and the staff who implement it are essential to maintaining our canopy and protecting public safety.
Trees are critical infrastructure.
Maintaining our canopy reduces heat, manages stormwater, improves air quality, and supports livability, especially on the east side with historically underserved communities.
During our heat dome event a few years ago, there was a 20-degree difference between the east side and the west side because of lack of canopy coverage— 115 degrees versus 97 degrees.
That's life and death right there, especially amongst our homeless communities, our houseless communities.
Ongoing maintenance of tree care is about safety.
Extreme events such as the heat dome are on the rise.
Hazardous and poorly maintained trees have caused significant damage and risk.
The ongoing maintenance of the canopy depends on staff.
Tree Pruning Division is the frontline inspecting potentially dangerous trees, ensuring planting compliance, and performing dozens of hours of customer service to Portland residents every week.
Today's workloads are already up to 2 months behind.
In some cases, 8 weeks for code compliance, 6 to 7 weeks for permits, meaning potentially dangerous trees are waiting up to 2 months for inspection.
That's not even considering the important role of mitigating landslides and root systems these trees prevent.
Thank you.
Our staff was already cut by a third last year, with more reductions proposed.
Further cuts will increase delays, reduce canopy protection, and directly impact safety.
Maintaining our canopy requires maintaining staff.
City Council voted to support the urban forestry plan.
My team was a critical component of that plan.
Please support us so we can continue to provide vital services and support communities across our city.
Our team is PISA-funded.
Please support the PISA funding needed to sustain this essential work.
Thank you.
Our work is within the voters-approved uses for PSUPP, unlike other options at the table.
Tree permitting was actually mentioned within that urban forestry plan.
Once again, thank you.
My name is Amanda Liston, Ask Me Local 189 member.
Thank you.
Greetings, councilors.
My name is Alex Piero, he/him.
I'm a constituent of D3, and I'm a Sunnyside parent.
I'm also a public works construction inspector for PBOT.
I've been there almost 8 years, all 8 of which have been budget cut years.
I'm also on the executive board of my union, AFSCME 189.
We're here today to say that the path to austerity is not a foregone conclusion.
So 3 relevant items briefly.
One, you'll hear it a lot today, but the use of third-party consultants does not save the taxpayer money.
They're more expensive, less productive, less accurate, and less efficient than the talent that we have in-house.
They don't have the institutional knowledge, and they don't care as much, frankly, about the city that they serve as much as city employees do, because we're the ones who are left holding the bag after the check clears.
Thank you.
Oftentimes behind a shiny consultant dashboard, there lies a lot of broad sweeping generalizations and a huge body of work to correct.
Consultant recommendations also contribute often to my second item, which is disconnected budget choices.
In the Portland Police Bureau, for instance, potentially 2/3 of non-sworn AFSCME-represented admin and clerical positions are slated to be cut.
This would potentially result in several precincts being closed to the public.
The only solution I've heard floated is to have officers potentially work these positions at a higher cost.
Thank you.
Of course, and a lower output than the highly trained individuals they would be replacing.
That is to say, these roles are not interchangeable, which leads me into my third and final item I want to talk about today.
Bear with me.
A taxi driver and an ambulance driver both do important jobs, and they both drive for a living.
It's not, however, a reasonable budget solution to lay one off and expect the other one to do both of those jobs.
This is what it feels like is happening when I see my own workgroup's entire tech support staff on the core services realignment cut list.
Councilmember Herbold.
So what I'm asking you to do here today is to make sure that there's someone on the other end of that tech request ticket when I submit it so that we can continue doing our jobs and we can continue serving the city that we live in.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, city councilors.
My name is Jared Longoria.
I am an accountant for— in the office of the CFO, the communications editor for Ask Me Local 189, and a Portlander from District Over the last month, I've been talking with my coworkers across the city, and we agree.
The City of Portland must prioritize funding for direct community services and the workers who make those services possible.
The city's workforce has the skills, cultural competencies, and community relationships needed to serve Portlanders.
So instead of laying off members of the city's workforce to resolve our budget issues, Councilmember Herbold.
I encourage you to consider the following alternatives: decrease the use of third-party consultants, prioritize in-house services over contracted services, and address management bloat or span of control issues.
Over the past month, many members of Ask Me Local 189 have either had pre-layoff meetings with a manager or have seen their position marked for possible layoff in the budget concepts document.
This has resulted in a general sense of unease among the whole membership and acute anxiety among those directly affected.
My own division was marked for two possible layoffs in the budget concept document, so I know these negative feelings firsthand.
But despite this impact, which chills workplace productivity, my coworkers and I also feel pride in the services that we provide to Portlanders.
We feel urgency.
To maintain these services, and we feel resolved to advocate for what we believe are reasonable alternatives to layoffs.
Please prioritize frontline services.
Please do not lay off workers already equipped to serve Portlanders.
And please consider decreasing the use of third-party consultants, prioritizing in-house services over contracted services, and addressing management bloat across the city.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next we have Nick LaRue, Chris Gustafson, Brittany Gadbury, Minthorn Norma, and Albert Kaufman.
Morning folks, come on up, introduce yourselves, your Share your pronouns and you have 2 minutes.
Okay.
Good morning.
My name is Nick LaRue, he/him.
I'm a resident of District 2.
I'm here today representing AFSCME Local 189 and my dedicated coworkers.
I've spent the past 4 and a half years at PBOT's maintenance operations building trust, providing tech support, and identifying process improvements for over 400 field and office staff.
My background includes 22 years of GIS and project management experience with 8 and a half years experience in public works, And 8.5 years supporting field crews and asset management.
Efficient asset management requires unified maps and mobile apps.
Currently, our crews must juggle 3 separate non-communicative systems.
These duplicative processes require constant human intervention.
Unfortunately, my position and the GIS 3 tech who holds the remaining institutional knowledge are both on the core realignment cut list.
If these layoffs proceed, there will be zero onsite technical support for the 400 maintenance staff And no bridge to the Maximo Enterprise Asset Management System upgrade.
Among the critical projects that could be impacted are the 311 Zendesk Maximo integration, replacing the non-ADA compliant TrackIt public reporting system with Zendesk and Maximo integrations.
The Maximo upgrade, the upgrade will be unstaffed, delaying the transition to mobile and spatial components to eliminate the duplicative systems.
Street sweeping, automated tracking for PSF funding for bike lanes, Clean Water Act permitting, and the reports for those to DEQ, Will not be tracked, and additional planning for sweeping uses with telematics, Maximo, and other modernizing things will not be met.
Additionally, this is the person that is supporting the mayor's new sweeping project.
At a time when the city will have to make cuts, I would expect great consideration be given to the people who hold the system together.
I am one of those people, as are the people in tech services, which Alex mentioned earlier.
I am not easily replaced, and nor are they.
Thank you.
I ask council to consider the cost of replacing an embedded specialist who has years of institutional knowledge and client trust with a generalist who will require at least a year to understand the operations.
These crews need support.
If it can't be us, please ensure that there is a viable plan to meet their considerable technical support needs.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
Thank you for the opportunity to address council.
Mayor Wilson, Chief Administrator Lee, Council President Dunphy, other members of council.
I am Chris Gustafson.
I am the accounting lead with the Portland Housing Bureau and the treasurer with the City of Portland Professional Workers Union.
I'm also a resident of District 3.
Go Fighting Third!
The budget is a moral document.
So here we go.
We've heard this before, and this is the reason that you're going to hear this multiple times is because it is, it is true.
That the budget represents the moral position of the administration presenting it.
Despite the fact that the mayor has said a couple of times this morning that the city of Portland is in a renaissance, and which I totally agree with, we are definitely in an upward trajectory, this is an austerity budget.
And an austerity budget is a message that the needs of the top 1% of our And so in light of that, I'm going to focus on the 145 proposed staff cuts from core services realignment and the budget— associated budget layoffs.
So Mayor Wilson, you talk frequently about not abandoning any soul in the city, but this budget jeopardizes the ability of 145— not individuals, but 145 staff members to continue to serve their families community.
Thank you.
To feed their children, to pay their rent, and to otherwise thrive in our community.
These folks may even end up on the streets themselves.
There— is there a similar chance that the folks that are downtown property owners, property developers, are going to end up homeless?
I think that's sort of a stretch.
The city has the money to save these jobs, and we're making a choice to not do that.
These are the folks The budget document itself says that the result of this is going to be reduced capacity, delayed response, and less service.
This is the opposite of efficiency.
So council members, over the next few weeks, CPPW members and other members of the community are going to be digesting what's in the document.
I promise to you that we will follow up with ideas of specific proposals for amendments that we can do.
Thank you.
But I am grateful for the opportunity to address everyone this morning.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is Norma Minthorn.
I don't use pronouns, and I thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak and to share and request.
I've been attending the listening sessions, and I've met most of the council members.
I've spoken about housing in Woodstock, I'm a tenant in District 2.
Um, so I have a request and, and some asks and some considerations I'd like to ask.
So, um, with the permanent support of housing tenants, um, I'm looking for solutions for the tenants to have accountability for themselves.
It's been my experience in the neighborhood I live Where there's a lot of destruction.
And I've heard testimonies of our community saying they're fearful to live where they're at.
And there's a lot of drug use in our communities.
There's domestic violence, there's suicides.
And just in our, our community alone, we had 3 overdose deaths, children self-harming, and, uh, yeah, suicides, drug abuse, and self-harm.
And so I'd like to see improvements in our Native American community, and I haven't seen any.
But I've seen one person give public testimony for the Native American community.
I haven't seen any nonprofit organizations come to give some testimony for funding for their programs.
And I know there are more— there are several organizations in the local area of which I hope that they'll reach out also to the commissioners, um, in considering housing in the future, um, with the school closures, I'm hoping that the housing will accommodate children that are going to school.
And, um, so I think that was about it.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is Brittany Gadbury.
I am a liver dweller, prayer and player in District 1 and District 2 for most of my life, and I've never been prouder at this time in history to be a community stewardship coordinator in urban forestry with Portland Parks and Recreation.
I'm here right now to talk in a pretty personal way.
I have so much frustration regarding decision-making in City Council, especially around PSET.
That money wouldn't exist without our community members in the neighborhoods that are the most affected by climate inequities.
That means the worst health outcomes.
That means the most preventable negative health outcomes.
That means the least amount of protection because of the way that development and zoning works in these areas and related to whether or not there's tree protection.
My division works to plant and preserve a successive urban forest But you can't plant your way to health or climate equity.
You have to preserve the large-form trees that exist there.
And when you make decisions that impact whether or not that can happen by asking our community members and our colleagues in places like permitting and development— permitting and regulation, you interfere with our ability to live in protected spaces.
Everyone should be having equitable access to green spaces.
The programs that are funded by PCF ensure that apartments, parks, and streets can receive tree planting and care for free.
We worked with 30 nonprofit and small business organizations in community stewardship and urban forestry in order to ensure that PCF funding goes back into small businesses and organizations that are doing that work in those exact areas that are impacted the most.
We represent as employees the communities that we live in.
That you say you want to prioritize.
So please prioritize us, because where you spend is where you stand, and it is not acceptable that you don't know the impact.
Now you know.
That's all.
Folks, I'm gonna need to ask people to not applaud in here.
We have rules.
You can snap, you can show other ways of doing that, but we need to keep Albert Kaufman, Nick Munch, Jackie Tate, Gus Kroll, Tavaris Means, and Xavier Entity.
Welcome, folks.
Come on up, introduce yourselves for the records— record.
Good morning.
Thank you, councilors.
My name is Nick Munch.
