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
Okay, and I am calling back to order this meeting of the Portland City Budget Committee.
Councilor Green to Green 3.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
I'd like to move Green 3 and its associated budget note Green 6.
Candace Avalos
Second.
Mitch Green
Thank you, colleagues.
I, given the given the tenor of the day, I think I know how this will go, but I can't vote for a final adopted budget unless I try to amend it here.
And this amendment is much simpler, I suppose, than some of the others that I proposed, but this just simply cuts $1 million from the budget in IRP for sweeps, and it seeks to redirect those monies to invest directly in Public sanitation programs like litter collection, tent site waste collection, basic hygiene programs like public toilets, free showers, and free laundry, and then workforce development programs that provide low barrier opportunities for stabilization and earned income.
I know we do some of this already, but we don't do enough.
And I gotta say that if you look at the last several fiscal years of data, And you look at the budgets that we adopt, we adopt both a dollar amount for sweeps and we also adopt a sort of target number of sweeps.
And in fiscal year '24, Mayor Wheeler's budget targeted 4,000 sweeps for that year and ended up doing 6,738 sweeps.
In fiscal year '25, That same target was overshot, getting to 8,303 sweeps.
So we are doing far more than we budget for, and to no effect.
And so it's, again, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, but more importantly, it just moves people around the city and takes away their shelter.
When I talk to the folks who are doing the outreach work in Southwest Portland, it's a group named Southwest Outreach.
It's a bunch of clergy members, people who've lived in the neighborhood for a long period of time.
They go out and they do direct outreach with the folks who are impacted by this work.
And what they hear from those folks is that the intensity and pace of the sweeps that they've experienced is at an unprecedented level, and it's causing them terror, fear, and many of them who they've been able to have a connection and a relationship with because they grew up in Southwest Portland.
They are now harder to find.
They're going deeper into the forest.
When I met with the Village Federation, they tell me the same thing, that they're scared, that their meager belongings are going to be taken away again, that their tent is going to be removed from them, and they're looking to go even deeper into Forest Park this year, which going into one of the hottest and driest summers that we'll probably have on record in the city of Portland, the idea that we're going to drive people into the forest because of the aggressive pace of these sweeps, um, introduce— introduces a pretty, I think, an unacceptable fire risk, uh, to, to no effect.
And so I'm going to share my screen briefly and I'm going to show you some statistics.
Councilor this is from reporting by The Oregonian.
I can't remember the exact date, but this is based upon Downtown Clean and Safe data.
And the quote in that article said that despite the mayor's assurances, more people than ever are homeless in Portland.
And so while it's true that there are fewer people in tents downtown, there's 76 fewer people in this reporting period, there's an increase in the number of people sleeping downtown without tents.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Mitch Green
And there's a number of— an increase of homeless people downtown by 337.
And so, yes, we have done a lot of sweeps, and we have cleared a lot of campsites.
So we've cleared out the sort of difficult-to-look-at signs of visible poverty in our central core, but we've not solved any problems.
And in fact, what we've done, what we've done, we've just taken away people's barrier between the elements.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Mitch Green
I know they could go to an overnight shelter, but there's a lot of reasons why people can't or won't.
And it's really, really hard to make that connection if you continue to take away, um, the little bit of stability they have, the, the opportunity that they might be able to get a night's rest and think about maybe tomorrow's the day that I can, uh, I can go out and try to get my ID cards replaced, and I can go out and try to— Um, Connect with folks and, and get to a different place in life.
And so I'm not proposing a defunding of the sweeps program.
In fact, we're required by law to do a certain amount of these with the Tozer settlement, which runs through 2028.
But that contract, that settlement with the City of Portland, requires that we spend no less than $3 million per year on that in this fiscal year.
The budget that's proposed exceeds that.
And what we dealt with in the fall TAO last year was a situation that if we did not approve a budget ordinance adjustment that approved a bunch of encumbrance carryovers, that we were not going to be able to finish the sweeps for the year because they'd already blown through their kitty early in the year.
And so I can't in good moral conscience vote for another budget that maintains this level as proposed without trying, trying to reduce that level of harm by some small measure.
And invest it in things that provide dignity, provide an opportunity for folks to find low-barrier workforce developments and get washed up.
So colleagues, I would hope that you would support me in this, um, and, uh, I'll leave it there.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Green has moved Green 3 and 6.
Councilor Kanal has seconded both of those.
Uh, Green 3 is the amendment, Green 6 is the Budget note.
Colleagues, we are gonna enter into debate on the amendment.
I'm gonna ask all of you here, you are all brilliant, articulate, thoughtful, amazing policymakers, and everybody knows that.
Let's try to keep it as quiet as minimal as possible.
We know how a lot of these votes are gonna go.
Let's try and get through this.
We have 11 more votes after this one at least.
So to the amendment, colleagues.
Loretta Smith
Second.
Sameer Kanal
Wow, that's, that's particularly brief.
Jamie Dunphy
I solved it.
That's all I had to do.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
There we go.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, I'm going to extend a courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Keith Wilson
Council President, I appreciate that, and I appreciate this opportunity to talk about this program.
It's an important program in Portland.
It's, uh, Create an awful lot of positive outcomes.
And I want to just first of all start with Councilor Green's one-pager and talk about our camp removal program, because it's a removal program.
Portland is now one of only a handful of cities of the top 100 cities that offers shelter at each removal, one of the only ones in the United States.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
Because we have a safe bed for every person every night for everybody who wants one.
One of the only— that's something that's a differentiator, and that's only been the case for about the last 6 or 7 months.
About the data that he brought up, he's right.
Sleeping in tents has gone down dramatically, primarily in the downtown area, by 75%.
What is being conflated as homeless is incorrect.
The data point that says total homeless downtown plus 337 That's a misnomer.
Those are untented and active people.
My team and I have been going out at night at 2:00 AM because we see that happening.
It's oftentimes associated around our affordable housing properties.
We do see the issues.
Chief Hughes, who's in a different room, goes out with me, my outreach teams.
We're now starting to pivot our outreach to 2:00 AM because those individuals need help too.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
And so we've been focusing on the day and we're missing it.
We're leaving an important group of people on the street at night.
Some are actually untented and sleeping, and those are the ones— yes, those are clearly unsheltered homelessness.
However, the untented and active are a host of things.
We have people coming in from the different neighborhoods.
We have more drugs that are prevalent in our downtown core, and we're addressing that for a host of different reasons— public space, Public safety.
We're rushing care to those individuals because we recognized we have a 24/7 city, not just an 8 AM to 5 PM city.
So thank you for bringing that up, but that's not the case.
What I want to talk about is this amendment is a concern because rather than going to encampments and helping people out of life-threatening situations, we would now go to camps and say stay there because we're creating a sanitation program.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
We have shelter ready for those to provide care right now.
Taking money away from these programs while we're trying to focus on improving our city and bringing them inside is antithetical to where we're trying to take the city right now.
And we're improving.
We've turned the corner.
We're resurgent as a city.
We see hope.
We see the polling dropping 20 points from 53% just 2 years ago to 33%.
We're making inroads in the city.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
To stop now would only forego the renaissance that individuals are looking for.
We have to continue to focus on providing care, not creating a sustainable situation where encampments are now the norm.
It is not normal to camp in an urban environment.
It is incredibly unsafe, it's unsanitary, and it's dangerous for the entire city, especially those citizens that are in the encampments.
It is not healthy.
We can't go back to people being found dead in tents, businesses failing, and families leaving.
Those days are over.
We've turned the corner in Portland.
I just want us to recognize that, continue to do the hard, important work, and continue to trust the teams that are doing this very hard, important work for Portland.
So thank you, Council President.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Morillo.
Thank you, Mayor.
Angelita Morillo
President Dunphy, I don't see why we are being told as a councilor to limit our comments when this is our time to make amendments to the mayor's budget, but he has ample time to give a propaganda spiel with inaccurate data about how the shelters are working or not working.
There is an article from OPB from April, April 1st.
Multnomah County data says homelessness has gone up since Mayor Wilson took office.
There are numerous articles that dispel the myths of the mayor's purported data, which is really just his propaganda about how the shelters are working.
But we know that homelessness is going up.
It is simply less visible because people are being moved from sidewalk to sidewalk, and many are being pushed out to the suburbs.
That's what we're seeing.
We're not resolving homelessness.
We are keeping it out of sight.
So if we're being told to reduce our speeches, then I would expect the mayor also be held to that standard.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President, and I appreciate your response, Mr. Mayor.
We have a disagreement, and my disagreement comes from who I talk to.
So I talk to outreach workers who do this for a long period of time, and they have relationships with these people.
And the testimony that they give to these outreachers—.
Olivia Clark
Outreach workers is to say that they are not getting the information that they need.
Mitch Green
Where am I supposed to go?
Of course, I suspect the response is like, well, just go to one of these overnight shelters downtown.
But oftentimes what they're told by these people moving them is to say, I don't care, just 100,000 yards down the— or 100 yards down the road.
I have to sweep this one location.
Don't worry, you can come back after I'm done and we'll just sweep you again.
This is what they're told.
Now, maybe they're lying.
Olivia Clark
I don't think so.
Mitch Green
But I'm going to believe them because they're my constituents.
And this is what the folks who've been doing in this world who are leaders in their churches tell me.
So I would then have to say that they're a liar too.
So I don't know that we're going to— you know, we've got a difference of opinion on this.
I guess we're operating from 2 sets of information.
But this is where I'm coming from on that.
And so I have no doubt that there are not coordinators that go to some of these locations.
I just don't think they go to everyone.
I think that's a fair point.
And we need to talk about that.
Maybe that's a resource question.
But there are people in our— in my district that are getting moved, swept, cleared, whatever you want to call it, without that access to connection to service.
And they're just being told cynically, like, look, dog, it's— this is what I'm told to do.
This is my job.
This is how I'm going to get paid today.
I don't care where you go, but you can't stay here.
Don't worry, you can come back next time.
That's broken.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Mitch Green
And that's a problem.
And we are doing that right now with this money.
And so it's just a small cut.
It does not zero this out.
We will continue to do far more sweeps than I am comfortable with, even if we're to pass this amendment.
Um, now yield.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, uh, Councilor Green, can I ask a question here?
Um, what is the total budget for the impact reduction program?
That's where this money's coming from, right?
Mitch Green
Yeah, I don't have that number memorized, but I can get that from you.
We also have Portland Solutions here in the crowd.
You could ask them.
Sameer Kanal
I think it's $14.955 million.
My understanding is that's on page 110 of the budget.
I'm looking at the '26-'27 proposed, $14.9.
So I'm just going to round that to $15.
I hope people will forgive me the $45,000 rounding here.
I'm unclear on how one of those $15 million going away when there would still be $14 million roughly in there and the requirement is $3 million from the settlement.
Not that I'm saying we should only base our funding decisions off of settlements.
I'm unclear on how that prevents anything from being done.
I think that's a little bit of a stretch.
I respect the conversation here, and I think that what I'm hearing in D2 in Cully and in St. Johns in particular, but also up from all those neighborhoods along the waterfront of the Columbia side, is that folks from other parts of the city are relocating here and not in the places where they're necessarily the most visible, but in the places where— I mean, you mentioned the forest, Councilor Green, and I think that's worth bringing up.
We were looking at the Colewood Golf Course for a disc golf.
The disc golf folks were asking about using a portion of it that's not part of the current golf course, but is still in the grounds.
And one of the challenges when we started looking into that is the number of RVs that are there that are people who've been moved over to that area over the course of this, actually, to be honest, it's probably before Mayor Wilson and us took office that this started, but—.
Steve Novick
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
It's still a pattern that occurs.
And so I think what we're looking at here, and I would implore, I'm gonna direct this at the colleague of mine who talks the most about the difference between outputs and outcomes, and say sweeping is an output, but what we're looking at in the data is outcomes.
And when we see a pattern of trying the same thing repeatedly and continuing it, As— and the output is not leading to the desired outcome.
That's something that we need to change.
And we're not talking about a wholesale change.
We're talking about 6-ish percent being redirected to something that will make our streets cleaner, create more public sanitation, create basic hygiene, create workforce development.
And I'll note that several of my colleagues have worked really hard to create more opportunities for workforce development in this budget.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Here's another way.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please move to a vote on Green 3?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green 3, moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Kanal?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Absent.
Ryan?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Morillo.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark.
Olivia Clark
No.
Mitch Green
Green.
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman.
Candace Avalos
Absent.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith.
You miss me?
Absent.
What about me?
Oh wait, I'm sorry, what?
You skipped Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Sorry, Avalos.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Sorry.
Smith, absent.
Dunphy.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Sameer Kanal
Uh, okay, point of—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah, I'm sorry, I couldn't get off mute.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Oh, no problem.
Okay, uh, Pirtle-Guiney?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay, so the amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays, and 2 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Can we call the roll on Green 6, the note?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green 6, moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Kanal?
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane?
Can you remind me what this is?
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, the 6, the budget note that goes with it.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Murillo?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Eric Zimmerman
Zimmerman.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Oh, absent.
Candace Avalos
Avalos.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Smith.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Dunphy.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays, and 2 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, colleagues.
Councilor Avalos to Avalos 4.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Um, so Avalos 4 also has a companion budget note, Avalos 9.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
And so this amendment is, like I said earlier, Councilor Green and I are approaching a similar issue with some different approaches since— and I'm really glad actually that the last one passed.
I think that's a good step forward.
But Green 2 and Avalos 4 have a lot of similarities.
And I think that at the core of this, I just want to start by saying I really do think it's important that as a body that we take some kind of action to exercise our oversight powers, uh, and our budgetary powers.
And the way that this is structured, this amendment creates a restricted reserve dedicated to homelessness system governance, regional coordination, and transition planning work.
Um, I'll also note that I think that there's efforts on the other side of the river to offer To do similar work, essentially to start using staff time to figure out what is our plan, what is our real transition to ensuring that we're not doing duplicative work, that we are getting the outcomes that we need, that we're getting the data that we need to make the decisions so that next year's budget cycle we're not staring down another big hole that we continue not filling by not making the hard choices of deciding what can our system afford to pay for, what's creating the outcomes that are worth the dollars we're spending on them, and how are we moving towards what ultimately is the city's So, um, the intent of this amendment is to create dedicated planning capacity to evaluate whether the city's homelessness response infrastructure is operating as efficiently and effectively as it should be, particularly as both the city and the county are going to continue to face these budget constraints, as we've shared.
I think that Portlanders are asking legitimate questions about system coordination and duplication of responsibilities.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
And I think that we need to be they're asking questions about long-term governance structure and whether resources are being aligned toward permanent housing outcomes as effectively as possible.
And oversight and accountability of the system are also being questioned as we see these stories of financial mismanagement like at Sunstone or the newly resurfaced allegations at Urban Alchemy, as we've been discussing.
The budget note that's related to it adds the legislative intent.
And what it essentially does is it directs Portland Solutions, the city administrator, and relevant homeless system partners to evaluate opportunities to improve coordination, reduce duplication, clarify operational responsibilities between the city and the county.
And then specifically, that review will include things like assessing overlapping responsibilities, evaluating shelter governance and contracting structures, reviewing cost-effectiveness and housing outcome performance across shelter outreach, IRP, PMO, and related programs.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Yes.
Candace Avalos
Evaluating whether certain shelter administration functions will be better coordinated regionally or through the county, identifying strategies to preserve continuity of services during any future transitions, and developing recommendations for redirecting city resources towards homelessness prevention, housing stabilization, supportive housing, and permanent exits from homelessness.
And then the budget note establishes a timeline for council review before development of the FY27-28 proposed budget.
I think ultimately the intent here is accountability and long-term system planning.
Um, I believe that Portlanders deserve a homeless response system that's coordinated and outcome-focused and financially sustainable and centered on moving people into stable housing as effectively as possible.
Uh, and I don't think I stated at the beginning, this moves $1 million into this one-time funding so that we can, um, start, uh, actually putting the, the money towards the work that needs to happen of, uh, everything that I described.
Councilor So that is my amendment in a nutshell, and I will move Avalos 4.
Do I need to move both, or how do I do that?
Avalos 4 and 9?
Jamie Dunphy
Yes, and we don't have a copy of 9.
Um, I can't— the clerk doesn't have it, and I don't seem to have it in the, uh—.
Candace Avalos
All right, I'll make sure my team sends that out.
Jamie Dunphy
Great, thank you.
But Councilor Avalos moves Avalos 4 and Avalos 9.
Is there a second?
Councilor Murillo seconds.
Colleagues, to the amendment.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
Uh, Councilor Avalos, where—.
Who does this work?
Candace Avalos
The city.
City administrator.
Olivia Clark
The city administrator is going to do this?
Candace Avalos
Directs the city administrator to ultimately be responsible for the outcome.
But, you know, PMO and Portland Solutions, all of the, all of the components of the homelessness, uh, work is meant to participate in this exercise.
Olivia Clark
Can I ask City Administrator Raymond C. Lee who would do this work?
Sameer Kanal
I would assume it would be part of our portfolio for Portland Solutions for now.
Candace Avalos
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Colleagues, any further discussion of Avalos 4 or the accompanying budget note, Avalos 9?
Councilor Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Yes, thank you, Council President.
Councilor Avalos, have you been in communication with, uh, the joint team that's the city and the county that's— that meets regularly?
Um, the mayor's a part of that, Councilor Zimmerman's a part of that.
Candace Avalos
I am in regular communication with all of the partners in our housing system, yes, and they are aware.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Um, I just don't like duplication of work, so this is something that's been going on for a long time, this partnership between the city and the county.
And, um, what was— where, where— I guess maybe the mayor.
Is it Councilor Zimmerman who is on that committee?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, yeah, he appoints.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, it's a mayoral appointment.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Dan Ryan
Did you want to add anything?
Is this a conversation that's active?
That's what used to take place when I was at the table, um, but then when there was such a lack of tolerance for doing hard work with working with the chronically homeless community and really doing that hard, messy work to help engage them into services.
It just got too untenable as we went back to the status quo housing first work.
Yeah.
So I don't know what's going on in that committee anymore.
Keith Wilson
Yeah, no, we have the Homeless Response System Steering and Oversight Committee that we talk— and Councilor Avalos, I don't— this is the first dive I've heard of this amendment, so I'm not aware of conversations with others.
Candace Avalos
Well, I'm working with my partners across the river, like Councilor or like Commissioner Singleton, trying to— again, yes, I am aware of the SOC.
That is not what this is.
This isn't— that's just regular business.
This is forcing a conversation about making some decisions before the next budget about how we're going to close this budget gap that requires making sure that we are able to assess Are the outcomes working?
Are they worth the dollars?
So it explains it in detail, the outcomes, but they are different from the current status quo outcomes of the SOC.
Yes.
Dan Ryan
My experience has been that politicians don't stick with a plan.
And so I know when we first got the villages up and running, we were seeing up to 50% rate of going into housing, and especially with those that were engaging in addiction recovery services, those engaging in workforce, those were our best results.
And we all celebrated those for about 6 months because they were there and we measured them.
And then we started moving away from that.
And so one of the challenges that you'll find in this position, all of you, is we work on the hardest thing that we failed at miserably.
Like, I don't think any city has failed more than Portland in terms of engaging with chronically homeless people.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
Who do suffer, many of them, after they're on the streets for 2 years from addictions and unchecked and untreated mental health issues.
It's sad and it's hard work, and we haven't been willing to hang in there and actually stick with the plan long enough to see any results.
Because I heard the word football earlier, there's just this football game that keeps going on where we can't get on the same page to be To be doing what's right for Portland and would be great for this humanitarian challenge.
And so we just keep having like these new ideas that come up.
So I think there's more plans than we need to— we have a lot of plans.
We just haven't had the stamina, the integrity, the persistence to stick with anything.
And so this is my 6th budget process.
And so it's just sad to continue to always hear that we have to have a new plan.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
When we haven't been able to see through any of our other plans that we're starting to get results.
So that's where I'm hesitant about doing yet another big plan.
Angelita Morillo
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
As the vice chair to Councilor Avalos, I appreciate your leadership on this.
And as I alluded to when I motivated my own version that does it a different way, fully support you in this, endorse your proposal here.
Plan to vote for it.
But I just want to clear up one thing here.
This is not a replacement for the existing conversation that's happening, because frankly, that, that is, that has fallen apart.
I mean, when the decision was made to sort of tear up this funding arrangement between the county and the city, that sort of drove a nail in that as far as I'm concerned.
And we've had these nice joint meetings about this, but the intention behind this amendment is to start a timer and start the process of saying this current system is not working.
We need to draw it down.
Let's do something different.
And let's actually use some evidence-based reasoning in the process.
And so that's why I'm supporting this today.
Clearly, the folks at the table who've been at this in a leadership position all this while have failed to figure this out.
And so it's up to us.
Councilmember as the people who approve budgets for the City of Portland and spend taxpayer dollars to step in and try to do something different.
And you're the chair of the Housing Committee.
And so this is the sort of leadership that I'm seeing here.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
I'm going to talk— we have the budget note in our emails for those who haven't seen it yet.
I just wanted to get an understanding here.
I'm reading over the budget note, and I think understanding the need for reevaluation or evaluation— it doesn't say re in here— makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm curious if I could just get a little of the legislative intent clarified, because this is one that I'm not 100% clear on.
When you talk about an assessment of overlapping operational responsibilities, is is the legislative intent as described by Councilor Green a moment ago, are we trying to talk about how we get out of overlap?
I'm seeing a nod there.
And so this can help inform that.
That makes sense.
And then the other piece that I wanted to speak to, and this is something that at least on Avalos 9, I guess, the budget note makes a lot of sense to me.
I really appreciate the second to last item here of redirecting away again, as we talked about in the previous amendment, from the management side alone to homelessness prevention, housing stabilization, and then the other side supportive housing acquisition and permanent housing exits.
This is, I think, the conversation that changes not the plan but what the plan is designed to achieve, right?
Where we're not talking about managing a problem, we're talking about solving a problem to the degree that we can, which obviously we are one player in this process.
So at least as it relates to Avalos 9, this makes a lot of sense to me.
I appreciate the clarification and I will be supportive of 9.
I'm going to be going back over and asking questions later about 4.
Dan Ryan
But yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Does this have a financial impact to it?
Candace Avalos
$1 Million.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, thank you.
I'll share a little bit more about the intent.
I think the goal here is that we need to have more clarity about the outcomes so that we can make better financial decisions.
A lot of this is financially driven for me.
That's why it specifically points out getting this information prior to the next budget cycle, because again, we are in year 2 of staring down huge holes in our budget that are because of these systems that we are overspending and underdelivering on.
And so this is about forcing the conversation to move beyond the joint meetings where we just talk at each other about the charts and all that.
This is about rising above that and getting to the next phase where we actually start to make better decisions based on data and start preparing ahead of next year, what are the things that we need to start figuring out we can't afford to do anymore?
Because the way that we've approached this budget is we're, uh, the whole budget was built around keeping everything exactly as it is, basically, around our sheltering system.
And my note and my amendment argue that we need to make some kind of a change.
And clearly the current systems of governance and SOC and all of that are not producing any measurable steps, in my opinion, towards some actual change.
And so that is why this is different.
Yes, we have all these different structures.
Yes, we have all of these plans.
This is about taking that next step and putting dollars and resources behind it, not only for the planning of it, but it's also for making sure that there's dollars available for people that are going to be moving out of shelters that we're going to have to close down.
And it's about transition, not just for the humans working at the city, but for the actual humans that we're serving.
So the, the way that I have it written for what these dollars in the $1 million pot go to, it's for a broad swath of that, but particularly focused on making sure that if the city has to close things down due to us not having the money, that we have some kind of money that we can reach for to make sure that we're getting people a safe landing.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, I just want to note it is 7 o'clock.
We still have 10 more amendments to get to, and we are currently actually only scheduled until 9, but we are able to extend that until 10.
I don't think we can extend it later than that.
So, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
No, thanks, Council President.
I, I need to ask these questions.
So we just took— how much did the last amendment just take out of impact reduction?
Is that $1 million?
Candace Avalos
Yes.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
And this is coming from where, this next million that you wanna snatch?
Jamie Dunphy
Portland Solutions.
Dan Ryan
Portland Solutions.
Okay.
Either Skyler or Mayor or somebody, could you give us the impact of this cut now on top of the one that we just experienced?
Candace Avalos
Skylar Brackenaff, Director of Portland Solutions.
Councilor, you mean the amendment that was just passed previously?
Dan Ryan
Well, yeah, there was the last one and now we have this one.
Yeah, just trying to accumulate the cuts.
Candace Avalos
My understanding, so CBO, correct me please, but Green 3, I believe, took $1 million from the IRP removal process.
So the removal process is about $8.2 million of the $15 million.
And so that's about 3 to 4 removal crews Essentially, it's the easiest way to understand it.
And I believe put it in a set aside that then can go through an RFP process.
Okay.
And then this amendment, Avalos 4, I believe, would take $1 million.
And I'm not—.
Dan Ryan
I'm sorry.
So with that million and why we put it in a set aside and we rethink and plan to do a different methodology, how many employees won't be working on the streets of Portland to do the abatement work and the outreach work?
Candace Avalos
Yeah, the removal crews are about 2 to 3 folks a crew, so about 3 to 4 crews total.
Dan Ryan
So, okay, so we'll be down 2, 3.
So there'll be X amount of abatement work activity that won't happen, even though we constantly all get calls about people desiring to have that service done for them.
And then this one will do what?
Take it from where?
Candace Avalos
My understanding is it's non-shelter-related Portland Solutions.
But I don't— I'm not clear on exactly where it would come from.
Dan Ryan
So you're at the head of that program and you're not sure what that means?
Candace Avalos
I think I would probably have to pull it through from PMO maybe, but I'd have to look at our budget numbers.
Dan Ryan
Sponsor, could you answer the question perhaps?
Candace Avalos
That's the answer.
It's coming from Portland Solutions and PMO.
Dan Ryan
Just big picture from Portland Solutions?
Candace Avalos
But not for— not from the shelters specifically, but it's for them to absorb the cut.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
Candace Avalos
But it's with— but it stays within their bureau, so they're still using the money.
They just have to use it towards the directive that, um, the amendment tells them to use it for.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Dan Ryan
Um, I'm well known to be for outcomes, and I'll always be for that.
I think, again, what I've struggled with since I've been elected officials, how the political sector does play football with outcomes.
And so when we start to make some headway on them, then we shift and we decide to try a different method because maybe that one was getting results that we didn't like.
I don't know.
But my point is we struggle on this council at the county to even define what success looks like.
We struggle to say what the North Star is.
I'll say it one more time, even though I don't seem to ever get much traction with this, but with a lot of lived experience, I have experience, like some others on this council, with homelessness, both within my family especially.
Steve Novick
Is—.
Dan Ryan
I guess what I want to say is that we, we just were failing to provide the support that's needed to do the hard work to move people from dependence, dependence on government services, dependence on drugs and alcohol, To independence from both.
With the average age on our streets being 25 to 54 men, prime working years, most not disabled, if we really wanted to find success, we'd start to get— we'd start to help move and do that really hard work that sometimes begins with the impact reduction outreach work, try to get people into services.
Councilor and by the grace of recovery, which is never linear, it's always kind of like this for anyone that is watching that knows about 12 steps and doing recovery work.