I'm a resident of District 4 and a member of CPPW.
I work in business operations as a financial analyst.
It is my job to ensure client bureaus have accurately forecasted budgets so that they can make it— excuse me— so that they can make it through the fiscal year with a balanced budget.
A normal part of my job is to find solutions when an unexpected expense arises.
Without— excuse me— without an identified source of funding.
This type of issue can be solved by delaying hiring for a vacant position or postponing a project, thereby freeing up funds.
This becomes especially relevant when a bureau must use an essential program's assigned funding to instead pay for consultants to tell them how to be more efficient.
When that happens, it's my job to figure out how to still fund the programs that just had their funding taken away.
I'm here today to urge you to reject the premise and the promise of the misguided core realignment cuts.
The core realignment cuts were originally called enterprise efficiency cuts.
At some point, enterprise efficiency was rebranded as core realignment, an appropriate corporate speak rebranding because nothing about this process has been efficient.
Councilmember Herbold.
The premise that city workers are working inefficiently and that the city can cut 20% from bureau funding while maintaining existing service levels was manufactured from a place of fantasy, not reality.
In practice, this process has been to cut first and hope things don't completely fall apart.
Before making any cuts, I urge the council to reject the promise Likewise, the council should reject any requests to increase management bloat across the city.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next testifier can go ahead.
Pardon me.
Thank you for listening to us, Mayor, and the council administration.
My name is Tavaris Means.
I was a member of the AFSCME Local 1790 until I was laid off in March.
I worked as a case manager/intake specialist and navigational specialist for Sunstone Way Market Street Center before it closed down last month.
Thank you.
I spent almost 20 years doing this work on the ground and not behind a desk.
What, what we're seeing right now is not just budget problems, it's priority problems.
You're asking workers and community members to brace for cuts while millions continue to flow in consultants and contractors with little accountability.
At the same time, at the same time, the very people delivering services every day are unpaid, stretched thin, and expect to do more with less.
It doesn't make sense, and it's not suitable.
Let's talk about management.
Portland has one of the highest management-to-worker ratios compared to the state.
That's not efficient.
That's bureaucracy growing while services shrink.
Councilor And in most homeless services, decisions are being made actively and harmfully.
Not all shelters are giving the same quality and support.
Not all shelters are providing wraparound services that get people out of crisis and into permanent housing.
Closing sites people rely on while keeping the less effective ones Open while pushing more people into crisis.
We already, we already, we already know what happens.
More people on the streets, more strain on emergency systems, and worse outcomes for everyone.
Thank you.
Council President Dunphy and Portland City Councilors.
My name is Gus Kroll.
I'm a steward in AFSCME Local 88, and I have 15 years experience in homeless services as well as lived experience of homelessness.
I work at Transition Projects where I support veteran families receiving housing assistance to look for employment.
I'm here today to ask you to prioritize our poorest neighbors getting off the streets instead of funding things we know don't do that.
Thank you.
Anti-homelessness architecture will never end someone's homelessness.
Arresting someone without housing or access to public restrooms for public urination will not end their homelessness.
Throwing away their tent and what few belongings they have will not end their homelessness.
Warehousing people night after night where their case manager, if they're lucky enough to have one, won't be able to meet them will not end their homelessness.
I'm here to ask you to prioritize the well-being of our poorest neighbors by prioritizing high-quality, culturally competent care by providers able to consistently make their own rent and stay in the field long term.
That means union labor with worker benefits and the protections that come with it, armed with the tools to put folks indoors needs to be our priority.
Band-Aid fixes like overnight shelters simply will not do.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Council President Dunphy and Portland City Councilors, Mayor Wilson.
My name is Jackie Tate.
I'm the proud president of AFSCME Local 88, representing over 4,000 employees of Multnomah County, in addition to our members who work for Transition Projects and Central City Concern.
All workers and members of our community who provide direct services that support our most vulnerable Portland residents, as well as the essential services we all need.
I have worked as a proud public servant employee, employee of Multnomah County for over 30 years.
I am a lifelong Portland resident, and I'm a homeowner, homeowner in District 2.
As a community leader, I've come before you today to ask you to center direct services in your budgeting process.
Usually when politicians say an agency is taking a little haircut, they end up cutting the frontline workers who provide direct services.
As a city and as a county, we cannot afford to do that now.
Prioritize the highly skilled and culturally competent staff who give daily support to our most fragile community members.
Thank you.
We want our representatives to invest in high-quality, not just low-cost services or handouts to corporations in the name of economic development, while simultaneously gutting our union siblings at Prosper Portland who create and nurture economic development in our diverse community, including investing in communities of color and historically underserved populations.
Stop outsourcing jobs to expensive consultants, which ensures that the institutional knowledge is lost when the contract is over.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
Prioritize the workforce we have so that in turn we can, we can nurture the communities that we love.
How can you consider cutting over 150 positions while standing up an entirely new bureau?
Why are we not looking at the span of control and trimming the number of managers in the city that is literally twice the state average?
Where are the administrative savings and shared sacrifice?
As AFSCME leaders, we will continue to call for management accountability, the preservation of services to our most vulnerable, and the retention of represented jobs and skilled employees who fill them.
It is our members and your employees who protect our neighbors and provide the services they rely on.
Portland works because we do.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council President Dunphy, Portland City Council, and all other individuals that love this city quite like I do, my name is Xavier Entiti.
I am a resident of District 2, and I have been working in homeless services at Do Good Multnomah for a little over a year, and I'm represented by AFSCME and Local 1790.
And if you told me when I was in high school, who unfortunately didn't have a chance to learn about civics and how all this works, that I'd have a chance to sit here and speak to you about how much I love what I do and where I live, I'd say, really?
So I'd like to just emphasize that The work that I do is extremely relational and heavily dependent on people being able to allow folks going through an extremely difficult time in their lives to be able to navigate highly confusing systems that I, as a service provider, am sometimes in question of how they really work.
I think of folks that I've served that have highly sensitive stories and really insane circumstances that had led them to a place that I have narrowly avoided because of people who have loved me and prevented me from ending up in a space where I was in need of such services.
I'm really here to speak to all of you and say that a lot of what will make this work for everyone here in Portland is great collaboration.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
I would like to thank everyone for their cooperation and a unified front to say that everyone in this city matters so much, whether you are in need of services or whether you are offering services.
My job is expected to be over in November of 2026.
My shelter is funded by money that came to the Homeless Services Department through city— through the city budget that is not available this year.
I would really like to keep doing my work and make sure that I make cops' jobs easier.
I help keep people getting to their appointments, making sure that they're engaged with their parole officers, and making sure that they have good things to do with their time instead of less good things.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you very much.
Litvak, Mike Vanier, Rebecca Wise, Barton, Kevin Block, Stephen Kofori.
Come on up, folks.
Feel free to jump in to introduce yourself for the record.
Feel free to share your pronouns, and you have 2 minutes.
Yeah, good morning.
My name is Misha Litvak, he/they pronouns.
I'm the president of AFSCME Local 1790.
I've been a case manager at Sunstone Way for 3 and a half years.
As president of Local 1790, I represent hundreds of highly skilled, hardworking, seasoned, and compassionate behavioral health, housing, and homelessness employees across the city of Portland.
Homeless services have been caught in the schism between the city of Portland and Multnomah County for the past year.
The funding and oversight provided by the Joint Office of Homeless Services was infrastructure that the sector relied upon.
The breakdown between the 2 local governments has already had a detrimental impact On the services I am able to provide and on the well-being of the clientele I serve.
In the past year, we have been hit with mass layoffs and program closures both at Sunstone Way and at Do Good Multnomah.
In practical terms, this means more vulnerable people displaced to the streets, and it also means the loss of union jobs.
Our services have already been reduced.
At Sunstone Way, we saw several programs that had previously been under the county go to the City of Portland, and we lost most of our funding for peers, behavioral health staff, and client assistant budget with that move.
Knowing that more cuts will be implemented in this budget, I wanted to take the opportunity to speak about the value of our work today.
I am a case manager.
When I am able to do my job, when I have the support and resources I need to do my job, I have the privilege of walking with my clients through some of the most bleak moments of their lives and helping them build back, replacing vital documents, setting them up with healthcare, finding a place they can check mail, working with detox and recovery services all the way through to education employment, and housing.
The people I work with will tell me what their goals are and what barriers they are facing, and together we figure out how to make that work.
It is truly a great honor to help someone beat a rigged system and to see them succeed.
I understand the city is working with limited resources.
To that end, I implore you to invest what you have wisely in the highly skilled and experienced workers represented by my local and other AFSCME locals.
Between the rank and file of 1790, you will easily find more experience and knowledge about what works in our field and what doesn't than you would by hiring any consultant simply because they have not done the work.
We are passionate, we have integrity, and we can't be replaced with private contractors who promise a lower price tag.
That either means shorting workers on wages, shorting clients on resources, or both.
Instant ramen is cheap too, but it doesn't make for much of a meal.
A need unmet does not cease to exist, and people whose needs go unmet cannot simply be ignored or removed from public spaces.
Rather, every person left without access to a safe bed, direct service staff, and supportive resources will increase the demand for other services.
Such as hospitals, clinics, law enforcement, towing, trash pickups, environmental services, public transportation, up to and including the medical examiner's office.
Okay.
The workers of AFSCME Local 729 always serve.
We're counting on our local leaders to do what is right and support these critical— Thank you.
And the staff who carry them out.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Thank you very much.
My name is Rebecca Wise Barton.
So I've been hearing the term pennywise and pound foolish lately.
When we are supporting contractors or groups that come in who are not Portlanders necessarily, or who don't even have the same values of people who work for the city and are in the city, we may be penny-wise, but we would be pound-delusional.
So in a letter I published in my public Instagram regarding the night of Tuesday the 7th, where I retell the story of a call to BOEC, the Bureau of Emergency Communications, regarding a man I did not know.
In fact, I never even got his name because he was too scared to tell it to me while he was bleeding from his head.
I told the dispatcher that I needed Portland Street response and that I did not need police response.
So naturally, the police were the first to arrive on the scene.
Next to arrive was AMR, a group that is contracted By the county.
I could go into how AMR failed to provide any kindness or care for the injured man and left him what was— with what was labeled sanitized water and a stack of gauze, not even a wrap to use as a bandage.
But like I said, they were contracted through the county, so I won't even go into it.
The final group to come through was Portland Fire, who did not need to stop.
So 3 groups arrived.
The police arrived, but we— they didn't file a police report.
They were paid to come out.
AMR arrived.
They are contracted for $4 million through the county.
They did not provide care.
And then the fire was able to come through, but they didn't need to stop.
So we need to extend the hours for Portland Street Response and CHAT.
Thank you.
And my request is that expansion of hours and better training for BOIC because I specifically said do not send the police.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, Mr. City Administrator.
My name is Steve Novick.
I'm here today representing the concerned citizens of Mr. Mayor, we applaud your forthrightness in describing during your recent State of the City address the $160 million budget cap as a chasm.
The difficult work of reshaping our city means your proposed budget, especially regarding the Bureau of Parks and Recreation, must be more than a statement of values, goals, and programs.
It must also provide a blueprint for substantive changes to the way the bureau maintains Its level of services and ensures the preservation of its physical assets.
We are confident that interim director Sonia Shemansky has both the capability and desire to make the changes necessary for management of the bureau by adjusting and optimizing the balance between operations and maintenance.
In addition, we are optimistic about the new position that Kelly Torres has assumed, changing the culture of this bureau regarding its relationship.
With volunteers and advocacy organizations.
The bureau will need to utilize these resources that these people and groups can contribute.