You eventually get to a place where you're stable enough to live independently.
And then when you're working, that helps a lot because addicts have to be busy or they'll relapse.
And so since we never talk about it, in my opinion, with this type of honesty, we continue to avoid I think the real truth.
So I just don't want to sit through another planning process where we can't get to the bottom line of what's causing this deprivation that sadly has made my hometown special in this regard.
When people say that the city and the county collectively are the best chief enablers to the addiction crisis that they've seen of any public system, they don't say that lightly.
They say that because they've watched them, their friends perish on our streets, even though they've tried to do outreach themselves to help them.
But we don't provide systems that allow people to move into a place of sobriety.
And I just hope someday this council will have the courage, along with the county, to get honest about this problem so we can actually get to some solutions.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Um, Director Brokernap, uh, when you're looking at your budget, um, the portions of it that are not shelter, which is given what we're, what we're looking at here in Avalos 4, are they exclusively PMO, or are there other funds that you would characterize as not shelter, or, and I imagine there's a question of what is adjacent enough to shelter that you're counting it.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, I guess depends, Councilor, kind of how you, but I would say largely.
So we have about $1 million just for kind of Portland Solutions leadership.
So about a few positions and then $2.8 million for outreach, the outreach, city outreach team.
And then PMO's budget, which we've already talked about, and then IRP's budget.
So those are kind of the only, Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
So, uh, Councilor Avalos, getting back to, to 4, um, is the idea that everything that was just mentioned— the million for Portland Solutions leadership, $2.8 million for outreach, PMO's budget, and then IRP's budget— is that all within the universe that you'd be allocating decision-making authority to Director Brocker-Knapp to pull a million dollars and when you say one-time money, is the idea there that it could be a one-time transfer of the money, but even if it's ongoing, or are you looking at specific one-time dollars that are already there?
Candace Avalos
It's in a one-time in a pot.
So for this year, because it's about getting prepared for the next fiscal year.
Steve Novick
Right.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
So that what I— the way I'm interpreting that, uh, is that you retain the ongoing funding stream but could do a one-time transfer of it into this pot.
And I'm seeing a nod there, so that helps me understand.
Thank you.
And then the piece that I'm only— the only last piece I need to clarify here is this would be general fund dollars.
I'm seeing that down on the table.
And so does that— 'cause I know that a lot of PMO's budget currently is not general fund, but PSF.
Yes.
Does that change your answer at all, Director Brokernah?
Candace Avalos
So PMO has $2.4 million in ongoing general fund.
So that's the only general fund that PMO has right now in their budget.
I honestly would need to talk to my finance person to see kind of what makes the most sense.
But just off the top of my head, yeah, PMO's $2.4 million is one of our only buckets of general fund.
Sameer Kanal
So the other $1 million you just mentioned, I'm gonna just go back to the million for sort of administration, the $2.8 for outreach, and then IRP's budget.
Are those all general fund as well?
Candace Avalos
No.
So the $1 million is general fund, the $2.8 is general fund one-time.
The PMO budget has $2.4 in ongoing general fund, and then IRP has, oof, I'd have to look.
I think it's about $5 million in ongoing general fund.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, thank you very much.
Jamie Dunphy
Yep, thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman, last word.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
Um, how many employees at PMO will be laid off because of this?
Candace Avalos
Uh, if $1 million was taken, uh, I would guess about 4 to 5 off the top of my head, but I'd have to look at the numbers.
Okay, so that's, that's on the last So the last amendment pulled it out of IRP, but if we took money out of— from Avalos 4, from PMO, sorry, end of the day, we would have $1 million probably coming out largely of the general fund, which pays for a lot of our employees within PMO.
And some of them are part-time workers, so it's not kind of your fully loaded typical employee.
Eric Zimmerman
That's very concerning for me.
PIMO might be the thing that my constituents talk most positively about in their interactions with city folks.
They're the ones who meet their expectations more than any other in terms of my, my interactions.
So that is a huge concern.
But as I read further about this, funds should be restricted until Portland Solutions and the city administration provide council with a transitioning governance framework by December 31st.
Thank you.
December of 26, and some of the points in here about contract and provider transition analysis, etc., etc.
I just want to remind folks: Multnomah County is the homeless services provider in this community.
Portland took on a sheltering role because the county couldn't and wouldn't in 2021 and 22.
But the human services aspect in this community.
Is not the City of Portland.
And this looks very much like what Councilor Smith and I and others would have seen in the first foundational documents of what was the Joint Office in 2015.
This idea to plan about planning to plan to be a homeless service provider.
So I've, I've ridden this roller coaster, and, uh, I do not want on it again.
This would be a— this is a million-dollar layoff to PIMO, Portland's favorite place, and it is a huge shift in the role in government as I read this, this, and how— what it would take for the money to be, quote, released.
It'd be better just not to do the work and never release it because this is a dangerous plan.
And so I don't think anybody wants Portland, who has no social workers on, who does only emergency overnight sheltering and the task sites, which are the most extreme form, to take on a larger role here.
I think that's— Multnomah County has largely— the public understands that the social services happen at that level.
Steve Novick
I think that's a good point.
Eric Zimmerman
I also think that Multnomah County, again, would be concerned about this because I'll remind you that Multnomah County, this chair, previous chairs have continually said that the— they are the body responsible for the transition of a person to a better living situation, but nothing stops the city from dealing with the things around the camp.
Or around the neighborhood that can be problematic.
And that's where PMO's genesis really came from, which was recognizing that something was happening in the public realm and we needed something, a government service who could be adjacent to the homeless services that Multnomah County provided, but take care of the cleanup, take care of the things that help prevent bad stuff from happening in certain areas.
And that's what PMO has been able to do, and then that's what IRP has been able to do.
So this is a one-two punch that would very much would concern me, and I really hope that everybody does not vote to lay off those employees who I think everybody's problem solver networks in your neighborhoods would be very let down if this occurred.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, thank you.
One, I purposely was not prescriptive.
It doesn't have to be layoffs.
There's plenty of other areas in their budget to cut from.
Two, I think that the Avalos 9, I mean, I think at a minimum, I would urge that we at least pass that because it's the intent and the money.
I'm understanding from some colleagues across the river that actually there might be some resources for us to do some of this.
Research work.
And so I think the money isn't as important to me in this moment because I think we will be able to find a way to do it without this $1 million.
But I think the legislative intent is what's more important here and what I would encourage councilors to consider, because the way that I see it and the way— the reason I wrote it this way partially is responding to what I heard around this dais.
I think everybody has said some kind of skepticism about ongoing, continuing to fund these programs without these outcomes, not understanding where the county is at.
That's what I heard.
And so I crafted this amendment with that in mind.
So that's— so the budget note to me is more important.
I think it's fine.
You know, we— I don't need to belabor about the $1 million, honestly, at this point.
I think I would much prefer that the legislative intent Move forward so that— and also I'll say this aligns really well with the ongoing unified housing strategy work because by the end of this year we hope to have some resolution of like really figuring out after we've done all the digging, looking at all the PDFs, we have— we hope to have some concrete steps going into the next budget cycle.
So this is just adding another layer of making sure that we have the data that we need because like I said earlier, Thank you.
There was a lot of things that we requested that we heard we didn't have information for, and I found that really troubling.
So this to me is saying legislatively, we need to— if whatever information you're saying we don't have, we need to seek it out.
And we need to put that in front of councilors so that they can make decisions on the next budget with that information handy.
So that is the goal.
I think we'll take a vote on Avalos 4, and then would we go straight into a vote on Avalos 9?
Loretta Smith
Yes.
Candace Avalos
So that's my pitch.
I think, you know, do what you gotta do on Avalos 4.
Absolutely would encourage you to support Avalos 9 though, because I do think we have resources for that and it is time for us to make a change.
And that's what I heard around this dais and that's what I'm using my leadership as housing chair to bring this forward.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Avalos 4?
And then we will move to a vote on Avalos 9.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos 4 moved by Avalos.
Seconded by Morillo.
Sameer Kanal
Taking a leap of faith here, but yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Now please, to a vote on Avalos 9.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Avalos, seconded by Morillo.
Sameer Kanal
With no hesitation, yes.
Olivia Clark
No.
Dan Ryan
Ryan.
Loretta Smith
No.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Dan Ryan
Morillo.
Steve Novick
Aye.
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Dan Ryan
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, it is now 7:20.
Uh, just a friendly reminder again that we are officially scheduled to work until 9 o'clock tonight, but, uh, have gotten room if we need to extend until 10 o'clock.
However, that is a hard stop for us.
We need to get through the next ten votes.
We are entering a block of items related to restorations to cuts made to parks and the arts programs.
This is sort of an old vibrant communities block that we would have been doing to eighteen months ago.
We're starting with two items that were rated highest priority by their respective offices.
That is Pirtle Guinea two and Koyama Lane seven.
I'd like to start with Councilor Pirtle Guinea and then on to Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney to EPG 2.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President, colleagues.
Pirtle-Guiney 2 addresses a concern that I brought up during our work session during the 8 days of closures at community centers, which the mayor put in his budget as a cost savings measure and a policy measure to allow for all staff meetings and things like that.
I was worried that there could be an unintended consequence of shutting down the type of child care programs that allow people in our community to work.
I specifically asked about 3 programs: preschool programs, Sun School programs, and after-school programs.
I couldn't get an answer on the dais, but learned after the fact that the Preschool for All programs have a built-in number of in-service days already, and the plan was to align those with these closures so that days off might change, but the number of days off affecting working parents would not change at all.
I learned that some school programs would not be affected, but that parks-run after-school programming would be affected.
This is not drop-ins.
This is not open gyms.
This is just the programs that allow for oftentimes our younger elementary school students to have yes.
Safe aftercare at our community centers while their parents finish their workday, similar to the type of programming that sometimes occurs at schools, but in 3 of our communities it occurs at community centers instead.
This is a $15,000 cost.
In working with the bureau director, we were told that if we did do a pull from EMS, they would be able to absorb that so that working families can continue to have their kids cared for every day after school and not just most days after school.
I would, um, be honored to have your support on this.
I think it is a huge impact for an admittedly small number of working families, but an important one at a very low cost shift for our park system.
I would move Pirtle-Guiney 2 and ask for a second.
Sameer Kanal
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney moves Pirtle-Guiney 2.
Councilor Kanal seconds.
Colleagues, uh, to the amendment, please note this is a $15,000 amendment.
Can we please limit this discussion as much as possible and get to a vote?
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
I was going to say exactly that, so I'll stop.
Steve Novick
Cool.
Jamie Dunphy
Let's do it.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, support.
Let's take the vote.
Jamie Dunphy
All right, can we please call the roll on Pirtle-Guiney too.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Kanal.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane.
Aye.
Murillo.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Novick.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Clark.
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Wayne.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Smallest amendment in my career, I think.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aviles.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Absent.
Loretta Smith
Smith.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Congrats, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Koyama Lane to TKL 7.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
Um, I am passing out an update to this.
The—.
There is a mistake, and I want us to be nice about it.
Um, this program offer is right next to I won't name any names, but I want us to be nice to CBO, okay?
They're working hard.
We're—.
They're humans.
They make some mistakes.
This, uh, program offer is— was right next to another one.
They have, you know, overlap.
They're both—.
They both support seniors and are adjacent to each other.
Um, and so yes, please forgive that.
And this is the correct one.
So TKL7 resource funding for the Parks and Rec personal trainer positions that support the health and wellness of seniors and other community members across Portland.
The amendment uses $256,772 from parks levy balance funds that are already being transferred into the general fund for operations.
This amendment aligns with Portland's age-friendly priorities by supporting programs that improve health, mobility, wellness for our growing senior population.
The majority of people that use these Programs are seniors who have low— live on low incomes.
And I want to be clear, I've learned a lot of new things about this.
We had people come talk to us about these programs at our listening sessions, and these training sessions really are not a luxury.
A constituent emailed me today to share that their trainer at their community center works with them and a lot of Portlanders living with Parkinson's who can't afford physical therapy out of pocket or don't have adequate insurance coverage, and these programs are really helping to fill real gaps.
I see this amendment as honoring the intent of the parks levy and ensuring that Portlanders are really seeing tangible benefits from the investments that they voted for, and I would really appreciate your consideration.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
And did you formally move this amendment?
Angelita Morillo
I'm going to keep this super brief and just say that when I first saw personal trainers, I was like, okay, we can cut them out of the budget.
Surely this is not that important.
And then we went to the community listening sessions, and this was so critical for elderly folks in our community who use this as a health resource, who use this to It is also part of our public health system, honestly, for people to get to have personal trainers and strengthen their bodies and be social together without having to go through the medical system.
So it's really critical.
People love this.
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane, for bringing this after all the community feedback we got, and I will be proudly supporting this.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Maria.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
Just a quick question.
Broadly supportive of this.
Just wanted to understand the $160,325.
I know the department has been working on this.
256.
Are you saying that this is the one that had the error or the one originally?
Okay.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Does someone from CBO want to explain?
I was just told that we caught an error and CBO had to rewrite it, but what you have in front of you should be correct.
And can you speak to this, Director?
And we can— my team can also email this out to If they haven't already, it should be in your inbox.
Olivia Clark
Okay, good evening.
Sonia Szymanski, Parks and Recreation.
I'm not with CBO, I can't speak to that, but I was going to offer that if you could tell us the particular things that you were looking to restore, we could go work with CBO and make sure we had the right number.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, I'm gonna vote for it either way.
I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something we had to revisit, uh, later, um, to true up, so Um, yeah, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Similar in the question, Councilor.
I'm just trying to understand it.
When you first said it, it was taking $256,000 from the levy.
I know you have another ask for $700,000 from the levy, so we're getting up there.
But it sounds— I think the way I read it, it was already going to be used this year by the levy.
Is it allocated from— excuse me, are you asking the Parks Bureau with this money just to take a different position eliminate that and use it for this personal trainer piece.
I just want to know what the $256,000 was intended for.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I wonder if the $256,000 is the old number and that is not correct.
Eric Zimmerman
The old number that I have—.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Owen, are you able to—.
Eric Zimmerman
$175,000.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Where's someone from CBO, please?
Olivia Clark
I can tell you I have a number for personal training at $160,000 and senior center at $40,000.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Candace Avalos
Hello.
Owen Saitz, City Budget Office.
So the difference in the numbers is that we use the decision package that was submitted by the Bureau, and there was the, whatever the larger number is, the $260,000, that was the total expenses in the decision package that was reduced.
Dan Ryan
It's backed by 2 separate revenue sources in the package, which is the partial draw on the levy, which is the $160,000.
Steve Novick
Okay.
Dan Ryan
As well as external revenues, which would not show up in this table because it doesn't impact the appropriation schedule as external revenues.
Candace Avalos
So that's the difference in the 2 numbers.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I don't think I could have said that.
And I do want to let you know that I heard a quote today.
Someone said if every office in the world had an Owen in it, the world would be a better place.
Thank you for all you're doing.
It's a literal quote.
Eric Zimmerman
I appreciate that, but don't know what it means.
Olivia Clark
Don't—.
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, the explanation?
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Olivia Clark
So external revenue—.
Eric Zimmerman
My question was, since it was already allocated, this is not, this is not money coming out of a contingency.
This— what I was asking was, what did Parks have the money allocated for prior to this amendment?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Because it says it's already being transferred into the general fund.
Eric Zimmerman
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
So what is this?
Eric Zimmerman
I want to know what, what we're, what we're giving up to fund this.
And if the math is messy, I will remind folks We very much have the adoption process for the small things if we need things to balance and be correct, because I'm with you, Councilor.
I just want to have an idea of what we're giving up.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, uh, generally it's a draw from the levies contingency, but Claudio can speak more about what that means for the impact to the fund.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, and so to be clear, I know that this is a last-minute change, so I was looking at the earlier amendment which addressed Senior Center, the senior project.
So So this would— to restore this would be— as Owen said, there's an earned revenue component and a levy component.
Eric Zimmerman
We made the levy reduction in order to close the gap.
Sameer Kanal
So this would open that gap again.
It would be a draw from contingency, and that would open— if it were an ongoing restoration, that would open the gap in the out years.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
And we would need to address it in a future budget cycle.
Okay, so the narrative that said that $256 million was being operationalized from the levy this year is— that's not correct then?
Because that would tell me you're not pulling— that would say you're not pulling from contingency.
It's already in the plan for this year.
Sameer Kanal
I have not had a chance to see this version of it, so I don't know.
Olivia Clark
A number of amendments that are in discussion this year are pulling from future levy into FY27.
And either asking us to manage toward it over the remaining years or reduce expenses by the time we get to the end.
I, I don't know specifically here.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, so yeah, no, I think that's a fair characterization.
It's, uh, essentially drawing from—.
Eric Zimmerman
So this is a draw from the levy.
This is not a recategorizing of current proposed operational funds from one thing to a new thing.
This is an additional draw on the levy.
That's— yeah, the reason I bring that up is that we are— I know that we've got another big one coming as well, and so a million-dollar draw on the levy is— I'm trying to understand what that really means in the out years.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The Montavilla shelter.
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah, I don't mean to pre— preload, but I— yeah, I— so that's what's on my mind.
I'm going to hold there and consider as we go through.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
I wanted to, to have a breakdown of the monies that, uh, you're requesting for the $256,000.
Is this for how many personal trainers, or does it break down that way?
Olivia Clark
Sounds like it doesn't break down that way.
Loretta Smith
Okay, so we don't know how many.
So how am I supposed to gauge if this is enough money to do what, what it says it's going to do?
It's going to— I mean, it sounds good.
Support health and wellness of seniors through private personal training services in the fitness program.
We have to have some sort of idea of how many trainers, or what is that, one trainer and that's their health benefits and the like, what, tell me what that looks like.
Sameer Kanal
So just to be clear, this is actually the restoration of decision package 26863.
So all the detail is in there, but it is, this is a service that's delivered through outside entities in our community centers.
So I think Maximo could probably speak to more detail.
Loretta Smith
We contract that out to whom?
Mitch Green
Uh, to personal trainers who deliver service in our—.
Loretta Smith
And so that's what I'm saying.
How many personal trainers do we get?
How many hours?
Is this a full-time trainer?
I, I don't know what—.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
May I, um, give— may I answer?
Steve Novick
Yep.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
My office is looking that up right now and pulling it up, and I'll let you know.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, we will, uh, come back to that answer in just a moment.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
My problem with this is, to me, it's an unfunded cut.
It's an unfunded add which cuts from something that we don't know what it is.
I had a parks priority myself.
I wanted to restore somebody who's being laid off, who's a botanic specialist who works in the community gardens group in parks with the youth conservation crew, works with schools, with teens, with volunteers.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
And I proposed restoring that position with cuts to the city administrator's budget because I thought it needed a funding source.
It did not occur to me to simply tell parks to find the money for it somewhere because that means cutting from somewhere else, whether I specified or not.
So I just am not comfortable telling people to find money from somewhere.
I was comfortable, I guess, with $15,000, but I'm not with this amount.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Steve Novick
And the amount I was gonna be asking for was in the same ballpark, about $240,000.
So I just can't— I understand this is a valuable program to a number of people, but I can't support it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Loretta Smith
And I wanted to finish my question.
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, sorry, Councilor Tiffany.
Loretta Smith
Is this in the external materials and services budget?
Is that where this money is being restored back to?
Dan Ryan
It looks like it might be casual staff.
It's not a particular individual, so I would need to drill into the detail there.
Loretta Smith
So we don't know.
Okay, we don't know.
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I had a lot of questions that it sounds like maybe we can't get answers to right now about where this money is drawing from.
As best as I can tell, this is pulling from out-years of the levy, and I, I just want to be clear that I'm not going to support anything that draws from out-years of the levy.
That puts us in exactly the situation we were just recently in of having a levy that We have to budget responsibly.
We have to fulfill our promise to Portlanders that we are going to live within the means of what they can afford to give us.
This is a really important program.
I would love to be able to fund it.
I did not like seeing it cut, but I can't support anything that draws on out years of the levy without a plan for what we are asking people to pay for it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Jamie Dunphy
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
Um, Councilor Koyama Lane, do we, do we know about how many people this serves?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, looking at the decision package, there aren't specific numbers.
It outlines that the proposal will discontinue personal training at regional community centers, creating a gap of 1,000 to 1,500 and people.
Fitness offerings for participants, but there are not specifics.
It is something that is across the city, though.
Olivia Clark
Can I ask also, Parks, you mentioned earned revenue.
What are people paying?
Some people paying for this?
People do pay.
I've clarified that there is about a $250,000 cost associated with casual So they're not FTE, but we buy their capacity on an hourly basis through the year.
That's who provides the training.
We bring in about $100,000 in revenue off that offering.
So the net cost annually in, in '27 is the $160,000 figure.
Okay.
You know, I've talked a lot about the Parks Bureau becoming more entrepreneurial and finding other ways to finance these programs.
You have an answer you want to—.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, 50 positions total.
And for some context, since January at Mt.
Scott Community Center, 190 people have signed up for these sessions.
So they are well used.
Olivia Clark
That's just Mt.
Scott?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yep.
Olivia Clark
There must be others in other places.
Well, I'm really sensitive to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's concern, but I'm also very aware of the silver tsunami, and that if this might be a good investment if we can keep people healthy, and so they won't call CHAT when they fall down or other situations.
So I'm, I'm sort of, uh, I'm torn.
Uh, I'm considering this.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Being mindful of the time, I'm just going to say I'm glad to support this.
And I'll just remind folks, it's oftentimes our aging population that one votes for these levies, but then also it's just a barometer for our priorities in the community.
And we really just want to make sure we, we take care of them.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Can we please move to a vote on Koyama Lane 7?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Morillo.
Yes.
No.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I am very, very excited to vote yes.
Thank you so much for considering, everyone.
Angelita Morillo
Yes, thank you for bringing this forward, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Steve Novick
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment is approved with a vote of 9 ayes and 3 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, colleagues.
Colleagues, on to the rest of the parks items, which we've split into arts-related, personnel-related, and infrastructure-related.
I'm going to recognize myself now to move Dunphy 2.
Dunphy 2 as filed, as was discussed yesterday by Councilor Zimmerman, originally envisioned going to take the $200,000 proposed for a downtown marketing initiative.
That version of the amendment is available online, but I am handing out a— at the urging of my colleagues, I explored a different alternative funding path for this.
The downtown marketing initiative was created back in 2004 as a grant to the then to the PDC.
It has since become a part of the Portland Business Alliance and Clean and Safe.
Understanding that this is funding a number of really important amendments, I am attempting to backfill as much of the cuts to the arts as I could find.
This pot took a 7% cut overall.
These are the grant dollars that are given to the Regional Arts and Culture Council, the Interstate Firehouse Community Center, and Music Oregon for relatively small dollar grants for working artists in the community.
The proposed cut cuts 45 to 55 additional grants.
Cutting through a lot of this because we are tight on time.
I'm uncertain if there is support for this as a reduction in the Downtown Marketing Initiative.
Keith Wilson
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy
So I'm proposing to primarily fund this out of the new funds appropriated in the budget to council operations to fund onboarding for new councilors potentially coming on after this year's election.
We are also using general fund discretionary dollars that were made available by Technical Amendment 2.
This is an addition of $337,000 to council operations, likely in excess of what was originally proposed.
Councilmember Herbold.
Of what will be required for these offices' transitions at year's end.
And because of the general fund overhead thing, this amendment would take the full appropriation in order to close that gap.
However, we do believe that there will be sufficient underspending across all 13 council offices, council operations and council offices, that would otherwise be returned to the general fund at the end of the year.
We have amended a budget note that directs the administration to reserve any underspending and direct it to the transition fund in the fall TAO up to the $337,000 amount.
You might not have heard this, but I happen to think that music and the arts are really important and the small grants like this are a huge part of it.
So colleagues, before you is Dunphy 2, a revised version, or I am moving— I don't know how to do this.
I have moved Dunphy 2 and then I'm also going to move an amendment to Dunphy 2.
Move amendment.
I'll just move the new one for now.
I'm going to move the new one for now, but if this fails and colleagues are not interested, I'm going to move the other one.
So I'm moving Dunphy to the redline version, which you should all have in your hands, and I would ask for a second.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
And clarification, is this posted online for our staff and for the public to see, or is it going to be emailed out as well?
Jamie Dunphy
I thought it got emailed.
Let me verify very quickly.
Mitch Green
Sorry.
Angelita Morillo
It might.
My inbox is really bad right now.
Jamie Dunphy
I apologize.
Okay, now it's being emailed to you all.
So Dunphy 2, my own name misspelled in the file, I just noticed.
2.0.
So, Councilor— thank you, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I appreciate your passion, but I do not want to set a precedent of each of us going through parts of the budget looking for places there might be partial— there might be some underspending in order to fund a particular little thing that we like.
I think that it's— I think, frankly, it's kind of like what Councilor Koyama Lane just did, saying some money is going to come out of somewhere, we don't know quite where.
Also, I have to say that we are a council with an approval rating of 24%.
I think it is quite possible all 6 of us up for reelection will lose, in which case we'll need a significant amount of money for transition.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
You know, Councilor Novick, I think that when you're measuring on an aggregate, people might have negative feelings, but I think I'm personally going to win.
So, um, and I think maybe it's because we're bringing forward ideas and not shooting everything down, or even our own ideas down, as some people have liked to do earlier.
Um, thanks for sending the email to it.
I've sent it to my staff.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around, uh, if you can just in simple terms explain where it's coming from and what it's going to.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, in simple terms, this budget appropriates money to the Council Ops for transition in case there are new elected officials to help with that transition cost.
It would redirect those dollars back to fill the cut that is going to arts and culture.
And if those dollars— when those dollars are underspent in that budget, they will go back to repay this.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Is that helpful or unhelpful?
This was our attempt to try and, yeah, I'll tell you what, honestly, colleagues, this is a vaguely complicated one.
It's a stretch, but I think it's worth trying to protect as many of the arts as possible.
So I recognize that this is a stretch.
If this is too much of a stretch for folks, please vote no.
And I have another version that we can get to very, very quickly.
Angelita Morillo
For clarification, which budgets are gonna be, so this is relying on budgets being underspent.
So is it not going to be— if the underspending varies, does that mean it changes what is available?
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, so it would take the— it directs the administration to use any available underspending, including a projected $150,000 in underspending from council operations, to refill the transition funding In the fall TAO based on updated projections on the need for funding at that time.
So we will know more.
Right now, basically this puts $370— this budget puts $374,000 into council ops for a transition fund.
By the fall TAO, we will likely have a better idea of— I believe it happens in November.
So I think we'll have a better understanding of how this happens.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Angelita Morillo
And how does the transition funding relate to the arts?
Jamie Dunphy
It doesn't.
It was simply a pot of dollars that was allocated out of the general fund that I am trying to claw back.
Angelita Morillo
Well, look, I'm the person that tried to take money from the golf fund to fund small donor elections last year, so who am I to judge?
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, President Dunphy.
I have a question and then a couple of comments.
We're not actually taking the money.
We're just waiting to see if it's needed.
Jamie Dunphy
No, other direction.
Candace Avalos
Okay, sorry.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, we would take the money and we would refill the dollars for the transition office from underspending from this year.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
If needed.