The concerned citizens believe that achieving the park's goals will require a commitment to reduce the park's ballooning capital maintenance budget.
Declaring that no community centers or parks will close may turn out to be an empty pledge If these cherished assets continue to deteriorate to the point they're no longer usable, we take seriously parks warning that one in five park assets may need to be shuttered in the next 15 years if the deferred maintenance backlog is not eliminated.
In a very short time, we had to review the proposed budget.
We can see that you have taken meaningful steps in response to our concerns.
We will continue to have more to say as we get more deeply into the budget.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Good morning, councilors.
Thank you for taking time to hear our comments today.
My name is Kevin Block.
I am a program and policy coordinator in BPS, but today I am speaking as an elected leader in CPPW.
I live in D3 and work in D4.
Like most of my fellow union members, consecutive years of budget cuts mean that I wear multiple hats in my job.
However, the primary hat that I wear is in the franchise utility program.
That program is the 3rd largest source of revenue for the general fund and brings in approximately $100 million a year.
The franchise utility program is an all-CPPW shop, and through our hard work last year, the program brought in over $3 million in additional uncollected fees from large corporations operating in our streets.
That money belongs to Portlanders, but due to staff turnover and persistent noncompliant corporations, it goes uncollected.
There is more money that can be collected through this program.
CPPW rep staff are in the process of standing up a modern compliance program that will ensure this.
Core service realignment will significantly impede, if not roll back, this progress by eliminating the critical technical and administrative support this program needs.
Thank you.
There are several other options CBPW urges you to consider to balance this budget.
One, you can raise the wireless administrative and per-foot fees under Chapter 12.15.
The current fees do not cover the city's costs and could raise revenue by a couple hundred thousand dollars a year.
That's one FTE at least right there.
Consider changing— and finally, consider changing the requirements to access the city's general fund reserves.
The current fund requirements are much too high, like handing a bucket to bail water to someone on the Titanic that's already sinking.
Um, finally, if you're wondering why I have to submit testimony to convey these ideas to you, it's because there are between 6 and 8 layers of management between my team of subject matter experts and CA Lee.
Albert Kaufman has joined online.
Albert, you can unmute.
Go ahead.
Good morning, neighbor.
Thought I would sing my testimony to you this morning.
Well, there are a couple of issues that I'm concerned about.
The last city council and the mayor.
They all voted to ban gas-powered leaf blowers, but they didn't really put any oomph behind it.
So we need some money for some outreach and education.
But have you noticed how much quieter it is in Portland right now?
It's true, the ban is working, even though no one's really doing much at the city to get the word out to the various landowners.
Or the roofers or the contractors that the city hires.
So if we could find some money to put out a mailing, perhaps the word will get out.
And I want to talk about trees.
We used to plant 10,000 a year.
We're finally getting back to it, but we really ought to be planting a lot more.
Yes, trees, trees, trees.
I can't say enough about how much money they will save us if we just planted more trees.
Friends of Trees, all the trees could be going in much faster.
More, more, more.
Then the last thing that I want to share is that the lighting is much too bright.
I've been talking to all of you repeatedly, and late last night I walked around my I'm here in my business district because it's Lights Out Portland Week, and I talked to the businesses about getting rid of those nasty overhead floodlighty LEDs.
But really what needs to happen is we need to put some money towards getting rid of the streetlights and retrofitting them with quieter, calmer lights.
It will make everyone's life better and will save us money.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mike Vanier.
We'll move to Charlie Michelle Wesley, Marshall McFarland, Micah Mezcal, Charles Manigo, and Jordan Lewis.
Charlie Michelle is online.
You can unmute and go ahead.
Thank you.
Good morning.
I'm Charlie Michelle Wesley, North I totally agree with the experience with AMR and 911, so thank you for that.
I see attempts to address racial disparities, but few to address underlying systemic issues.
To sit on City Council is an honored responsibility that needs empathetic leaders that inspire and motivate collaboration.
Councilmember Smith, a value that encourages relationship building and participating in dismantling institutional discriminating policies that have harmed BIPOCs since their inception.
And fiscal responsibility— use resources appropriately, make informed decisions regarding public funds and government spending, and model social accountability.
Look it up.
We need leaders to make budget decisions collectively and values that bring integrity Addressing inequities and transparent budgetary decisions to develop trust and to save lives.
This budget should prioritize saving lives who are unheard, struggling, and dismissed.
You're not too superior to not serve all of us.
Yet there's not enough resources, housing for all, treatment centers, nor police accountability.
Police described mainly as a reactive institution.
Institution with little preventative skills.
So the police control— continue to overreach and abuse their power, and people die silenced by policies.
Until the police and policies are person-centered, to think more holistically and not just focus on the incident but ask what can we do to improve their well-being, thus reducing collateral damage by the policing of today.
For now, please commit to funding preventative options like Portland Street Response and Thank you very much, Shirley.
I guess I'll go next then.
Um, my name is Marshall McFarland.
Good evening, everyone.
I am Ghalib Imhotep-El.
The City of Portland's Human Resources Administrative Rules 11.01 states city employees are to treat their office as a public trust.
I began with HR 11.01 because your positions, you're elected officials, you're pretty much trustees, you're stewards of human souls, quite a few of them actually, and our current tools for addressing the metropolitan Hopelessness.
They're in desperate need of replacement.
When a carpenter has a skill saw and he's cutting a piece of wood and he notices his blade is dull, he doesn't press harder into the wood.
He changes his blade.
Look at our streets.
We see a landscape of hopelessness.
It's just become a multibillion-dollar weight on your akfers.
It really has.
It's fragmented architecture that's going on.
There's things Yes.
That aren't exactly set properly for people to succeed, and it's not set properly for you to succeed either.
We've been using these fragmented tools, and they're obviously not working.
I'm providing a research paper in a packet.
It's a case study, and I'm also providing a solution.
Like I said, I never bring a problem without offering a solution also.
You're going to get that from me.
This research paper, it has ideas in it And those ideas, like there's a Kampong Admiralty model in Singapore.
They're using techniques that are somewhat revolutionary in order to basically help their public get itself back together, get the hopelessness and the homelessness and the drugs off of the streets, and get the people in a position where they can be valuable citizens, contributors to society.
Thank you.
Now, we can be a lot like the carpenter who's pressing his wood against the dull blade and risks cutting off his finger, or we can decide to usher in something new, take some time out, really look at what we're doing, and say instead of just addressing a piece of homelessness here or a piece of drug addiction here or a piece of hopelessness here, we take the entirety of this hopelessness and we look for something Like this, the Metropolitan Restoration Initiative.
I'm going to leave this here for you guys, and hopefully it gets put to use.
Actually, I'm going to give it to the council clerk.
I'm sorry about that.
Have a nice day.
Thank you very much.
Micah's online.
Micah, you can unmute and go ahead.
Council President Dunphy and city council members, my name is Micah Muskel.
I'm the Urban Conservation Director at Bird Alliance of Oregon.
We're a conservation nonprofit who advocates for the city's natural resources, for the region's wildlife, and people who benefit from a healthy environment.
I'm representing the organization and our 10,000 local members today.
Still trying to absorb the mayor's proposed budget, but we'll share some initial reflections and observations.
To start, it's frustrating that the mayor's proposed budget again perpetuates using PCF, the Portland Clean Energy Fund, as the go-to source of filling the city's wider budget holes.
A friendly reminder that a majority of the annual revenue already is designated towards city bureaus, and much of this city funding goes towards essential popular climate-related initiatives like planting trees in East Portland, building sustainable affordable housing for low-income Portlanders, and decarbonizing our transportation systems.
All projects that the community helped inform through the CIP development process several years ago.
The mayor's proposed budget It threatens to weaken some of that work by adding new uses of PCF funds towards programs like Portland Solutions and shift it further away— shift PCF funds further away from purposes to make adjustments for programs, um, that will make other adjustments.
So we strongly oppose shifting PCF funds to Portland Solutions.
We also strongly oppose further funding reductions proposed for the Urban Forestry Program.
Thank you.
I can't articulate better than what urban forestry staff members have shared in testimony themselves before me today and how important they are for the city achieving equitable tree canopy growth in the city.
And I strongly oppose further funding reductions proposed for the Portland Permitting and Development's tree permitting regulation team.
Last year's budget amendments by Councilor Zimmerman to defund this program and shift it to PP&D was very harmful for that program, and the mayor proposes to perpetuate that.
Thank you.
And then one silver lining I take away from the fact that PSEF continues to be considered as a piggy bank is to celebrate how fruitful and resilient of a revenue source it has been, targeting the largest corporations doing business in Portland while funding programs and projects that provide real benefits to Portland's most vulnerable.
As you consider how to head off significant layoffs, chip away at maintenance backlogs, and fund new needed programs, I implore you to consider similar revenue models that focus on corporate profits Thank you very much.
Jordan Lewis is online.
Jordan, you can unmute and go ahead.
I'm going to go ahead and call Benjamin Gilbert, Michelle Barrows Carter, Hello?
Hi, Jordan.
You can go ahead.
Hello, City Council.
My name is Jordan Lewis.
I'm a registered lobbyist with the Portland Democratic Socialists of America.
I haven't had the time to comprehensively review this massive document, which has only been out for a matter of hours.
Within minutes of the budget dropping yesterday, I opened the testimony order.
I saw 20 people signed up, and I reflexively signed up over fears the mayor had asked a bunch of neighborhood associations to pack testimony like he did in the fall.
Tow.
A lot of community trust was lost during that stunt, and it's really bad for the city.
Thankfully, instead of NAs, unions showed up today to ask that you preserve in-house work over contractor bloat, and ditto, ditto, ditto to all that.
While I'm here though, I want to express my concern that Portland Clean Energy funds not go to Portland Solutions and PMO.
My experience with these organizations have only been negative.
I'm reminded of a beloved bike diverter which protected cyclists along a single block in Northwest Portland and which took years of process to get installed.
My first introduction to PMO was them ripping this beloved diverter out at the behest of the police department so they could drive their cars down the only restricted block It's not clear how taking away existing safety protections for cyclists is a clean energy benefit.
Uh, and then when we tried to get more information, we discovered there was a non-public meeting held by the city through PMO, which we only gained access to after public records requests.
Again, the community benefit connection is not super clear to me.
I've lived here for 5 years, and I think I'm part of the community too.
We eventually gained access to these PMO meetings, and I raised some environmental concerns.
Which were ignored because I wasn't asking for homeless sweeps, hostile architecture, or graffiti removal.
I was told that a traffic camera that was next to my house did not exist, but I lived there, so I did in fact know that the traffic camera was there.
Uh, again, the community benefits connection is not— is kind of a non sequitur.
Uh, the mayor has not shown himself to be an ally of PSF, so please do not act like he hasn't shown his character here.
You can go ahead at the testimony table.
All right, thank you, city councilors, uh, mayor, and council president for this opportunity.
I'm Deon Salazar, Hazelwood Neighborhood Board member, Portland Children's Levy CAC member, 2044-45 Portland TSPCAC member, etc.
I am testifying today to both praise the mayor's budget and communicate some issues with it that I worry could affect Portland, especially East Portland.
I'm in support of the proposed measures to bring accountability and oversight of city homelessness services under Portland Solutions.
However, it needs mandatory performance audits and metrics and clear expectations for providers so the resources are actively helping the people they're meant for.
I'm concerned about the proposed PS3 cuts, however, because it is not proposing a clear integrated alternative.
This will create a vacuum and put those responsibilities back onto police, which I don't think will actually help those in need.