Sameer Kanal
If needed.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
If needed.
Olivia Clark
I agree with you on the importance of the arts.
To our economy.
And, uh, even these are just small grants sprinkled around.
What I really want to say is I appreciate your reconsidering the cutting of the downtown marketing, and I appreciate that.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
I'm just going to say, speak to both versions of this, just off the off chance to save time.
Uh, I, I would have preferred the other funding source, but, um, I think both of these are good.
I appreciate you advocating for the arts always, Councilor Dunphy.
Councilor thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Um, if folks, um, who are here today, they lose in November, they will have the balance of those previous councilors.
So why do we need a transition if they already have a budget?
Jamie Dunphy
I think that this is, uh, dollars for the sort of setting up of the office, ordering nameplates and things like that.
Loretta Smith
$400,000 to nameplates?
Jamie Dunphy
Well, in theory, if there were, uh, 6 offices that all got replaced, and, you know, we paid, uh, $15,000 to move some cubicles around in our office at one time.
Sameer Kanal
So it includes, uh, furniture.
Everything is in there in a transition period.
So we're moving out of anything, it's all inclusive.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, anything further, Councilor Smith?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Zimmerman?
Dan Ryan
No, I'm good.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Dunphy 2?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Um, yeah, sorry, did we get a motion and a second on that?
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, if you move, I second it.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Absent.
Dan Ryan
Ryan?
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Angelita Morillo
Yes, I think this will have minimal impacts.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Angelita Morillo
No.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Dan Ryan
No.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Loretta Smith
No.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 4 nays, and 1 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, colleagues.
We now have 2 amendments related to— 2 amendments from Councilor Avalos related to personnel.
And one each related to infrastructure from Councilors Koyama Lane and Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Avalos, would you prefer to do Avalos 3 or 6 next?
Councilor Avalos 3.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
One second.
All right.
So Avalos 3 restores a park position that supports community stewardship, volunteer coordination, and core operational support functions that directly, uh, impact particularly East Portland residents.
Um, you know, East Portlanders are— continue to raise their concerns about deteriorating park conditions, including, you know, overflowing trash and closed restrooms.
And we have this, um, position— excuse me, um, it's been a long day, I'm tired, trying to get all my thoughts together.
Um, Let me start over.
Okay.
This amendment restores park positions that support community stewardship, volunteer coordination, and core administrative functions.
This amendment also helps maintain bureau capacity to coordinate with community stewardship groups and preserve operational support functions that directly impact the condition and usability of our parks.
Because East Portlanders care, we care about our parks.
This amendment helps ensure the city continues showing that same level of care.
Particularly, this is speaking to a position that was removed that is particularly for East Portland Parks.
So I'll leave it at that.
It's pretty straightforward.
Oh, and then I guess the funding source is— the funding source is the parks levy.
So it's using of the parks levy for a one-time amount that would reduce the ending fund balance in the final year if no other savings or reductions are found, which you know, uh, we do believe that that will be found in the 5th year.
So this is about preserving a position that was cut.
Um, the west side position was kept and the east side was cut, and we're trying to restore the east side position.
Angelita Morillo
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos, uh, have you moved your amendment?
Candace Avalos
Yeah, I move Avalos 3.
Jamie Dunphy
And is there a second?
I will second this one because I'm excited about this one.
Colleagues— oh wait, I cannot— wait.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Second.
Candace Avalos
No, it's not Leach.
Jamie Dunphy
It's not the Leach one, it's the other one.
Okay, I'm good, just making sure.
Yeah, okay, I will second that.
Uh, colleagues, to the amendment.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Um, you said at the end of your description that you expect or you think that the money will be found in the 5th year.
I just— what does that mean?
I'm not familiar with that accounting practice.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, we were told that we can borrow against the parks levy, um, and that it will be when at the end of the 5-year, if there's savings, that it will backfill that.
That was the structure that was recommended.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay.
Candace Avalos
So the funding source is the parks levy, but it overdraws on it technically, but it's with the expectation that by year 5, um, Yeah, I mean, I don't think that that's an accounting practice.
Eric Zimmerman
At least with Councilor Koyama Lane's, we were clear-eyed that we were actually just taking out of what was possible in year 5.
But this seems like a strange way to frame that.
I am frankly nervous about continuing on the levy, and I think I have another one that I'm going to be asking for a motion to table.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
More supportive for, of using it, um, in Montavilla.
And so an additional hit to that with whimsical math is concerning.
So I hope that we don't dip further into it on this one.
This doesn't seem appropriate.
Candace Avalos
To be clear, the funding source is the same that we did for Leach earlier, so it's the same exact process.
That again, we've already approved.
So it's not unusual as far as us not doing it this week.
Eric Zimmerman
No, it's not unusual.
It's just that there comes a point, right?
There comes a— the Parks Bureau could have spent all money this year.
That could have occurred.
Um, I, I think that there's a method to, to their madness at times, and, and I've certainly pushed for using all of what comes in each year, but I have also I'm not sure I bought off on the idea that they have some hope to be able to have a full value of money issue across 5 years.
And so in this, it's always a question of about how much can you weather.
And so that is, for me, a large calculation here.
And I didn't know this was coming.
There are some others who have spoken to me earlier and asked for support.
Mitch Green
Councilor Smith.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
It's really pained me to vote no on some of these most recent amendments, um, especially the one to do strength training for seniors.
It's needed in my life at the moment, so thank you for caring about elders.
Um, but the parks levy isn't a piggy bank.
And this is all beginning to add up.
I've reached my tolerance, and I saw how many were in here, and I thought I should just be consistent.
And I just don't think it's a good practice, especially with, um, the fact that I'm concerned the receipts from the parks levy might not be as projected.
So when we keep borrowing from a contingency that is a fantasy at the moment, it's, it's really risky.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Could, um, Director Szymanski come up?
Thank you.
Is this something that you're asking for, that you want back?
Olivia Clark
I'll say a couple things about this.
Sonia Szymanski, Parks Bureau.
The 2 positions that we have had share a citywide portfolio.
The majority of the portfolio of the position that is potentially being cut is east side, but it wasn't chosen for reduction for that reason, nor is it a precisely even split east side, west side.
Loretta Smith
Mm-hmm.
Olivia Clark
If the position remains cut, which We have a lot of capacity all around the bureau to do volunteerism work, and I'm very personally committed to making sure that our friends groups and our partners, particularly on the east side, particularly in District 1, don't feel a drop-off.
Loretta Smith
Yeah, I'm concerned about the drop-off of east side services on every level.
Our public service, our public safety, our public and I don't like to mix and match, but we have not talked about getting those PS3s back.
And they were totally cut.
That's 37.
And I think that this is not the answer to it.
It's only $256,000.
But I was just wondering if this is something that you're— that you're needing.
And if we don't have this, and you've answered the question, if we don't have this position, Okay, so you're planning for that right now?
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I mean, I think it speaks to what I've been saying.
I mean, I appreciate your offer, but you're saying you have volunteers and, and all of that, but East Portland doesn't have those kinds of volunteers.
That's what I've been saying about parks.
And so I don't think that's an adequate answer, uh, or an adequate reason to not support this.
Also, um, we could have easily cut the Westside person, but we cut the Eastside person.
And this is what I'm constantly bringing up.
So if we had enough to spread around, why did you have to cut the Eastside person, right?
I'm not saying you specifically.
Um, so, uh, yeah, I think that this is about restoring capacity in East Portland where, um, volunteer capacity or otherwise is not really as readily available.
And we always ask East Portland to do more with less.
Angelita Morillo
Councilor Smith.
Candace Avalos
We say, oh, well, we're cutting your position, but we'll find a way.
We'll find a way to make it work.
That's not good enough.
That's why I proposed this.
I think the Portland levy, the parks levy, is the perfect place to take it from.
And again, this is about continuing to chip away at things that serve East Portland and telling us to just get by.
And that's not good enough.
Keith Wilson
So.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Avalos 3?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Avalos, seconded by Dunphy.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
My tolerance for polling from the out years of the levy is zero.
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith.
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, councilors.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Candace Avalos
Do I have Avalos 6?
Jamie Dunphy
I'm going to come to you after this next one.
Candace Avalos
Can we just get it over with?
I mean, it seems clear where we're going.
This is another position of no opposition.
Jamie Dunphy
Sure, let's just bust it out real quick.
Candace Avalos
We pulled, you know, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney says her tolerance is zero, but we already pulled from the levy with Leach.
So we've already done that.
That was the technical amendment.
Jamie Dunphy
It was a technical amendment at the top.
Candace Avalos
So we've already done that.
So I don't think that's a good enough excuse, but let's just get this over with.
And so that everyone can see that we don't want to support the Eastmoreland Parks positions.
Great, let's show it.
Take the—.
Dan Ryan
Call the vote.
Jamie Dunphy
All right, uh, so Councilor, are you moving Avalos 6?
Loretta Smith
Correct.
Dan Ryan
Let's call the vote.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
And Councilor Morillo seconds.
Is there any discussion?
Loretta Smith
Can you read what the— what, what it is before we take the vote?
Candace Avalos
Avalos 6 is similar to Avalos 3, same source, same idea, but it's a different position.
Uh, particularly it's, um, uh, somebody who we've been working really closely with, uh, in our office, the last person as well.
Malcolm Hoover in the Parks Bureau.
He recently just did an amazing program for us in East Portland connecting East Portlanders to Forest Park through a program that he found his own way to get resources through ODOT.
He's been incredibly resilient working in East Portland, and I think it's a shame that we're cutting him too.
So I'm trying to save both of these.
Malcolm Hoover.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Loretta Smith
Gotcha.
Candace Avalos
That's a bummer to lose these 2 people who we've been working with in East Portland to preserve and give access to East Portlanders to all of our parks.
Particularly, the program that he started creates workforce for young people because it has young people helping shuttle East Portlanders to Forest Park.
They do a program where if people, for example, are afraid to go to the park by themselves because they fear religious persecution because they wear a hijab or any other kind of thing that they fear, these young people accompany them and help them enjoy our parks.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
So this is a position that's been working with East Portland very closely, and I don't want to see his position get cut.
So that's why I'm proposing it.
It's the same method as the last one.
Angelita Morillo
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
I did community engagement at the city.
I think it's important.
I think this work is represented by CPPW now, and we've talked about the needs there.
But as a councilor and previously as a person who worked in the same field, I have rarely met anybody who even comes close to the level of access provision specifically for Black and brown Portlanders as the person in this position right now.
Not just on their day job, but throughout 24/7.
I wish I'd known before that this was that particular position.
I wish I'd done that homework and known that.
And I'm gonna— I would've gone a lot harder on it had I known that.
I think this is a really important position to try to retain.
Seems like it's probably going to go 6-6 again, and so I would ask my colleagues, regardless of your feelings about the funding source, we have another crack at this in 3 weeks.
Please make this a priority to try and save this particular job because it is a really important thing for access to young people on different projects that Parks has done to get input from people on the North Portland Aquatic Center, to get input for people on the design of parks in St. Johns.
And I could list off other projects, but I'm going to stop here.
But specifically access for young people, particularly young people of color.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Candace Avalos
Apologies, I have to make a correction.
Jamie Dunphy
My bad.
Candace Avalos
Um, it actually is from the Jennifer and Contingency, not the parks levy.
We changed the source for this one.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
There you go.
Okay, thank you, Councilor.
Dan Ryan
What, what, it's from general fund?
Jamie Dunphy
It's from general fund contingency, not from the parks levy out years.
Okay, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Director Szymanski, could you come up?
This is getting really kind of weird.
So we're now talking about individuals, somebody that I've had an opportunity to get to know.
Of course, I don't want Malcolm to lose his job, but it's getting so personal right now.
And so you're the leader of parks and you get to make some decisions, right, on how you want to use personnel in putting them in the right places so that they can succeed.
So I think we're talking about a role, not a person, right?
I mean, I just think it's odd that we're getting into personal names of people that are on the— that we're talking about at this moment in amendments.
I'm not used to a budget process where this body gets this deep into the micro arrangement of your— But this is such a micro amendment.
And I'm just startled by it.
I know back in the commission form of government, we would've worked this out and we would've had dialogue about it and we would've been able to make some strategic decisions.
So what I'm trying to do with this right now is listen to your vision on what these positions are.
And then I'd like to hear from the budget office what the damage is now to our contingency in the general fund.
So with you, I'd like you to just to get a sense of the vision about these positions and how you would like to restore them.
Olivia Clark
I'll give you a brief comment.
Dan Ryan
Is this the way we're supposed to go about it, or is there another way to go about this?
Olivia Clark
Well, I'll give you a brief comment and mostly refer to my colleague Amanda Garcia-Snell, who will be— who is moving into the oversight and leadership role with community engagement citywide.
Her vision is the one that this team will be supporting through Parks and Recreation, I anticipate, going forward.
We put this position forward in part due to the SDC freeze and the reduction on overall engagement demand anticipated from the bureau over the next few years.
Dan Ryan
Could you explain that last point?
That's because there isn't as much money being spent for new—.
Olivia Clark
Less money coming in, less, less planning to do around fewer projects.
Over the next few years.
So we think the workload for this group of people will be lower.
We think the remaining number of FTE will be sufficient to do the anticipated community engagement workload really well, and we'll do the best with the positions that we have.
I'm comfortable with the number that we put forward.
I think we can do a darn good job of engagement with the priorities that we have for fiscal year '27.
I take your point.
We have some real superstars in the Parks Bureau doing this work.
Candace Avalos
Yeah.
Olivia Clark
And I'd prefer, as would you, not to see anyone laid off.
But again, we're comfortable with what we put forward.
Dan Ryan
That was helpful.
Thank you.
And now we're chipping away at contingencies today, so I just wanted to hear the update.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, Councilor, for the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer.