Another issue is the cuts to 35% of the Portland Police admin and closing East Precinct to walk-in access, as the mayor just said.
Councilor Smith.
Plus reducing the Victim Services Unit by 35% and backfill overtime by 10%.
These cuts will reduce East Portland trust, showing that when Portland is struggling again, East Portland is the one to take the hit.
Forcing officers to do more paperwork also reduces time on patrol when their primary responsibility is their time on patrol.
Thank you.
Increasing city fees to cover budget gaps is the same old Portland mistake.
Let's streamline the code to increase permit volume and city revenue, not old habits.
Lastly, the street damage restoration fee proposal should be equitably committed to East Portland.
East Portland should no longer be Flint, Oregon.
Let's allow East Portland to finally be East Portland.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Lisa Jackson, Spotted Elk, is online.
You can go ahead.
I want to start by thanking everyone for, um, being here.
Um, I want to start with a little story that, you know, that personally— this is a personal story.
Um, in February of this year, um, you know, losing my child after being 22 weeks.
I want to, I want to, um, really address why we're not talking, you know, when it comes to this budget stuff about, um, the ICE centers.
Um, having to struggle with that and the thought of, you know, my child's father having to, you know, lit— you know, hide out every day, um, that drastically affected, you know, my pregnancy.
So I want to share that story with you because this is personal.
Um, but we also want to talk about water.
Why are we raising the water prices?
You know, water is life.
Being a native of this land, that's, that's what I'm here to advocate for.
We want to talk about all this clean energy, but we're, you know, whatever we're promised, what's clean about it?
We're building AI centers for what reason?
Not only that is we're always put against each other for when we're out here advocating.
All of these personal stories that I'm trying to share with the mayor and with the city council, I am still homeless.
Everyone has seen that 14-page demand letter that I wrote.
All of this stuff is all built on oppressing our people, and I am tired of it.
I am tired of having to come and and speak and speak and speak, and it's going in circles.
Because now the mayor is cutting everything that I am advocating for.
I'm advocating for the mental health of this community.
I'm advocating because we want transparency.
And to take and to raise water prices is crazy.
We need to start thinking about what we're doing here and what we're doing to the lands.
I'm a person of this land.
And having to come share a personal story with you because I had to protect my child's mother that led to a miscarriage.
And so this is personal.
We need to start talking about people's real lives.
These are people's lives.
Thank you very much.
Next up, Matt Henderson, Emily Stebbins.
Noelle Studerspievak, Maddie Garrison, and Manny Miraz.
Good morning, councilors.
My name is Matt Henderson.
I'm a longtime artist and arts organizer in Portland, and I currently operate Virtua Gallery in Lloyd Center Mall.
I've appeared here and reached out previously to advocate for Lloyd Center as a lead organizer of the Save Lloyd campaign.
My testimony today is within the context of Mayor Wilson's remarks that despite the hardships we face as a city, we can't afford to put off Portland's renaissance.
Please anticipate that Save Lloyd will be reaching out To each of you in advance of the Lloyd Center Master Plan appeal hearing on June 24th to discuss the importance of Lloyd Center, not just as a place that holds history and meaning for many Portlanders, but as an opportunity to build something extraordinary within the existing historic structure that currently stands and was renovated just within the past 10 years.
Councilor We have a vision for what the former mall could become, and it's something people would travel to visit and study.
It's based on the community's resolve and enthusiasm for the current trajectory of Lloyd Center's creative renaissance.
In a very real way, it's a microcosm of our city's broader revitalization.
We have formed a nonprofit, and we call for the city to explore options to acquire or help acquire part or all of Lloyd Center.
Thank you.
Lloyd Center is not simply an instance of small businesses incubation, small business incubation offering a quaint bit of local charm.
It is an enormous opportunity for Portland to showcase its values, bolster and rebuild its reputation and self-image, and to create a community hub and destination within our city that can also serve as an economic engine.
Thank you very much.
Shi Chao Chen has joined online.
Shi Chao, you can unmute and go ahead.
I did.
Honorable Mayor Wilson, distinguished Council President Daffy, and all the council members, good morning.
My name is Shi Chao Chen.
I am a resident of President of the Portland Kaohsiung Sister City Association.
We are the hosts of the annual Portland Rose Festival Dragon Boat Race.
As far as I know, there will be a challenge dragon boat race between the Portland City Council, Portland City Government, or the mayor's office, and the Kaohsiung City Council, led by their council speaker, Madam Kong.
However, our sister city association function is more than just holding the annual dragon boat race.
Thank you.
Or, or other cultural exchange activity.
Rather, they are— there are enormous amount of opportunity exists between the city of Kaohsiung or any other sister city and the city of Portland in terms of, in terms of the educational programs, the public policies, urban planning, affordable housing, crime prevention, or the technology conference, etc.
The ownership of keeping this sister city relationship lies within the city government itself, and the key or the access gateway is through the maintaining of function— the function of the International Relationships Office in the city.
It provides a single point of contact for all the civic function and all the nonprofit organizations And vice versa, it also serves as the liaison between other city government agencies domestically or internationally.
I came from the corporate world myself and fully comprehend the rationale of tighter budget planning and control.
In good years or bad years, we always been asked to provide a so-called lights-on-only mode.
Thank you.
That means only the essential function of just to keep the lights on.
To me, and the message I want to convey here to you, is this International Relationships Office function is one of the light— is one of the key lights-on function, and it serves the returns on investment for the budgetary point of view.
Is fully justifiable and the key function to our cities.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Emily Stebbins is online.
You can go ahead, Emily.
Hello, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Emily Stebbins and I live on the 82nd Avenue corridor.
I'm a parent, a teacher, and a Forest Defense Team volunteer at 350 PDX.
When we voted for a Portland Clean Energy Fund, we did so because we understood that the climate crisis demanded action.
We wanted a livable city that would be resilient in the face of climate change.
The work that PCF funds are doing right now is absolutely vital.
Building clean energy infrastructure, providing affordable climate-resilient housing and transportation options— these are things that I'm proud we're doing in Portland, and it's thanks to PCF.
And closest to my heart is planting trees in neighborhoods that need them.
And protecting the big trees that make our home beautiful, clean, and healthy, which is foundational to our well-being.
This spring marks the end of the first planting season of the Equitable Tree Canopy Program.
Trees take a long time to grow big and provide much-needed shade, so it's imperative that we not only keep planting them where we need them, but also protect the ones that are already standing.
Right now, more than half of Portland neighborhoods do not meet the minimum 25% tree canopy cover goal.
Thank you.
We're just beginning this work and we have to keep it up.
If anyone truly believes that we have extra PSF funds, that the climate crisis is really not such a big deal, or that Portlanders don't need that much help surviving and thriving as the planet warms, they should take that question to voters directly.
Until we can say that we've addressed climate change and we're all living under a thriving urban forest canopy, let's keep PSF for climate as voters intended.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Noelle.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council President Dunphy, and city councilors.
Um, my name is Noelle Studer-Spievak from District 2, and I represent the climate justice organization 350 PDX with over 10,000 members.
We put everything we had into the creation of PCEF— door knocking, gathering public input, and more, and we continue to work in coalition to safeguard processes so that these funds reach their intended uses for climate justice, community health and well-being in our most vulnerable neighborhoods.
I can't really say it more accurately than Emily and some of the other people that have gone before me, so I'm here just here expressing our concern about another round of haphazard cuts.
If implemented, will delay the build-out of the green heat shield that That's needed to save lives over the next 100 years and beyond.
Urban forestry and planning and development staff have already passionately described what, what I'd like to just reinforce is that we can't just plant our way out of this and expect to make progress.
As we learned from the maps in the urban forest plan, we're not ready for the next heat waves on the way.
To keep mature trees standing, I ask councilors to look at this budget and its potential impacts on the tree preservation aspects of PCEF Strategic Program 34.
This was meant to care for our protective tree canopy through job creation, improving tree preservation practices.
In 2025, Zimmerman Amendment 2 dramatically cut the team tasked with carrying out tree preservation regulations.
This budget proposes to eliminate another 12 PCEF-funded positions charged with carrying out tree preservation element of the strategic program.
Questions for you: Where is the PSF money going from these 12 PSF-funded positions?
There was an in-depth process to allocate those funds already.
How can they be redirected?
I believe that I heard our mayor say that PSF funds will be repurposed to conduct approved aligned programs.
Will those programs be implementing tree code to cool vulnerable communities?
That's the only acceptable profitable use that I can see at this time.
As an aside, I've also heard that $400,000 per year in PSF climate investment funding that the council designated to reduce tree permit fees has not actually moved into PP&D.
So I hope someone looks into that.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Maddie Garrison.
Hello, um, I'm Maddie Garrison, uh, pronouns he/him.
I'm Mitch Green from District 3.
Right now I see a dilemma of a quote in my high school yearbook.
We have a— we're at a crossroads where we can choose between what is right and what is easy.
What is easy is funding AI, which would let predators lurk.
And as a survivor of domestic violence, religious trauma, and sexual assault, Seeing the governor of Oregon rizz up the governor of Utah is not how we protect survivors.
So I've built strength and motivation to be a healer and a protector in my community with $2 in my bank account because of what I went through and listening to my stepdad question if he's going through dementia.
Because I was raised right by him, I did not somehow fall through the cracks.
But I cannot go back down to East LA because of my brother.
Portland is my home despite how betrayed I have been done by the Oregon DHS system.
And I stand in solidarity and intersectionality with all my fellow survivors, whether they be women, trans, Black, Latina, Latino, all the above.
We are fed up.
We do not need a well-meaning white man anymore.
We need actual protectors that give a fuck about our community.
We have a decision here between protecting survivors and protecting predators.
That is all I have to say.
Thank you very much.
You can go ahead at the table.
Sure.
Good afternoon, Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark, and councilors.
My name is Manny Medas.
I go by he/him/el.
I'm a student senator and first year at Portland State University.
Like many PSU students, I'm balancing school, work, and the cost of living here in Portland.
I see every day how hard it is for students not to just succeed academically, but to simply stay afloat in the city.
That's why I'm here today to speak on Mayor Wilson's proposed FY 2026-27 budget.
And how it can better support college students as part of Portland's broader community.
As I reviewed the budget, I saw a strong investment in public safety, workforce development, and sustainability.
But there's a clear gap when it comes to directly supporting college students, especially those who are in low-income, first-generation, or working while in school.
Programs like the Economic Opportunity Initiative receive about $2.1 million to support low-income students.
Thank you.
And residents through the workforce development.
This is critical funding, but many students who qualify economically are not being directly outreached.
At the same time, potential reductions to the workforce programs could eliminate services up to 900 participants.
That doesn't just impact current workers, it impacts students who are trying to enter the workforce and build their futures here.
Councilmember Herbold.
So my ask is simple.
Include college students more intentionally in these programs, and while the city is already funding them, that means expanding access to the workforce programs, building stronger partnerships with universities like PSU, and protecting funding that connects people to jobs and opportunity.
The city has made equity a priority, and these programs already serve a majority of participants who are people of color and individuals facing systemic barriers.
Thank you.
Many PSU students come from these same communities.
Including students more directly strengthens that mission.
Students are not separate from Portland's economy.
We are part of it.
We work here, we live here, and many of us plan to stay here after graduation.
Investing in students is investing in Portland's future.
We can't do it without you.
You can't do it without us.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you very much.
Uh, one last call for Charles Manigo, Benjamin Gilbert, Michelle Barrows-Carter.
That completes testimony.
Okay, colleagues, we now have some time for discussion, but also we're going to have Well, many weeks of discussion.
I'm going to very quickly take a temperature reading around this.
Do we want to move into discussion, take a quick break and go into discussion, or do we want to adjourn early today and move on?
Adjourned.
Okay.
I've got like one question that I'd like to ask the administration.
Sure.
Yeah, let's actually— let's, let's go ahead and We're going to take a 10-minute bathroom break, come back, do any technical or clarifying questions, any councilors have a debate, and we will move from there.
So be back, please, at 11:20.
Thank you.
And we are back as the Budget Committee.
Councilor Novick.
Uh, thank you, Mr. President.
My question for the administration is there's a reference to one fire station that will lose one of 2 engines, and I just want to know which fire station that is.
I think it's 15.
Councilor, I believe it's 15, but I can go back and confirm that for sure.
Okay.
And this actually— I have a second question, which you might not have off the top of your head, but which PCF programs is the money for PMO and the other places you've put PCF funds taken from?
We'll have to follow up with you on that one, Councilor.
Okay, thank you.
Councilor Kanal.
Thank you.
Um, I just wanted to, to clarify a couple things as well.
Um, when you— Mr. Mayor, first off, thank you, uh, for all the information.
Thank you to Jonas, to Ruth, to everybody who's involved in there, all their teams.
Um, with relation to the, the PMO conversation as well, Um, the 68% cut reflects— I'm just clarifying— general fund reductions, but then some or all of that is being replaced in the proposal by PSF dollars.
Is that correct?
Thank you, Ruth.
I apologize.
Uh, Ruth Levine, for the record, budget director.
Sorry.
Sorry, can you repeat the question?
Apologies.
Yeah, real quick.
Thanks to the guests for coming in and visiting.
I know you might be leaving, but we have some kids up there.
That's why, uh, for those watching at home, uh, I just wanted to know, Ruth, if, um, the, uh, the money that the 68%, uh, figure given to us about PMO, um, reflects a general fund reduction, and then some of that, or maybe all of that money is being replaced by Yes, it's just the general fund reduction.
Not all of it is being replaced by the PSF dollars, so we can get you the net percentage of the total program reduction.
I don't have that off the top of my head, but you can get it.
Thanks.
And, and just to clarify how this information is presented, when we hear PSF dollars coming in, that is distinct from the PSF interest, right?
My understanding is the PSF interest is being moved to the general fund and then would be portrayed as general fund dollars.
So when we see PSF, we really mean PSF, not interest.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
The interest is a separate sort of package.
I believe that one, the PMO package that you referenced, is the only place where the— or the PMO package, and then there's one other package for administration in BPS.
And I believe those are the only 2 places aside from the interest that appear with PSF funding.
Other than things that are in the CIP and continuing as usual.
Okay, and then I have a question on a completely different item, which is in police, and I'm asking if it's in fire as well, just to pre-presage the question here.
In police, there is a $2 million allocation that's normally given for payouts, and this is in anticipation of additional retiree retirements Yes.
Associated with a 27-pay-period year.
In fiscal year 2026-27, there is not a 27-pay-period month, and therefore this anticipated additional retirement wave is not anticipated for this fiscal year.
And so there's a $2 million reduction from a holdover there.
Is that— 2 questions.
On the police side, is that calculated as part of the 6%?
And second question is, is that part— does FIRE have the same type of change?
I will have to get back to you on that one.
We'll add it to our list.
Sorry, I don't have that off the top of my head, but we'll get back to you.
No worries.
I guess maybe, and this is more on the policy side than it is, I think, on the numbers side, but feel free to follow up with me later.
My question is, we do have a 27-pay-period month In May, next month, 10 days from now.
So my understanding is we will be anticipating some sort of bump there.
And I wanted to know if the money that was originally proposed in the spring bump— spring TAO, sorry— of last year, but ended up being included in the budget last year for additional— it was overtime for hiring and backfill for fire, and I believe was If we're expecting that the— that that additional wave will be able to be handled in this fiscal year, or if we're going to have an ask related to sort of addressing that gap.
And to be clear what I mean, if we had started hiring firefighters on July 1st of last year, takes 10 months, they'd have been ready to go by the time the retirement wave would happen this May, right?
Because that didn't happen, we're asking for additional funding.
Thank you.
For a variety of reasons, there will likely be a gap between when the new wave of firefighters that's being trained is ready, some period of time after the retirement wave, which generally necessitates some overtime.
And I want to know if that overtime bump is going to be able to be handled in this fiscal year, or if that's reflected in this proposal, or maybe in some other place.
There are a couple pieces to that, so we'll have to get back to you on some of the details.
It's my understanding that the current year gap is not, is addressed, is not being reflected in the ask for next year.
So, but in terms of the details of like overtime and payouts and the like, that's, we'd have to get the Public Safety Service area to answer the more detailed parts of that question.
Okay, I might have more later, but that's good for now.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'll just echo some of the questions, and thanks for the presentation today.
We're, you know, I think all eager to get into this, even though it's going to be a deeply unpleasant experience.
I'm going to echo some of the PCF questions.
I think my biggest question kind of going into this was what strategic programs are already approved in the city make the case for these transfers and realignments.
And I know that there's some follow-up we're going to have on that, but we'll be looking very closely at that.
The other part, though, is the sort of the interest.
I think my understanding is that's also part of the SIP because you build a forecast over a 5-year period of time, including the interest earnings.
And so I want to make sure that we're not missing the accounting on that.
And if it's going to become normal practice to propose a budget that just plows the interest from that fund back into the general fund, that needs to be pretty clear, I think.
Because I think outside this room, I think the expectation was like, that's a one-off, maybe a two-off event.
That's not expected to be part of the program itself.
So looking forward to engaging in that conversation as we get into this stuff more deeply.
Thank you.
My new question, I suppose, is— and I see that Councilor Murillo is in the queue after me, so maybe, maybe I'm anticipating something— but the non-sworn officer cuts in PPB and other public safety, PSR in particular, were those cuts informed by the call allocation study that's underway and sort of what came out of that budget note from last year?
Yes.
Because I know that's work that we're already doing right now.
And so I think what I'd like to understand is, are we going to save ourselves money with this approach or cost ourselves money with this approach, just given that it does cost more to send a sworn officer to do some of this work that a PS3 is intended to do?
As I said, we heard some testimony from— I think her name was Rebecca— earlier to that end.
And so those are some of my initial questions.
I think I think, um, I do want to— I want to come back to the franchise utility program discussion that we heard testimony around.
Um, I also just heard some concerns from a constituent of mine in Eastmoreland that thinks that we have an underfunded franchise utility program, which then results in us leaving money and resources on the table.
And so I think the, the employee there is on to something that I We'll be exploring in this.
And, you know, again, you don't, you don't do things like this on a dime.
You need to think about it and study them.
But I, but I am curious to make sure that, um, we're not, we're not losing opportunities to collect what we're already owed.
Um, so that's, that's a piece I'll be looking at in this budget.
And then finally, um, first of all, I want to say I really appreciate the open book presentation.
I don't think I started with I like that presentation of data.
It is an improvement, I think, from what we had last time.
So thanks, Ruth.
I'm sure you're responsible for this, this is your staff, Jonas, but thank you guys.
It's made it very easy for me to kind of see this in a very common picture.
What I did find sort of looking at that a little bit is the combined utility rate is gonna be held constant, I think, in your proposed relative to last year.
So we're not proposing a rate increase.
Yes.
I note that because in the note it does say that, you know, there will be, there will be costs to core operations and planned capital.
That's part of the normal book of business of the water and BES bureaus because we have to keep whole the water filtration plant expenses.
And so that's outlined and that's honest there, but it's worrisome for me because if we don't raise those rates over time, then we're going to continue to increase the likelihood of water main breaks and all the other things.
And so just making sure that that's extremely transparent for the public, that that's the trade-off we're making when we, when we develop these rates, I think is really important.
And it's also very important for us colleagues when we approve debt issuances that drive that cost.
So that's it for now.
I'm sure— I know I'll have more questions as we get into this.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Morillo.
Thank you so much.
Um, thank you everyone for this presentation and for all the folks that came and testified.
I just want to say to the audience and to the city employees that are listening that there is not a single person who is working at the city today, um, who will be lost in this process, who is not a valuable and important member of the city, and who isn't doing valuable work.
I don't think that there is such a thing as efficiencies in this time.
I think we are already cutting to the bone.
And so I just want folks to know that you are deeply cared for and respected and that we will do everything we can.
And also, I don't want to make false promises.
This is going to be a very difficult budget year.
But I just wanted to say that to folks listening.
I have a few questions, and some folks I anticipated would already ask my questions.
So I would echo the sentiments around PSF.
I would like to see— Thank you.
Line item, uh, examples of if we're taking PCF dollars to do things like funding PMO, then, um, what programs are we cutting in PCF?
Because it is my understanding that those things are already allocated, and I need to understand what is being taken away when we're making those decisions.
I would echo the sentiments on PS3s as well.
Um, I am curious how much it's going to cost as a city to pay out unemployment and benefits for folks that we lay off, and if we have different scenarios for how much it will cost for each version of layoffs.
We can gather that information for you, Councilor, and have that ready for us when we have our city operations conversation.
And just one correction.
Go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead.
Has the administration accounted for how much unemployment will cost us?
Go ahead.
I think any additional costs of sort of things like payouts Unemployment insurance, any time past July 1st that people are continuing positions, because I don't necessarily expect all of it would play out exactly by July 1st, would be addressed through bureaus' budgets in '26-'27.
I think there are various kind of contingencies that we'll talk about in the coming weeks that would be available to cover any of those costs that are above.
Thank you.
Okay, I look forward to getting more details.
And City Administrator Raymond Lee, I think I cut you off while you were trying to say something to me.
No, I was just going to add another comment, but Ruth hit it.
Okay, I appreciate that.
I'll move on to my next questions then.
A number of the packages that we see in this So, uh, what does the $7 million transfer from the Portland Harbor Set-Aside Fund— again, do we anticipate that this is a loan that is going to have to be repaid, out of curiosity?
Uh, yeah, thank you, Councilor, uh, for the question.
For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer So that, I think it was $7 million is the amount that we used in the budget, is from a portion of the, what's called the City Obligations Reserve Fund or CORF.
It's a portion that had been originally contributed by general fund resources in anticipation of future costs that might incur, the city might incur as part of the broader Portland Harbor project.
And we know that those costs will occur at some point.
So by pulling them back, as is the case with the most reserves and fund balances, Does mean we're transferring risk to that future, right?
That we will have to pay those expenses at some point, which means likely at some rational point in time, we'll want to develop a plan to replenish those dollars.
Is it a loan?
It's not.
We're not paying it back with interest.
We're just grabbing it back.
But we do recognize that, as is the case with using any reserves, those reserves exist for a reason, and we will need to address that reason and risk in a future budget cycle.
Thank you.
And then I think just one other aspect of your question.
The transfers into the general fund that you see, so including that one from the Citywide Obligations Reserve Fund, aren't one-to-one backing.
I mean, they are backing expenses, but they're not aligned to a specific expense.
It wasn't like we took that for a specific purpose.
So the PSF interest, the The CORF, the drawdown of the PBOT reserve become general fund resources.
They're all one-time in nature.
And so they, it's sort of as if there was just additional general fund revenue to be able to pay for all of our expenses.
So we will have to find $7 million additional later on.
The things that we have cut today, if we take from this fund, as is with all, all those types of funds?
I would say we probably will, right?
I mean, we don't— we'll have to determine at that future budget cycle or decision-making point what the total liability is, what resources are available to cover that, and the matrix of, you know, other priorities.
I would expect, given that we did put those dollars in, for this reason, that liability is not going away.