My perspective and opinion on the use of general fund contingency hasn't changed in the last 8 hours or 24 hours.
Dan Ryan
Your tolerance level is not very high for these cuts.
Jamie Dunphy
I would— well, I would say with regard to use of general fund contingency, the risks that I highlighted earlier in the session would remain.
Dan Ryan
Right.
And I haven't heard an economic forecast that says our general fund is going to go up a lot in '26 to '27.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
This office is going to be cut by 50% over 2 years.
And, um, just because I happen to know the person and there being a name— all of these people that we just cut, all those jobs we lost, there are names behind those, those jobs that we cut too.
This is one job, so there's one name.
But I— it is personal, actually, uh, and it is particularly personal because this is somebody that we've been working hard with to create more access to East Portlanders to our beautiful parks.
And so again, like the last position, if we keep cutting the positions that are intentionally specifically working with East Portland, then I don't think we are applying these cuts to parks equally.
And that's exactly my point.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
3 things.
First, I'd like to request that we limit debate to those in the queue.
Secondly, I just wanted to point out that over the course of now 2 budget cycles, we have seen where when we propose something that's large and has a lot of different changes, there's the pushback that it's too sweeping, it's too much, it's blind or whatever.
And when you go to protect 1 or 2 or 5 positions, it's too micromanaging.
So instead of it being consistent, it's just simply no.
Councilor Smith.
Steve Novick
Right.
Sameer Kanal
You can boil down the message to this, which is you got an idea, no.
You have a big idea, still no.
You have a small idea, still no.
And it's getting really tiresome to hear a new goalpost being moved every time when we're talking about it.
If we want to lay people off, we should say so.
I encourage my colleagues to, to have the courage to do that.
Now, as it relates to this particular Uh, situation.
Um, I, I have to first say I have a lot of faith in Director Schimanski to lead this bureau, but I will respectfully disagree about engagement.
We are not good at engagement as a city.
It is one of our core values.
We are not good at it.
Sometimes that's because we don't listen to it, and so that has nothing to do with the actual people doing the work.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
In fact, most of this has nothing to do with the people doing the work who are often understaffed, under-resourced, and simply not listened to.
And because they're not listened to, the people that they engage with are not listened to.
And I think the sooner we recognize that we are bad at this— we cannot fix it if we do not recognize it.
And we are not even starting to fix it because we do not recognize how bad we are at engagement, specifically with underserved communities.
And we talk about that geographically a lot, um, in East Portland, and that's true.
It's also true in basically every edge of this city.
Just run around the perimeter of our city limits, it's true there too.
But it's also true for youth.
It's also true for seniors.
It's also true for those words we're not allowed to say anymore— Black and brown people.
It's true for them too.
And and I think having that recognition will lead us to the ability to do something about it.
I would ask one other thing because maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe this isn't about just saying no.
And if it is for you not about just saying no to every idea, provide another option.
There have been amendments to amendments put up here.
We did a lot of them last year.
Some of them passed and actually got 7 votes on things that would not have the first way around.
Candace Avalos
Councilor Smith.
Sameer Kanal
I'm not seeing that as often today as I heard last year, so I would love to encourage that.
But either way, let's just be honest about it.
Steve Novick
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Uh, Director Szymanski, could you come back up?
Olivia Clark
So the question that I have, have you sent out layoff notices both informal and I think recently formal notification has occurred for positions that might be affected in the future.
Loretta Smith
That might be affected and impacted.
So does this— the employee Malcolm, does he— is he on that list?
Olivia Clark
Presumably.
Loretta Smith
Presumably.
Olivia Clark
BHR could be more precise and certain about that.
Candace Avalos
Received his layoff notice.
Loretta Smith
And could he actually be appointed to another position?
Olivia Clark
That's a good question for BHR.
I think it— you'd look to the contract and to our general employee support programs to understand pathways.
I know there are some.
Loretta Smith
So is he on contract or is he, uh, on FTE?
Olivia Clark
This is an FTE.
Loretta Smith
Okay, okay.
I just wanted to figure out because I didn't know that we could actually identify a specific person because you're laying off a particular FTE group.
Not— you're not laying off persons, you're laying off groups of people that have a particular FTE specificity, right?
Olivia Clark
Yes, the budget is specific to the position.
Loretta Smith
Are there several positions like this position that you're laying off?
Olivia Clark
There are a lot of positions across the bureau.
I believe this is the only position in the community engagement group.
Loretta Smith
Okay, so it's one, one community engagement group.
Okay, okay, thank you.
Go ahead.
Did you have something to add, Mr. Zito?
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, my apologies.
And for the record, Ron Zito, HR Director.
I just heard comments a moment ago asking, inquiring about whether a layoff had taken place or not.
At this point, the majority of formal notifications have taken place.
Loretta Smith
Okay, okay, that's, that's what I was not clear of.
And was this a, um, a labor position that's, that is represented by labor or non-represented?
Olivia Clark
It may be CPPW.
Loretta Smith
Okay, okay, thank you, appreciate it.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, it is 8:15.
We have 5 more amendments and a handful of things we need to get thank you, Council President.
Olivia Clark
Just because I want to avoid a vote explanation, I want to say that there are names behind the police bureau desk clerks, and there are names behind the P3s in the police bureau as well.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark.
Colleagues, thank you, everybody.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
Councilor Kanal, I'll tell you usually why I vote no.
I vote no to things that pretend to pay for things with magic money.
I vote no when somebody says just use contingency, just use out-years of the levy.
I tried to save jobs by bringing proposals which used real money, which said let's cut our bloated office budgets, let's cut back the city administrator's proposed addition to his budget.
And I was told, no, we can't do that.
And I am disturbed to see that what this council seems to reward is proposals paid for by magic money.
But if that's the way it's going to be, I'll play too.
After I saw that Councilor Zimmerman had proposed adding 20 new officers without saying where the money was going to come from—.
Eric Zimmerman
I did put that amendment.
Steve Novick
Oh, he did, which he then withdrew.
Sameer Kanal
It was posted against my will.
Steve Novick
Oh, it was?
Eric Zimmerman
Okay.
Steve Novick
It was posted against his will.
Okay.
So apologize for that.
I told my staff, figure out how much it would cost to give every child in Portland under the age of 11 a pony, and let's introduce an amendment to do that.
We drew up the amendment, and I was really upset that CBO did not forward it because I was— it was important to forward that to make a point.
So I'm now going to bring that back in the adopted budget.
I project there's going to be $200 million in underspending in the general fund and we're going to use it to buy every child under the age of 10 a pony.
And I assume that will pass because things with magic money pass.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I think that was a very weird statement, and I, I don't appreciate that.
I don't think the people that are losing their jobs appreciate that.
I don't think the councilors that have worked really hard on these amendments and found sources appreciate that.
So I just needed to say that.
Because that, that made me feel ill.
I don't, I don't like how that sounds.
I don't like how that sounds to the community, because you're speaking to them, not just us.
And to say that we're working with magic money, that's, that's offensive.
So I just needed to make sure I said that.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, it is getting late.
It is 8:20.
Everybody is grumpy.
Let's— everybody except for Councilor Zimmerman is grumpy.
And, uh, let's seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
This is roll call for Avalos 6, moved by Avalos, seconded by Morillo.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Jamie Dunphy
I can't hear you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney.
Loretta Smith
There we go.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Dan Ryan
Ryan?
No.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark?
Loretta Smith
No.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Councilor Koyama Lane, to TKL 6?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes, I will do this as quickly as possible.
Okay, here is a handout that Reverend Sarah Fisher gave us, brought it back for you.
This is about Quinlan Lane 6, the Montavilla Park shelter, which was demolished by Portland Parks and Rec in October 2021 due to health and safety concerns.
Designed and permitted replacement has been— you can see it's on there.
And I know that this demolish— when it was demolished, that was also delayed from an earlier timeline before that.
It was expected that it would be moving forward immediately with rebuilding this project, but the project was halted because of budget shortfalls and has been on hold since.
And Montavilla Park currently has no standalone— has had no standalone covered shelter there for community gatherings.
This is the part of our district in District 3 that extends east of 82nd Avenue.
We hear a lot about thinking about East Portland.
That is where this is.
Every single Saturday, rain or shine, there is a church service that has met there for many years, Hope and Bread Church.
They hold a service for homeless Portlanders, and they have been advocating along with many other community members to have this covered space.
Constituents have reached out and shared that this shelter has—.
Is—.
Was once very important for community gatherings, shade on hot days.
They have the lunch and play there, and they really want this restored.
I believe this project reflects our commitment to maintaining trust thank you.
Thank you, Mayor.
This is a great opportunity for us to invest in our communities and follow through on promises made to the community.
It's also an opportunity to ensure, like I said, yeah, communities east of 82nd really do feel seen, valued, and invested in.
Third spaces are very important for connection and community.
And, um, let's see, the shelter was— it actually was originally planned to be funded, um, in a previous It's parks levy, and it's really well past time to complete that commitment.
So, uh, heard a lot from community members that voting yes on parks levies should really mean that promises are kept and that projects are delivered.
I would really appreciate your consideration.
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
I want to second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Koyama Lane moves.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I would like to move Koyama Lane 6.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Zimmerman seconds.
Thank you.
Colleagues to the amendment?
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
So I am excited about this, and I'm glad that Councilor Koyama Lane brought it to my attention.
This will— it might not be like, why?
We just talked about levy.
But a capital project for me is something that I do see as valuable in terms of getting forward and ahead on, in terms of the way the spend goes.
And so I don't whimsical math this.
I know it will have impacts in the out years, and I think it is worth it.
And so, Councilor Koyama Lane, thank you.
The— I used to live in Montavilla.
Um, I also appreciate that Commissioner Brim Edwards at Multnomah County, um, who represents the same area, also reached out and asked for support.
And, um, similar to Councilor Clark, I know good leaders when I see them, and Councilor— Commissioner Brim Edwards reaching out and advocating on this helped a lot.
And so Councilor TKL, thanks for bringing it.
And, um, when she came to me and said, I know you're gonna something something about the shelter plan, and I had no idea what she was talking about because we just ended a sheltered conversation in the homeless continuum.
But this is a picnic shelter, a picnic shelter at a park, and I'm excited about that.
And while I don't live in Montavilla anymore, it's a great park, great area, and this will be a good addition.
Thank you.
Thanks for bringing it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I would love to be able to vote for this.
This is important, but I think that we should make all of these decisions in the context of considering trade-offs.
And Parks has a huge maintenance backlog, and if we do this, it means less money available for potentially ever doing restoration work on the Community Music Center.
Which I happened to learn last year a lot of people care very much about.
So I'm not going to blow off the— fly off the handle against Councilor Koyama Lane, as I just did a minute ago, partly because Councilor Koyama Lane actually voted to cut our bloated office budgets with me.
So I really appreciate that.
But I just can't make this decision out of context.
Maybe if we took a long look at all the things that communities have been promised and Yeah, thank you for bringing this, uh, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Mitch Green
I grew up near Montavilla.
I grew up in Rose City— um, I'm sorry, Roseway.
And, uh, I went to many, uh, many a birthday party here as a kid.
And I know that there's a lot of people that And this place has specific meaning to me, and I, I've actually been pretty sad that it's been closed.
Um, and I'll just remind folks that we, when we referred the parks levy resolution, that resolution had specific guidance for the Parks Bureau and the city administrator to explore expansive definitions of what system development charges can be used for.
And I think in this case, Councilor We ought to think very carefully about using some of those scarce resources for a high-opportunity project like this.
This is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
So I'm going to support this today just to make a declaration that this is worth saving and rebuilding.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane, for bringing this forward.
I think there were actually quite a few of us that tried to bring amendments to create funding so that we could fund things.
I think of the management cuts that we were trying to do to save some employee jobs, but we didn't get 7 votes for that.
And, you know, my staff are personally pretty exhausted right now.
I believe your staff had to go home because they were also exhausted.
And so I think having our offices properly staffed is really critical, and that's why I'm not going to vote to cut my office budget because I don't want my staff to be overworked, as this city tends to create in people.
But I think this is really important, and I think it's going to be just a net good for the community.
I appreciate you engaging with some of our District 3 councilors, so I'm happy to support this amendment.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
Of course this is important.
I want to support it.
Did you consider having there be a match where half of this could be raised through donations, and then when they get to the halfway point, we could meet them halfway?
Because then I could maybe get there.
But this is coming out of the general fund contingency, correct?
All right, we've heard enough about why that's becoming a concern.
So unless this had more of a creative funding solution and there was maybe at least half of it was through donations, then I could probably get there.
But there's so many examples of this that we could grab.
So I just have to be consistent.
Jamie Dunphy
Thanks.
Councilor Gamaliel.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
I appreciate that and that makes sense.
And if this amendment does not pass, Director Szymanski and I have spoken about some other options.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, each district group of councilors has been tasked in figuring out projects for, um, capital dollars that came out of the levy every year, and this I think actually probably would be a project that would qualify for SDC dollars.
There are many options for how to fund it.
Sounds like the councilor is already looking at other options for funding it.
Thank you.
It's an incredibly important project, but we are again looking at stealing from the last year of the levy, and I would ask you all what you are planning on cutting in year 5 of the levy to make sure that we balance.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue— Keelan— oh, Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
I just have a quick question.
I apologize.
Are we taking it from general fund contingency?
Are we taking it from the out-year of the parks levy, or is the idea that it's both because we're taking from general fund contingency with the expectation of using the out-year money from the levy?
Steve Novick
It's just general fund contingency.
Sameer Kanal
So then why, why are we keeping on hearing that we're taking from the out-year of the levy?
Okay, okay.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Where's Ruth?
Jamie Dunphy
I just saw her.