So I would expect we will need to do something.
Is it a one-for-one replacement?
Is it a one-time replacement or replace over multiple years?
That I think is yet to be determined based upon decisions that occur between now and then.
Does that help, Councilor?
Yeah, yeah, that does help.
Thank you for answering that.
It's no easy answers here today.
I'll move on to— I only have 2 more questions and then I will give my other colleagues some time as well.
We're obviously on the precipice of potentially passing the transportation utility fee because we need funding to maintain our streets, and if we don't have that funding, then it's not going to go very well over the next few years.
Do you think that your return of $7 million in general fund from PBOT for LED street lighting resources is counter to those efforts, or will it be taking that same fund?
No, it's not counter to that endeavor, Councilor.
This fund is built out over several years.
So if we did this on a repeated basis continuously, yes, that would have an impact.
But as we look at next year and moving forward with funding as it relates to street lighting, we have the adequate funds and we won't have that same replacement in this coming year that we'll have in '27-'28.
Thank you, City Administrator.
And the last thing I was interested in that I think other folks might not touch on is, uh, that there is a proposal to eliminate funding that we've set aside for the future sobering center, and it's about $2 million.
Does this mean that the city is no longer planning to engage in the setup of the new sobering center?
Yeah, thank you, Councilor.
We have an obligation of $2 million for the ongoing operations of the sobering center That ongoing operations is keyed on it being open.
It's now slated to open in 2027.
And so our commitment to county is we will give them 50% today, and upon it becoming fully operational, then we will fund it at the full $2 million of operation fund.
And sorry, just to clarify something there, there is a $1 million transfer.
So I think there were kind of 2 separate packages, and you may be seeing we drew it down from contingency, and then we allocated it in 2 separate places because, um, that's just technically how it had to work.
So we did allocate $1 million in the budget for the sobering center in '26-'27.
Um, so it wasn't that we took that whole amount away.
Okay, thanks.
That's really helpful clarity, Ruth.
Um, that's all the questions I have for now.
I'm sure I will have more moving forward.
Uh, appreciate your time.
Try to turn that on.
Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Uh, Councilor Zimmerman.
Thanks.
I'm looking forward to the budget book whenever we get that.
Can't wait.
Um, I do want to get into the, um, key budget adjustments under permitting and development regarding the Portland tree permitting program of a negative $3.2 And as I have opened the urban tree forestry in your open book document, so I just want to get— so last year this council moved that part of the program to permitting and development, and we did that with the information that the Parks Bureau gave us for what all the funds that it would take to have that part of the program in PP&D.
Then in August, the staff came forward and said, oops, Parks actually was accounting inappropriately and actually doesn't know how all the employees were paid for.
And I know we went through an exercise of how does Parks, or how did Parks pay for the permitting portion of urban forestry.
And now that's important because— Yes.
This council took an action to preserve both functions, both our planting, which happens in parks, and our permitting program, which is about making Title 11 successful.
And I am trying to understand from this document and what I'm seeing online what it is that you're trying to tell us with respect to what looks like an additional reduction.
So So the fees that are collected by the program are not, or have not been collected, are not adequate.
And I understand that perhaps the Portland Clean Energy amount, since they were calculating inappropriately in years previous for what it takes to fund that portion, did permitting and development or urban forestry go and ask PSEF to make up that difference, or did they just take it on face value that PCF only funds a certain amount of this?
Because it is unclear in these 2 documents, for me anyway right now, where the $3.2 million reduction is happening and why it's happening, or if it was a decision package that it's— you're making a cut in order to save a general fund.
And I'm hoping I can just get some clarity there because I think it, given the Given the attention that this move got last year and given that the council largely preserved the function, I don't want it to— I don't want it to be the case that the function has been eradicated without that being a deliberate decision.
And I just cannot garner that from the documents as they're available.
And so I'm looking for both a direction, but also what has occurred to make this accounting now correct.
Councilor Mitch Green, Correct, because the only thing we did last year was we removed levy dollars from the enforcement wing of this and we moved that enforcement wing to the permitting department.
So what else is going on here?
Yeah, Councilor, thank you for the question.
Um, I think we'll probably have to get back to you on the service impacts, uh, but, but yeah, I appreciate highlighting all of that.
And maybe I'll just take a moment since it's come up a couple of times, The budget office will be providing each council office with budget books.
So that's coming.
It just takes a little while to get hard copies printed and collated, et cetera.
I also wanted to acknowledge, I kind of mentioned this really quickly up front, but probably skipped past it too fast.
We are continuing to work on additional support materials that will include things like, I think one of the examples is a breakout of that PCF.
So I've heard that question come up a couple times.
We're working on assembling that.
Thank you.
Some other kind of one-pager references that we can have available to council and to the public.
So, and then the last thing I wanted to mention is we are also hearing and collecting all of these questions.
We've heard questions from some offices even over the weekend leading into the budget.
So we're assembling those.
We had a discussion yesterday about maybe having some kind of a weekly update moment, kind of a living FAQ document that could also be posted online.
Thank you.
So I just want to acknowledge that I think there's a lot of things you're hearing today that are like, we'll get back to you.
We will, either in the form of that FAQ kind of published transparent document.
And these are really helpful questions to bring back as we have those work sessions coming up over the next few weeks and make sure that DCAs and directors and staff, et cetera, are able to respond to those.
So just wanted to take that moment.
Thanks.
I'll appreciate that.
Just because as I look at the open book document, it was last year Last year, $3.6 million in PCF funds for this portion of urban forestry, and in this current budget, it's $3.8.
So that's a $200,000 growth, which is, you know, that's the normal standard that we'd expect to see in programs.
So this is a significant change, and given how much this program has changed by going to a new bureau of leadership, this will be helpful for us to understand the impacts here.
So thanks for I'll flag that as certainly a need.
My other question I'm going to want to know more about, right?
So in the police budget, we see $1.7 million in the operational overtime in a reduction.
So in reading the narrative for what that means, I'm trying to I think it's important to understand operationally the impact on the ground.
So if I put myself in the chief's chair, if I have— I'm going to use round numbers here— 70 vacancies, let's go ahead and say there's $200,000 applied to each vacancy for employment, insurance, et cetera, that in the— for every month you go where one of those is not hired again, against.
Uh, I take that as unused general fund resources that the chief could apply to overtime shifts to fill what otherwise would be a standardized, you know, patrol shift or something of that nature.
The narrative in this document is making it a little unclear how that is being used versus a specific overtime, and I'm hoping that as we go forward we can clarify clarify some of that, because the amount of vacancies and using vacancies as a way to pay for overtime, that is something that seems quite standard to me.
And I, I want to make sure that our narrative is clear and our explanation to the public and to everybody is clear on what is an overtime budget, what is regular FTE budget that because it's not filled now gets used to, to do overtime, which I think is a different application, uh, and then there are, you know, I guess various decision points that happen, um, along, along the way.
And so I just, I need some more information there because of the way it's written makes it seem like there will be no overtime, and I need to better understand— well, not— that's too far, not no overtime, but just a change in how we do overtime.
Yeah.
And I'm not seeing any FTE reductions, and so I'm hoping we can get some clarification on those practices and how it rolls out.
Let me say this.
How does our budget document and our decisions behind the curtain, if you will, how does that roll out on the ground for patrol and investigations and specialties?
That would be helpful because that is a gap in my understanding of this document thus far.
Thank you.
I have appreciated that folks came, particularly from the Portland workforce, to come speak today.
I agree with some of the comments that were made earlier.
This is going to be challenging.
I see a lot of thought that has gone into this, and at the same time, no good or welcomed decisions.
So, Mayor, I want to give you and your team some praise is not the right word, but credit for a large lift on a big document at a very tough time in the city's history from our finances.
I can see the direction that you are setting about clean streets, safe places.
I get that.
And so I think that most of my comments throughout this will be about some small, like, what does this mean in impacts to services so that we can articulate that and see if that's going to fit our Portland way.
And with that, Council President, my questions are done for now.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Vice President Clark.
Thank you, Council President Dunphy.
I also want to thank the mayor and the staff for all the work that you've put in here and getting it to us 2 weeks early.
Really appreciate that.
I'm looking forward to getting the budget book, and I hope— I really hope it's easier to grasp this time.
It was pretty hard to get through it last time.
I hope it's a little more user-friendly.
And I also want to thank all the people who came and spoke today.
It was, um, very compelling testimony, which is where my questions come.
I— and this doesn't have to be answered today, but I would like to have a better I would like to ask for a deeper understanding of all the comments we heard about contracting out, the nature of contracting out.
I know there must be lots of different types of contracts for different timeframes and different reasons, but I could really use a better understanding of how we use that tool, under what circumstances, and because we sure heard a lot about it from the witnesses today.
Maybe we can do that at a future budget meeting or maybe just privately.
Okay.
The second one is, I, from the very beginning, have expressed concerns about core alignment in Public Works.
And I heard some of that today, particularly concerning asset management in Public Works.
I noticed that it's not necessarily an emphasis in the budget, but there was a comment that was made earlier about losing institutional knowledge.
Yes.
And the differences in the different mapping systems and the lack of coordination that we have.
And I guess I just want to express that concern about losing institutional knowledge, particularly in public works, which is an area that I'm highly concerned about.
And I don't need a response now, but I just wanted to put that out there, that how do we— is there a way to prevent that from happening?
And I know it's complicated.
Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Council President.
Um, I want to start by echoing the gratitude others have expressed, Mr. Mayor, for getting this to us early this year.
Um, you could have told us no, you're going to wait until the deadline, and I appreciate the extra time we have with it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I want to thank everybody who was here testifying.
I took notes on every single topic that was raised, and I want to use this moment as an invitation to Portlanders broadly.
Please let us know what you think about this budget.
There is a lot to comb through.
I know most people will not be able to look through it all, but there will be news articles summarizing it.
Thank you.
You can hear from all of us in our council newsletters about what we are seeing in this.
Please let us know, even if you don't look through the budget, what issues are most important to you so that we can have that in mind as we continue to walk through this process.
I expect that by the end of this, I'll have about 3 times as many pages of notes on topics raised.
That's a good thing.
I just want to take a moment before I ask I'm going to ask 2 questions to elevate something that one of the testifiers said that I think is really important, and that is that with this level of cut, we will not pass a moral document, at least not one that reflects my morals.
And I appreciate that testifier imploring us not to sugarcoat things, not, not to pretend we are making moral decisions when we're deciding between 2 really difficult things.
Not to pretend we are finding efficiencies and reductions if what we are really doing is laying people off because our choices are to raise taxes on working families in our city or to lay off workers with families in our city.
Because we are faced with those really awful, difficult choices that do not have a moral outcome.
And there may be some reductions that are here for efficiency's sake, and I'll call them reductions when they're efficiencies, but we're certainly going to have layoffs that are not that.
And I think it's important to say.
To that end, I have 2 small questions.
I have many questions that I'll save for our topic area, our service area presentation.
But 2 small questions I'm hoping I can get the— get some information on just to provide some framing for me.
The first is, I'll echo the asks for more information on contracts, and it would be helpful for me to see what we do that is contracting for planning, what we do that is contracting for services similar to what staff provide.
I know, for example, in PBOT, some work is done by contractors and some by city employees, and what other contracting is.
And if I could have some sense of the buckets of where and why we contract to be able to understand where it is absolutely necessary, where it might seem duplicative on the surface but maybe there's a reason, and where it is maybe not necessary That would be really helpful for my thinking about that bucket.