Candace Avalos
No, I'm good.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Keelan, can we please call— oh, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
My mistake, Councilor Kanal and Councilor Koyama Lane.
I thought that this was coming from parks operating funds.
If it's coming from general fund contingency, then I restate all the concerns that the CFO has raised about that previously.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Councilor Novick.
Keelan, can we please call the roll on Koyama Lane 6?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Koyama Lane.
Seconded by Councilor Zimmerman.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Do we need answers?
Yeah.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah.
Owen?
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, are we asking a question on this still?
I missed that.
I'm sorry.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
How do we not have someone from CBO?
Jamie Dunphy
Sorry, was there a question, Councilor?
I thought this was going to a vote.
I apologize.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
6.
Can someone please explain how it's funded?
Jamie Dunphy
Um, my understanding from the way it's written and been moved is that it would come from general fund contingency.
Not from the levy.
Eric Zimmerman
It was read in as the levy.
Jamie Dunphy
Unless there's an amendment that I'm not, um, aware of.
Um, the way, the way I read it, I, I don't see any reference to, um, Parks levy.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, I think you should table it till the adoption.
Jamie Dunphy
Ready to move forward with the vote?
Oh, Councilor Smith, could you tell me how—.
Loretta Smith
Could you tell me, um, CFO Biery, how much is in the general fund contingency?
Is that the BLT that everyone was talking about earlier?
Keith Wilson
It's—.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor, for the question.
I believe, and I think Ruth maybe just walked in the room, so it's separate from the BLT reserve, which is sort of carving off a piece of what would otherwise be in contingency into its BLT, a separate BLT reserve with sideboards.
And I thank you.
I don't know that the dollar amount of is the remaining contingency, The remaining contingency.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, sorry to be a little late.
So this is Koyamalane 6, and it does, it draws from general fund unrestricted contingency.
There is a total of just over $4 million in general fund unrestricted contingency in the budget.
We added $1.025 million.
So it starts— the ongoing amount there is $3 million in the mayor's proposed.
We added $1.025 million.
So now it's $4.025 million.
So this would draw $755,000.
And I do not believe—.
The one-time only?
Of the one-time portion.
That's correct.
Okay.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I would like to move to table this.
Jamie Dunphy
Withdraw or table?
Eric Zimmerman
Let's bring it back in the adoption.
Jamie Dunphy
You can just withdraw and you can bring it back.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
So withdraw it?
Okay.
I'd like to move to withdraw this.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Councilor Koyama Lane is going to withdraw this.
We can bring this back.
This is certainly less than the 10% threshold, so we will come back to this when we get there.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney to EPG 3.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President, colleagues.
We were supposed to get a report last week detailing what the cost would be to reopen the pool at Columbia Park.
This is a pool that was closed quite a few years ago at this point.
It was closed because it needed repairs.
Those repairs did not come.
Those repairs did not come.
The pool deteriorated.
Parts were taken from the pool to some support other pools across the city, and the cost of reopening it is now significantly higher.
Um, this pool is slated for demolition, and while we could get into a host of arguments about where pools are needed most, I hope that we can all agree that Portland needs more pools in our parks infrastructure.
The community is interested in reopening this pool and has by and large agreed that reopening it as an outdoor pool would fill a need in the community and cost less.
We put this in as a $5 million draw from general fund contingency, frankly, to hold place until we got that report.
What we have seen so far is just a preliminary version of that report.
It looks like costs could range from $5 up to over $20 million as a baseline.
Unfortunately, I don't have a fully fleshed out proposal for you today.
I would still ask for support to show the community that we care about investing in our pool infrastructure.
I will beat you all to the punch because I understand the irony of this coming as a draw on contingency.
Um, this is something that could wait.
This is something that could wait if we kept paying to maintain it, but the mayor was not willing to continue with those costs.
So this is what I am able to bring to you for something that is critically important to many of my constituents.
I look forward to questions and debate, and I would ask for the courtesy of a second.
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney moves.
Is there a second?
Steve Novick
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick seconds.
Colleagues, to the amendment.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Yeah, I, I wanted to find out how much the total cost was, and, and she actually answered that question.
Um, where is the pool exactly?
So this was an indoor pool that you're going to move outdoors?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So the pool at Columbia Park, it's on the north side of the— of Lombard, not the annex, but Columbia Park proper.
It is on the southeast corner of the park.
Sorry, I just did a little bit of geography there, or I guess the east side of the park, I would say.
Um, it was originally built as an outdoor pool.
It was later covered, and at This point, the most cost-effective way to reopen it.
And probably I would say, though, I know there are some folks in the community who might disagree with this, that given the other infrastructure we'll see for pools in the area, probably the biggest need is to reopen it as an outdoor facility.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Colleagues, it is 8:36.
We have 6 people in the queue.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, thank you.
Uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I know you beat us to the punch, but you were just so intense about this earlier that now I have to say my piece about it too.
And I'm going to give a voting timeline of what happened today because frankly, I kind of can't believe this is being brought forward after we are quickly.
Kanal 1 died 6 to 6, which was to fund SEI and Williams and Russell out of the BLT reserve, despite councilors like you proposing an amendment that removes $7 million from the BLT fund, Elana Pirtle-Guiney 5, and $5 million from the general fund contingency to fund a swimming pool.
And now this amendment, Kanal 1, 6 to 6, died to fund SEI and Williams and Russell out of a pot of money the city attorney confirmed is functionally identical in restriction and operation to the social housing and revolving loan fund.
It was a pot staff were shocked that we didn't take advantage of because it was obviously the right thing to do that funded everyone's proposals.
We had Green failed 6 to 6, declining to fund basic accountability measures for sexual assault and harassment in our shelters.
Green 1 failed 6 to 6, declining to cut management positions in order to point of order.
No, no, no, I'm not done because we're talking about the contingency funds and what they're being used for, so I'm going to take my time.
Councilor Smith, you often do.
Avalos 1, 6 to 6, failed to remove PSF funds from PMO, which was used for sweeps.
So today we have heard a lot of concerns about the utilization of both the BLT and the general fund contingencies, which based on the dialogue that we just had, I realize most of my colleagues don't even know what the difference is.
And that was based on perceived threat to our credit rating being downgraded sometime between now and the fall when the mayor or this council will clamor to do any number of things with those funds.
And today we've seen members of this council declining to pause a poorly crafted realignment package and pause the layoff of 46 represented positions despite touting their unionist credentials whenever possible.
So members of this council have declined to fund housing for SEI and Williams and Russell.
Jamie Dunphy
It is drawing very close to not being germane, Councilor.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, I'll get to the end then.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The votes are not there for this.
That's okay, we can move on.
Yeah, but I felt like it was important.
Angelita Morillo
I feel like, I, you know, ironically we're sitting here contemplating the use of $5 million To fund an inanimate object, the cost of which is $1.7 million more than what it would have cost to prevent the layoffs.
A fund that was unacceptable for saving jobs or supporting Black homeownership, unacceptable for real live people who need to pay their rents, feed their families, and address medical needs.
So it's pretty wild to me that this council has been rejecting proposals when members of this council continue to misunderstand what general fund contingency is and what the BLT reserves are.
Councilmember Herbold.
So more pools and less union jobs?
Okay.
I think these are unserious proposals and I will certainly be voting no.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, I have to pile on because truly it is very frustrating to lose so many resources in East Portland and to be asked to give $5 million to another pool.
How many pools do they have in North Portland?
I respect that North Portland needs this.
I want us to have this, but when you constantly say that we have to cut East Portland disproportionately— this budget disproportionately cuts East Portland.
It cuts the people that work in our parks.
It cuts all kinds of things that we need in our district.
And we've been lectured all day about contingency and all these other things.
Just say what you want to say.
Just say that you don't want to support counselors out of some kind of petty thing, because that's what it clearly feels like.
So I'm absolutely not supporting this, and I, I think it's weird that you even brought it up given everything you lectured us on about today.
Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, thank you, Council President.
Um, Director Szymanski, could you come up please?
Could you?
Because I'm, I'm, I'm concerned right now because the North Portland— are people talking?
Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, I have the floor.
Excuse me, stop talking.
Thank you.
Um, explain to me where the North Portland Aquatic Center is compared to the Columbia, because is, is, isn't that in the same jurisdiction?
Because when I first got elected, there was a lot of talk around the Aquatic Center and this Columbia pool.
And is the Aquatic Center an indoor— this is going to be a state-of-the-art pool for North Portland, right?
Olivia Clark
Correct.
Loretta Smith
So what's— so is it close to the Columbia?
I, I don't know.
Tell me what's going on.
Olivia Clark
It's, it's Sonia Szymanski Parks Bureau.
It's pretty close.
I don't know that a kid could walk.
I think an adult could walk between them.
And North Portland Aquatic Center will be large and able to do lots of things year-round.
Loretta Smith
And so it'll be like this big thing.
That's, that's the next okay, is that going to be done by the Portland Parks Bureau, or is that a private entity?
Olivia Clark
That's a city project.
Loretta Smith
It's a city project.
Okay, so yeah, I just wanted to know because there's a— there's, you know, by the time we get the money, the $20 million that we need in this report to do this, the Aquatic Center will be up.
Am I correct?
Olivia Clark
Hard to say.
It will be closer.
I think we anticipate that late in calendar year 2030.
Loretta Smith
2030.
Are they building it now?
Olivia Clark
Not building yet.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
But that is the plan to have it up.
Okay.
So we got competing big pools in North Portland.
I like it.
That's services.
But if we're— if we're— if we are trying to balance what's going— we, we don't have that many pools in East Portland at all.
So, um, I think I— we should just take a vote on it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Pirtle-Guiney 3?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Novick.
Sameer Kanal
I'm going to save my remarks for social media on this.
I'm going to vote no though.
Loretta Smith
No.
Sameer Kanal
Sorry, was that no?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Ryan?
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane?
Absent.
Keith Wilson
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Steve Novick
Clerk?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green.
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Absent.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith.
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 1 aye, 9 nay, and 2 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, looks like we have 3 amendments left and then a handful of nonsense we have to get through.
Councilor Knoll, I'm turning to you for Knoll 3.
Keith Wilson
Oh, thanks.
Sameer Kanal
Great.
Um, thank you.
So colleagues, I will be moving Canal 3 in just a moment here.
Um, I— Councilor, uh, Morillo kind of beat me to the punch a little bit on what we were talking about here, uh, but this amendment is called Driving Towards Democracy.
It transfers $450,000 from the golf fund to backfill small donor elections.
Small donor elections is a critical part of ensuring the health of our democracy.
They asked for ongoing funding.
I want to be super clear about that.
That would be the ideal situation.
We don't have that.
What we do have is one-time funding here.
Last year, we took $1 million out of this fund.
I hope that by next year, we don't have to take any money out of this fund.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Councilmember Herbold.
Sameer Kanal
Because we're going from $1 million to $450,000.
The trend is that by next year we won't need it at all.
Um, but that's not where we're at this year.
We do have a shortfall.
So I do want to, uh, to propose this and just to be very specific about it.
It removes it from 603, the golf fund in Portland Parks and Recreation, $450,000 transferred to special appropriations, the public election fund there.
Um, and, uh, it's $450,000, which is sufficient to ensure the, um, the full amounts that are needed for this year's election.
I'll note that this year, uh, there is an election in November.
We, uh, if you can't— if we haven't mentioned explicitly yet, um, if it's not obvious by all of what happened today, um, but we do need to make sure that that election is able to have the full matching funds available to it.
So I move, uh, Canal 3 and ask for a second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal moves Canal 3.
Is there a second?
Candace Avalos
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos seconds.
Colleagues to the amendment, any discussion in the queue?
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, I hope that this is funded in a proposed budget moving forward.
Um, as a candidate who is currently in this program, currently running for office, uh, this concerns me to take a vote So I will be abstaining.
The idea of funding a program that I can directly benefit toward in the months currently in election gives me levels of heartburn.
So I agree to the points Councilor Kanal made, fully funding this program.
It needs to be in the proposed budget.
And I think for those that are, that are not in it, you guys should do it.
But I don't see a way to do this and follow OJEC as far as I can read it.
Candace Avalos
Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Council President, last year there was conversation about what we would need to do over the course of a few years to ensure this program is fully funded.
With the $450,000 here, does that make the program whole?
Is there Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, it does make the program whole for this year.
It does not solve our problems for 2028.
I want to fully talk about how they prefer to have the— and when I say they, I mean the Independent Portland Elections Commission had asked for us to make this entire thing ongoing to ensure the health of the program in the long run.
Does not So that's the information that I have.
There is $450,000 of one-time funding already in there.
This would make it the $900,000 in addition to a portion which is ongoing that gets you to the full $2.2 million that is necessary for this year's structure.
But it does not solve the 2028 problem.
Angelita Morillo
I think that's a good point.
Sameer Kanal
Um, that's why they asked for $2.2 million in ongoing funding.
Should this pass, we will have $1.34 million in ongoing and, uh, $900,000 in one-time.
Um, so that, that's the information I've received.
By the way, for those who may be, um, uh, looking, April 27th, we all received a letter from the Independent Portland Elections Commission that, that breaks down with tables what the effects of this and so that I can understand the funding source, we pulled one-time funds from the golf fund last year.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We increased golf fees to offset that.
Where does this draw leave the golf fund in terms of its sustainability?
And are they better off because of those increased, um, fees?
Fees from last year or worse off because we're doing another one-time draw compared to where they were 2 years ago, let's say?
Sameer Kanal
Uh, Councilor, you can't see it, I don't think, but we've got folks up at the, uh, at the dais.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I see them.
It looks like it was perhaps Director Szymanski and Claudio Campuzano.
Loretta Smith
Correct.
Olivia Clark
Present.
Okay.