The second is we talk a lot about the number of employees we have at the City of Portland, and we talk about the number of layoffs in the budget or the number of FTE cuts in the budget, but we don't always crosswalk well-filled versus open positions.
And so it would be really helpful for me to understand What percent of our actual workforce is being laid off, not in FTE terms, but in people terms?
And what percent of the total positions on the books are being cut, where we include the unfilled positions both in the total and the cuts number?
So if I could see those as 2 separate things where I don't have to figure out if we're conflating filled and unfilled at some point, that would be really helpful.
Councilor Herbold.
Yeah, just on the filled and unfilled positions, I know everybody is very eager to see that number and we are working on it.
Unfortunately, we have to crosswalk like manually position by position everything that's reduced in the budget as position authority, which is of course what's set by the budget, to actual position numbers.
And then even then, of course, things like bumping and other things can affect what happens.
So we— but we are working on it.
We'll get at least an initial crosswalk done.
I'm hoping by the end of this week.
There may be some outstanding questions in there, but I'm hoping to get a pretty good sense of it by the end of this week.
Right.
I don't think we have our main deep dives for another week or so.
So if I could just have it before then, and again, making sure that the 2 numbers line up, right?
So how many Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Kanal.
Thank you, Council President.
Yeah, I really appreciate the work, as I mentioned, and also the willingness to look into and get back on a lot of these things.
I did want to comment on the contracting piece because I personally think I that believe the city has done a really good job of it was our 3rd meeting last year where I first started talking about this.
And actually some of us, many of us I imagine, during the campaign as well in 2024.
And so I am just wanting to confirm, Administrator Lee, that the contracts will be added, I think next week, next to next week when we get our city administrator report.
That is correct.
And we will also have a work session that talks specifically about contracts Thank you.
And the span— actually, I'll, I'll do the span of control piece first because that was the other thing I want to talk about.
Um, somebody mentioned that they have 7 layers of, uh, administration between— or management, I should say— between them and you, um, in the org chart.
This is actually something that would be helpful for us to, in addition to looking at each manager and how many people they have, Which is the numerical span of control, right?
A manager that manages 2 people, 20, 17 people, whatever the number may be.
That's a helpful metric.
Another metric is how many rungs up the ladder you have to take to get to the administrator.
And it's gonna be different in different bureaus.
I don't think you can compare a bureau the size of police or PBOT to a 20-person bureau.
But I do think it's a helpful metric to understand.
Yeah.
That helps with at least informing the other conversation around span of control.
I've mentioned that I knew a person who was in the broader public safety space a couple years ago, and I'm sure the org chart's changed dramatically since then for the better.
But it was a manager, and this was just in the manager series, not supervisors, not directors or deputy directors.
It was a manager who reported to a manager, reported to a manager, reported to a manager, reported to a manager, and they were not all Yeah.
And it wasn't all in the order that you would expect between managers 1, 2, and 3 either.
So these are things that I think are helpful to understand because that person had people below them and above them were directors and eventually up to, I think it was at that time still Chief Administrative Officer or Community Safety Transition Director.
But the idea that this is something that may be a metric worth tracking for each individual And I imagine SAP has a tool that would help with that.
Degrees of separation?
I don't know.
There's probably a better term for it.
As we go to the contract side, I think we've talked about a few different things here, and I appreciate the distinction being drawn by a couple of my colleagues between people who plan for us and people who do things and people, you know, all these different components.
I am struck by— I think that's a great distinction.
I would just add to that, by the examples that have been found in other cities of large singular contracts that are, I think, maybe a parallel conversation to the cultural aspect of are we contracting out on a regular basis.
The $4 million New York City paid to McKinsey to see if trash bags versus trash bins had an effect on rats in the trash.
I think that's a good example.
Which is— I could have done that for $3.9 million, and I would have been very happy to do so.
But there's a lot of these sorts of big contracts that I think will get attention, and the media will certainly pick up on that, and that's fine and well.
But I want that to be in parallel with the cultural conversation about, are we looking at ways that maybe in the short term look like they save money?
Yeah.
Relative to a city employee, but in the end don't.
And certainly, I know our labor partners will appreciate that as well.
The other thing I wanted to ask about, and this is to follow up later, I guess, and it's again probably not a numerical thing so much as an administrative part.
When we talk about reducing administrative staff at the police bureau, including at the East Precinct or the other North and Central Precincts.
And the question would be, is that going to be covered by somebody else?
This is the, I believe, Council Vice President Clark calls it penny wise, pound foolish.
The idea that we might end up not only losing the person who's more of an expert on that role, but also taking a police officer off the street.
I imagine that this is a conversation elsewhere as well.
So for example, 311.
Yes.
I'm interested in that.
Another example is the opportunity cost of not expanding PSR, which several of our testifiers have brought up.
The aftercare program at PSR, I'm not 100% sure what the impact is gonna be on CHAT yet of losing the city-side funding.
It will maintain its grant-side funding, but just trying to understand what is the anticipated operational impact of that in terms of who's going to pick up that slack?
Because some of these things are calls that we have to respond to.
There are probably other things that we just wouldn't do.
And I imagine that many of the reductions would involve a service just not happening.
And I think that you've been very upfront about that in terms of the broad strokes, Mr. Mayor.
But I'm trying to understand for those things where we would be anticipated to pick up the slack, Who would pick up that slack?
And I think there may be a conversation there around what is the most cost-effective way to do it.
The last thing I wanted to mention in the book version, I'm not sure if this is the case in the open book version, the FTE reduction and increase tables from last year were helpful even though they weren't always, they were sometimes misleading because— I think they're helpful.
If divisions get moved around, if units get moved around within the city, you might see an addition of one FTE in— you might see one analyst 2 getting increased because 2 people got moved in and one got cut.
So I would love to see it because what I'm looking at in each of these sections, you see a changes to program.
And in some cases it's the changes you're proposing and in some cases it's the changes that have happened even within a service area.
So I'd love to get some consistency on that and see if there is at least the, the one about what's going to happen is I think the more relevant one here.
The other stuff is really important contextual information too, but I just wanted to flag that as we go.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Novick.
Uh, thank you, Mr. President.
Um, first of all, Mr. Mayor, I hadn't noticed this until President Dunphy mentioned it earlier, but Is the fact that you issued the budget yesterday at 4:20, does that suggest that you thought it'd be best redstoned?
Okay.
So following up kind of on Councilor Green's comments about franchise utility fees and public testimony about that too, I share the worry that if we're cutting positions that bring in money, Then that might mean that we're losing money.
So we want to hear about any instances where you've looked at that.
But I was also wondering, are there places where if we added money, we could bring in more money?
I mean, I had a discussion with Thomas Lanham last year where he was checking into an issue, and in the course of checking into it, he discovered that there was money that was being left on the table.
And I was wondering, had we done an analysis of If we added 5 more people to the Revenue Bureau dedicated to the business license tax, could we bring in significantly more money than those 5 people cost?
I mean, we hear regularly at the federal government that adding IRS agents brings in more money.
So yeah, that's my question.
Yeah, Councilor, thank you for the question.
I think we've had this discussion at one of the work sessions previously.
I think the answer is maybe, and it's complicated, right?
I mean, there is certainly a diminishing return in adding additional staff to the extent that there's staff who can, you know, contribute the work to making sure that the city's receiving timely payment, that non-payers are being pursued and collected upon.
You know, the trade-off to that is as you narrow down that universe, it takes more work to go find those dollars.
And so— I think the answer is maybe.
So I think there's probably some space there to do that, but it's not as simple as a sort of straight line, you know, add a person, get X revenue.
But certainly it's something that I'll say from the seat I look at, pay close attention to and would be interested in more conversation about.
Thank you.
Just one thing to add to that, Councilor.
This is something that we'll continue to evaluate as well as we look at different ways to diversify the revenue that we have coming in.
But also stabilizing the revenue that we currently have.
It's something, a conversation that we have to continue to push upon to ensure that we're gaining all the revenue that we're supposed to be gaining instead of just creating new ways of creating revenue for the city, which is a tax burden on our community.
And one correction, correction I want to make too, as your first question came up on your first round, As it relates to the fire stations, not 15 yet.
Staff is still going through those questions to kind of really designate which station they're looking at to remove that one company from.
15 Has only one, so it would not be 15.
But during the public safety presentation in May, May 5th, we'll have all those details ready for council.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I certainly think that councilors want to know the answer to that question before voting on the budget.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Green.
Councilor Novick's line of questioning kind of put a light bulb off in my head.
I think we're doing that back and forth today.
One of the things that brings in revenue or potentially could bring in revenue is Making upfront investments to make it as easy as possible to put a shovel in the ground and build something new.
And one of the things other jurisdictions are considering is just investing and building out a series of pre-approved plans, having an architect on staff.
And this maybe is a, maybe 1 or 2-year project, but those sorts of things are expensive and they cost money, but— I think that's a good idea.
That could unlock the ability for us to earn that permit revenue, earn that business license tax revenue, earn that, you know, increase in property tax revenue.
I don't know if the bureaus— this might not be an FY26-27 budget because we're closing $171 million.
But, you know, Mr. Mayor, as you're thinking about these transformational toggles, I just lay that on the table as an option.
Thank you.
As we kind of get into this and think about how we move forward.
But that's, I think, what the development community would like to see.
And I think that's a way for us to sort of unlock even preschool for all sort of efforts that are currently stymied by our existing permitting and sort of code challenges.
So just offering that in the spirit of ideas.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Thanks to the budget team.
As I'm using OpenBook, I either— I've missed something, or I'm gonna propose maybe this is an area we're gonna need some help in.
So I appreciate that if we look at a bureau, we're able to see the financials for that bureau.
And then below that, it looks like in all bureaus we can see the FTE count.
But I haven't seen, or perhaps I'm missing it, but then if we go into the subprograms of the bureau, let's just say I'll go to the inclusionary housing program offer.
I get the financials, but I don't get the FTE count.
And I think that from a decision-making information standpoint, that is I think that's going to be a challenge if we— given the fact that there are many positions with the same title in the larger number, I think that's going to make it significantly difficult.
And so I don't know what each of the budget analysts in the bureaus can do, but if there's an ability to apply those employee counts, FTE counts, to each program offer, I offer that as a suggestion that would make this document It much more usable, or tell me which page I have missed somehow.
But I think we are really on the right track, and I've been quite vocal about that track.
And so I want to commend this new interface because my goal is that it allows us to feel at the end of this process that we've all made informed decisions, which Which, speaking for myself, but I think it applies to a few people, there were some aspects last year where it felt we were less informed.
And so thanks, unless I've missed something, but I'm getting your nods that perhaps this is an add that could be added in the future or it's a missing point.
Yes, thanks for the question.
You have not missed anything.
We just— so we transitioned to a new budget book software this year called OpenBook, which I I think will be really helpful and more transparent.
But we were in a big sprint to finish it for the proposed and had a few glitches that we're working through.
But one of the things was we, for technical reasons, were unable to get those FTE tables into the program offers.
However, what we can do is provide— we may be able to get it into the book now that we have with a little extra time.
We can also provide just a spreadsheet of the FTE by by bureau and program offer, and we can post that online separately.
We just couldn't technically get it into the book.
Okay, thank you.
And then my next piece is, I'm noticing as I go through, it looks like everybody historically has had an ending fund balance, and this year that is reflected as zero.
Can you describe what it is that we're achieving in that?
'Cause that seems like a directive perhaps that we've taken versus our old practices, and I was hoping we could spend some time on that.
I'd have to see exactly what you're looking at.
My guess is we don't budget ending fund balance.
It's an accounting thing, so it sort of catches all of the difference between the actuals and the budget, and it lands there.
So to the extent you're looking at actuals, it appears there 'Cause it is actually a thing.
We just don't budget ending fund balance.
Where that shows up is in budgeted beginning fund balance.
So in any given fund, you'll see the ending fund balance from the prior year show up in the budgeted beginning fund balance.
So if there's other questions, I can look at specific pages, but that's generally the answer.
Got it.
So where, from a usability standpoint, where it's helpful is similar to my question earlier about police overtime.
I'd like to have an idea for like how much does a bureau not execute in a given year.
And I'm clear about— I'm not a big fan of the rollover from your own.
I think once— if you don't execute, it comes back to the general fund except for prescribed circumstances.
But it gives us an idea for what vacancies impact is to— if we have a $100 million program bureau but we're only executing $80 million of it, what the impact of vacancies are really doing.
That's where the helpfulness is at.
I think that's a good point.
So I am also getting used to it.
I've just noticed that, that we have in '23-'24 actuals, '24-'25 actuals, every one I've clicked on thus far has a real number in its expenses by major object, unappropriated ending fund balance.
And we get to '25-'26 revised, and we get to '26-'27 proposed, and we go to zero.
Right.
So I feel like there is a policy change I think I'm excited about, but I'm trying to understand what it is.
It's not a policy change.
It really is just that that only appears once the year has closed out.
And so because '25-'26 and '26-'27 obviously haven't ended, we don't have ending fund balance data.
Okay.
So then given that, the beginning fund balance, maybe I'm less excited about.
Are we applying bureaus' beginning fund balances like they get a free head start on their budget?
Or did those all come back into the general fund?
They all came back into the general fund.
Where you see it is in restricted funds.
So when they have a standalone fund, like in the enterprise funds and the like, that is part of their kind of multi-year balancing that they do for big construction projects and things like that.
But because it's a restricted fund, it automatically appears within the general fund.
We had specific— there were a few specific packages that are very few that are included in the mayor's proposed as sort of would-be carryover, but they weren't literally carried over.
It was just an add functionally.
Okay.
I think I'll just hold for the specifics as our bureaus come forward in this process to get an understanding, but I guess that's the flavor.
I just wanted to raise a flag for the Bureau of Directors that one should be able to discuss pretty credibly and powerfully about how their— any fund or what has occurred and its impact of vacancies, et cetera, how it's been used, and if they have designated reserve or restricted funds, and if that's being reflected, that would be quite helpful.
And I say that because if you don't, it starts looking like money that can be used more broadly, and I think that that would be a misnomer.
And so I hope that we can get in front of that before people start calculating certain funds.
So thanks, everybody.
I, I do appreciate the work to get into open book.
This has been helpful.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Council President.
Uh, I want to thank the, uh, the budget office Thank you, Mayor Lewis and CFO Biery, for your attention to this year's budget.
But I want to clarify something.
Do we have a $742.5 million discretionary fund or $803.7 million?
What, what do we have that we're spending for this coming year in our operating budget?
Yeah, good question.
I think the $803,000 was last year's figure and the software glitch resulted in it still being populated there in the PDF.
But our forecasted discretionary revenue is $742.5 million for next fiscal year.
Okay, so we should scratch off what's online for the $803,000?
It has been corrected online, but yes, you should scratch off the $803,000.
Apologies for the confusion there.
Okay, perfect.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Ryan.
Yes, thank you.
Technical questions.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
That was my first part.
The second part is I've heard different numbers for our deficit.
I heard $160 million.
I've heard $169 million.
I've heard $171 million.
Which one is it?
Yeah, good question.
So the I'll just kind of walk through each of them.
The $169 million was what we predicted in February would be the current service level gap, meaning if we kept doing everything as we had been in the general fund only, how much— what was the difference between how much that would cost and how much revenue we expected to get in the door?
That number changed slightly as we updated the general fund forecast in March.
Okay.
And refined all of our estimates through the budget process.
So the apples-to-apples number is $163 million.
Okay.
And then the $171 million includes sort of additions in the budget.
So what did we actually balance to?
How much did we have to reduce in order to balance the budget?
There were a few things that weren't in the budget last year that are in the proposed budget.
There are not very many, But there's a handful of them.
And so that number is 171.
And I would also just note for reference in the document that's posted online, I think it's called Proposed Budget Highlights and Key Budget Adjustments.
One of the first pages has a breakdown of that as well.
The $162.9 million current service level gap, which is, as Ruth said, the gap as of the publication date of this budget, which is different than the gap as of any date prior to April 20th.
So I think I tracked that.
So adjusted to $171 million.
Yeah, the current service level gap is $163 million.
The total— how did we balance the general fund number is $171 million.
I think the grim reality is just really hitting me.
So $171 million is the gap and the total discretionary is $742.5 million.
That's correct.
So we're looking at 23% plus of our general fund being cut.
Well, it wasn't all addressed through cuts.
So in the rest, in the remainder of that table that's in that document online that Jonas just mentioned, the key highlights and summary was, is the how we balanced.
And we'll have more detail on this when we come back on the 29th for the first work session.
But we pulled contingencies and reserves to the tune of $44 million In addition, we pulled the PSF interest transfer to the tune of about $27 million.
There's the return of the Multnomah County, the funding that previously went to the county for homelessness of $30.5 million, increases in fees and other external revenues for about $10 million.
So those are then, those are, that in addition to the cuts is how we balanced.
So that table kind of lays out everything I just spoke.
Thank you.
But it was— it is a very big gap to close.
I think that that point is very much true.
And but it is also true that we didn't do it entirely through reductions.
We did it through a combination of those different pieces that I just spoke.
So you were highlighting some revenue sources that you were bringing in to make this less painful?
Correct.
But it's still the gap Of what you mentioned, $171 million.
Yes, all of those revenue sources I just spoke applied towards that $171 million gap.
And then the remainder of, I think it's about $60 million, is reductions in service.
Okay, when I dive into the book, I wanted to make sure I heard the big picture and also just translate some simple arithmetic for all of us to understand how challenging this is.
I have more statements later, but we're doing technical questions right now, correct?
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Novick.
Thank you, Mr. President.
This isn't exactly a technical question, but Mayor, I neglected to say earlier that a lot of us were concerned last year when you were planning to set up a bunch of shelters largely with one-time money for other jurisdictions, that when the one-time money expired, we wind up this year making deep cuts to public safety and parks in order to keep those shelters going.
And we are making deep cuts anyway, but it shouldn't escape anybody's notice that you've made the deepest cuts to the shelter program, which is your own baby.
So I just wanted to acknowledge that.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Colleagues, any further technical clarifying questions or discussion points for this, the early, you know, Our state-mandated first budget hearing.
Any other comments from folks?
Sure, Councilor Ryan.
Sure, I'll just make a couple comments.
Um, I have nothing but respect for you, Mr. Mayor.
What you had to do was producing your second balanced budget, and I really know you did your best to maintain core services.
It's really painful, and we're all feeling that right It's also personal.
I just wanted to make a comment on a couple things.
I really appreciate that you listened to the council's initiative about the storefront program and that you're bringing that forward.
2 Things.
It's so important that you have the advisory team that we've assembled to listen, to listen to them so they can hear about the program.
Thank you.
And then offer some wisdom.
This came from them.
It came from the community.
So I don't want to dismiss them now that we're looking into implementation.
And I think what— and also include BRICS Need Mortar group who we've been working with.
They are in— they have the pulse of this audience throughout the city.
I think what we're going to hear from them is the pain around the cuts in public safety.
Because some of their biggest concerns have been both that the response times, no matter who shows up, is too slow, and the investigation follow-ups are— don't exist in the way that they'd like.
Anytime we're in the public safety space, I think it's important that we continue to work with— and I've had conversations with Councilor Novick and his leadership of the Public Safety Committee— we Have to engage the county.
So we're over on this side of the river doing the best we can.
Then when we hear about the continuation of their cuts, that doesn't balance out.
I think we're at a time we have to be bold, and that will come.
I'll have some more conversations about that later, and I'll stop there.
I do.
But I'll say one more thing about it.
This term efficiencies, which is reorg.
Yes.
This is our 3rd year we've had an opportunity to accept what the voters did when they said they wanted a city administrator.
They wanted a city administrator to get in there and look at the duplications at the top level, not, not on the ground, but the top levels of our 27 offices and bureaus when we added then on top the DCA system.
I'm old.
I used to watch Flintstones.
Remember?
Anyone watch Flintstones back in the day?
Remember how it tip over?
Yeah, that's what I feel like we've been doing with some of the way we organize our structure.
And it's not going to feel good.
This, of course, is personal, but I still think there are some savings there.
And if we actualize those bold savings now, we then can have more money for our core services now.
So I had to once again make a plea for It's my 3rd year in a row.
I don't know if I'm saying it right, but it just has been too slow in coming.
We began with the restructuring of the political sector, if you will, but we didn't look at how we can improve the efficiencies of the way we deliver our services.
And I know my first comments with the former Charter Commission was, why aren't we starting with that?
Because that's what I keep hearing across the city.
Thank you.
Is that people are frustrated with how difficult it is to navigate this enterprise, and they know we can do better.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Knoll.
Thank you.
Um, I would also love to ask about the, um, the, the ways in which the categories have changed for the larger, larger bureaus.
I want to give a couple examples here.
First, something that I was talking about earlier where the changes to programs don't necessarily align.
There are 2 lines in the police bureau where money is going up in one, money is going down in the other, and in both cases it says there are no changes.
So for example, community engagement program is going from $1.58 million to $3.75 million.
It's a pretty significant change.
And then it says there are no changes to the community engagement program, uh, as under changes to program.
But I'm looking at, um, and, and this is based on Councilor Ryan's question about investigations, because the investigations line last year, from, from 2 years ago to last year, or I should say the budget that we approved in June 2025, zeros out investigations altogether because it gets moved to a different area.
And I'm noticing that the, um, the number of unique program offers in some of the larger bureaus is actually declining When transparency might be benefited from having more unique program offers.
And I know that we're piloting program offer-based budget for parks this year as opposed to decision package-based.
But I think as we move, hopefully that moves us in a longer-term direction of the whole budget being that way to try to understand better where exactly that work goes without having to read the 300-page Yes.
—After it is helpful to, I think, all of us because, yeah, the other pieces, like precinct patrol, $18 million reduction in that, by the way.
But I also know that the service isn't changing, it's just moving to a different part of the budget.
I know that you're not cutting any precinct officers.
But just that sort of narrative component at the bureau level as opposed to at the program offer level might be helpful.
Um, and just as we kind of build this out, that might— yeah, thank you.
Thank you, Councilor.
Colleagues, any further comments, questions, concerns, short stories, interpretive dances?
Okay, the Budget Committee has received the budget message and the budget document and taken public testimony.
This fulfills the requirement of the first meeting of the Budget Committee under ORS Yes.
Our next budget-related hearing is a joint meeting with the Multnomah County— with Multnomah County at 1:00 PM on Tuesday, April 28th, kicking off 3 weeks of work sessions on bureaus and service areas.
We will hold budget work sessions at 9:30 AM every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from April 29th through May 14th.
We will formally reconvene to hear any amendments Vote on amendments and vote to approve the fiscal year '26-'27 budget at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, May 18th.
This meeting of the City of Portland Budget Committee is adjourned, and the meeting of the City Council is returned from recess.
This concludes item 2.
The report has been submitted to council, and no action is— to accept is required.
We will now recess the council meeting and reconvene at 3:00 PM today to take up the Prosper budget as the Prosper Portland Budget Committee.
We are now in recess until 3:00 PM.