Uh, Sonia Szymanski, Parks Bureau.
The simple answer is Golf is doing great.
The fee increase—we're just heading into the season where we'll see what the increase does to numbers.
We're very confident.
The golf fund is not doing as well.
It's at a deficit in the last year of its forecast.
This would drive that deficit a bit higher, and that's.
That's primarily driven by internal services cost increases.
It's a dynamic citywide, and that about exhausts my knowledge.
Keith Wilson
And I think she—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So if this fund is at a deficit, what does that mean in terms of operations of our facilities?
Do we need to worry about that?
Sameer Kanal
So that is in the 5th year.
This is Claudio Campuzano, Finance Property Technology Manager for Parks.
So that is in the 5th year of the forecast.
It's a very small deficit, and we anticipate making adjustments in the coming years, and we'll bring those to this council.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
I actually had a question for Robert Taylor, so it might have to pause, but, um, I thought we liked pork barrel politics here that helped us with reelection, so I didn't realize we would have questions about this.
But I am curious from a legal perspective if we are allowed to vote on this as running candidates or if we have to hold back because we might technically benefit from this fund.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, So I guess, uh, maybe I should just wait till Robert Taylor gets back, unless there's another attorney in the room that can answer that.
Looks like it's a Robert question, so I'll just wait till he gets back.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Morillo, we will come right back to you.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Yeah, I actually wanted to ask— oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, I was reading the thing.
Jamie Dunphy
I wanted to ask Robert Taylor whether We will wait till Robert Taylor gets back for your question as well.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
I— pending Robert's response, although I don't know why it would be because we are the Budget Committee and we approve these funds, but I'll let Robert say this.
I'll just say that I have been saying all along that I think for those of us making decisions about the number, the volume of resources available for the election system, if that kitty of money is lower than it could be otherwise, then we are privileging the incumbents at the expense of the challengers.
And so that's just a really important thing to recognize.
And there's a number of people running in District 4 who would love to challenge one of the 3 of us for a seat, and I want them to have the best shot possible.
So I'm supportive of this approach.
Of course, we would like to hear from our city attorney on the legality of it because I think it's an important question.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Murillo, turning back to you to ask your question to Robert Taylor.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, thank you.
Sorry, Robert, catching you the one second you get up for a break.
We were wondering if there is any legal conflict with us voting to increase this fund Thank you.
Mitch Green
Great question, and I appreciate the concern about that issue.
Eric Zimmerman
This had come up before, and we had inquired of the Ethics Commission on this topic, and their conclusion was that there was not a conflict because the campaign was not funded by the city.
Is, is a separate legal entity from a personal benefit to you as an individual.
So, so based on that advice from the Ethics Commission, we haven't declared a conflict.
We don't view that as a, as an issue.
Angelita Morillo
Gotcha.
Thank you, Robert Taylor.
So it sounds like you don't need to abstain.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I just want— I, I'd really like to I think that they've been pretty, pretty responsible in their handling of money, and I don't want to punish them for their success.
So I'd like to find some other way to do this, but I'm going to have to oppose this one.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
I think I was the 7th vote on this last year with the golf fund, because I do understand that without these publicly funded golf courses, we would not have Uh, kinds of programs like the small donor, that you'll have big super PACs deciding who wins races.
That being said, I got a nice note from Bob Williams, who's a part of the Leisure Golf Club, which is the African-American golf club, and he said that this fund is looking toward the future as costs— as cost for increases, and it helps to, uh, serve as scholarships for underserved kids.
Is that correct?
Okay.
And so he said also that reserve fund is a time when needed we would have to come to the city because we will have the funds if they're taken away.
And he said our rainy day is today, except We did not have enough money to make repairs or improvements for things except for this fund.
And, um, I do remember last year my son's grandfather, who was also a member of the Leisure Golf Club, he gave me a few, um, words that I can't say here, um, on why I was supportive of that.
And I told you all earlier, I do get that.
But I think this year they're— they are so low, and we took— there's no— that something like this needs to come out of the general fund.
It should not come out of a reserve for a golf fund.
And, um, we have an ordinance, and that is— that responsibility is the mayor.
He has to fully fund this.
The pressure has to go to that direction.
So next year, as we're talking about this and he's preparing his budget, We need to make sure that he has the money in there.
So I will not be voting for that today.
And sorry about that, Councilor.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
I just wanted to point to Financial Policy 3.54, and then I'll have a question here as well for our staff, which is the golf fund policy.
And it says, and I quote, contingency requirements Per Financial Policy 2.04, contingency funds should be used to address reasonable but unforeseen requirements within the fiscal year.
There are no minimum or maximum contingency requirements for the fund.
Historically, contingency size has been recommended to remain around $1 million, but can fluctuate based on debt requirements.
Reserve requirements, there are no reserve requirements for this fund.
In the budget on page 60, it says that the golf fund has a beginning balance of $5,968,000.
Is that correct?
Mitch Green
That's correct.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, thank you.
So what I'm proposing here, just to be clear, is a reduction of 7.5% of the fund, which is $4.5 million, $4.9 million above what the financial policy says it needs.
That's what this does, and it is under half of the reduction that was proposed last year.
I think it is clear from that that we're trending in the correct direction.
I also don't think this is something you can really fix next year because we've got the election in 6 months, 5 and a half months.
So I would love to get to a place where we have exactly what Councilor Smith said.
I think she's completely correct in the general statement about it, but we are working with the budget in front of us.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
And given that, I would be, um, I think, uh, abandoning the, the responsibility as someone who's not up for reelection and does not have any, uh, direct reference from this, uh, to try and ensure its, its solvency through the year and full ability to, um, to match funds.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the Vote on Canal 3.
Moved by Kanal, seconded by Avalos.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Kanal?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye, but colleagues, let's leave this fun be in the future.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan?
Jamie Dunphy
What was her answer?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye, she said.
Jamie Dunphy
Well, let's leave this alone in the future.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Aye.
Steve Novick
No.
Olivia Clark
No.
Mitch Green
This is a hole-in-one.
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Abstain.
Loretta Smith
Avalos.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
The amendment is approved with A vote of 7 ayes, 4 nays, and 1 abstention.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Koyama Lane moving to KL3.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
All right, let's see how I do.
All right, this one is about the Office of Equity and Human Rights.
We very recently just— would you rather move this one?
Um, okay, okay, sorry.
Um, we just hired our first director.
Very, very exciting.
Um, there— this— Aubrey, can you come up and explain this?
Jamie Dunphy
It is getting late.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
We have our new Chief Equity Officer.
We've had many cuts.
Um, this adds 4 analysts to OEHR.
It feels really important to make sure that this new Chief Equity Officer has the capacity to actually do this work well.
It would bring back the Human Rights Commission program offer, which was retired in 2020.
Ultimately, it would be up to the discretion of the equity officer to allocate these funds.
The mayor's budget adds 14 positions to HR in addition to realigning position.
And this amended— amendment is funded by reducing these additions.
These, yeah, additions to 10 positions.
So it takes 4 and makes sure that OEHR will have capacity to do things like process ADA requests, FMLA.
Sorry, HR will still have the capacity to process ADA requests, process FMLA, and provide core HR functions.
And the hope is that this can support Title VI civil rights and Title II ADA.
I would like to move Koyama Lane 3.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane 3.
Is there a second?
Candace Avalos
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos seconds.
Colleagues to the amendment?
Okay, seeing no one in the queue— I'm pausing for dramatic effect— can we please call the roll on Koyama Lane 3?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Avalos.
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Thank you, Councilor.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No, I think we need to focus on some of the restorations for things that are being immediately cut.
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
I'm sorry, I know we, we moved on to the vote quickly, but I'm struggling with this one because I recall that this was, uh, these are the positions that are being replaced with non-union positions that are in BHR, if I'm not mistaken.
Loretta Smith
Point of order, are we in the middle of a vote?
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Angelita Morillo
So I think I will vote yes, but with an eye to making sure that the positions replaced are, uh, still union.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Clark?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Green?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman?
Sameer Kanal
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Olivia Clark
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, we have 2 more amendments to go.
In your inbox and printed in your hands is a new version of Dunphy 4.
I've actually been working on this.
This is a new version that I've been working on with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Let me pull my remarks up.
It is the end of the day and we have not managed to fund many of the frontline public safety employees.
I am breaking the emergency glass on my merit and COLA pay freeze proposal.
This amendment limits cost of living increases for non-represented employees to the first $100,000 of their salary, freezes merit pay increases for non-represented employees making more than $100,000 annually.
This affects all employees regardless of the underlying fund, although the only funds we are repurposing are general fund dollars.
This amendment would allow us to keep— retain the jobs of 5 desk clerks and 1 police administrative specialist support— administrative support specialist position within PPB, which I believe is on all of the positions eliminated in this budget that are currently filled.
It would also restore the at-risk youth outreach coordinator position within parks that I tried to restore earlier today.
It also, we have some, it puts the additional 5% into the Office of Community-Based Accountability in line with our charter requirements and our overhead, our general fund overhead contingency.
Thank you.
And I— so I move Dunphy 4, and I would welcome a second.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal seconds.
Thank you, colleagues.
To the amendment, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I was pleased to see that your change to this amendment, I think that it's much easier to support than your previous version because it would mean that people would still get COLA on the first $100,000.
Sameer Kanal
Correct.
Yes.
Steve Novick
So I'm interested in the funding mechanism.
My problem is that my highest priority, if we're going to add anything back, is to add the Rescue 19, which is sort of on the border of our districts.
I would like to see if we can work together to come up with a somewhat bigger package that does that plus buys a number of things you're talking about here.
I also want to tell you, maybe you already know this, I've been going back and forth with the Police Bureau and HR about how many police administrative support specialist positions were being cut.
I was first told that there were one.
Now it's actually 2.
So people are being laid off.
So if we're able to work on a package, I'd actually like to restore both of them.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I don't understand the funds for the OCBPA.
Yeah.
Can you explain that, why that's happening here and now?
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, so, um, the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability is required by charter to have 5% of the total police budget.
By adding money back to the police budget in the form of these new positions authorities, that means that the total police budget has grown, and therefore the 5% amount must grow.
So that is a $38,055 thank you for that.
Olivia Clark
Um, I'm also concerned, uh, with the same issue that Councilor Novick brought up, as well as the P3s and the other pieces that were in Clark, Ryan, Novick, EPG, and Smith, which was rejected very early in this process.
Uh, so to me, this is somewhat incomplete.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Councilor Dunphy.
This is a pretty significant departure from where you started, and I think that is a reflection of the tense and somewhat stalematey kind of conversations we've had here over the course of 2 days.
So I appreciate your willingness to be nimble and try to just deliver something.
For, you know, particularly the Portland Police Bureau, which has not had these desk clerks as part of these restorations.
And so I think that we should restore this.
I think that we should pass this.
But I'm actually very interested in the conversation about continuing to find strategies to restore some of these other priorities.
There's been a lot of other funding and resource packages that have been floated over the last couple days that have died and failed.
I think that's a good point.
I have a lot of energy, not tonight, but in my tank.
It's— if you want to call them reserves, if you will, I've got plenty of those on my own.
Steve Novick
Are they restricted reserves?
Mitch Green
They're unrestricted, Councilor.
And, well, they're restricted in that, you know, I want to— never mind, I'll leave that one alone.
So let's just pass this tonight and deliver a win for these areas that have been neglected.
And let's continue to do the work in our office that we— I know we can do to thank you, Councilor Green.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Yes, so I, I just want to take a chance— while, while it was uncharterial, I do think that there are some really important things that we were trying to restore, that, that colleagues were trying to restore in the, the previously mentioned, uh, amendment there.
Um, and I'll just note it had the CHAT program, which was restored, uh, the funding there, the Station 22 fire engine, which was restored, and the restored.
We do have a few things that are left in there, one of which is the precinct staffers.
I want to just note that throughout a long day, we've had some of our labor leaders here.
I know that the person who— the union that represents these folks has its leader here, and I appreciate that.
And I think that there are probably several members of that union who are watching as well and have probably been watching disappointed in many of the decisions we've made so far as a council, but I think we have the opportunity to find a way to solve a portion of this problem, at least for those positions which are filled, or potentially all but one of them.
Having said that, I do want to note that I agree with the comment about the rescues.
I am intending to retool the amendment that I had earlier for the adopted budget about the opioid funds and bring that back that's about the same amount of money as either the rescues or the precinct administration folks.
This one would solve at least a portion of the latter, and I hope we do today.
I'll be supporting this.
I really appreciate that you looked and retooled this as well.
I think there are— there are— it's important to recognize that the people who are making more than these thresholds are still getting COLA and merit on the first $100K of their salaries, and that's It's not a complete stop to that, and I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President, and thank you for looking at how we might be able to do this.
There's been some discussion about what to restore.
I think this is a really important one for us to restore.
I know there are others that We should also be looking to.
I want to talk about the funding source as well, though.
This is actually something that the, the mayor did last year as a cost savings measure.
When everybody gets the same percent COLA, we see the difference between our highest and our lowest wage earners increase year over year over year over year, because 3% of $150,000 or $200,000 is much more than 3% of $50,000 or $60,000 or $80,000.
When we allow no COLAs though for folks who are our higher wage earners, we see compression and we see a disincentive for people to take on larger and larger roles within the city.
A move like this allows us to avoid both of those pitfalls.
And so I appreciate, Councilor Dunphy, your openness to thinking about this different approach, because I actually think that it is not only a means to fund some very important work at our city, but also a smart thing to do every now and then to make sure that we don't border on compression, but we also don't let that wage gap get much larger.
Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you so much, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Smith, Mayor Wilson, I will come back to you.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Let Mayor Wilson go, he's before me.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, I'll acknowledge— I'm extending a courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Keith Wilson
Council President, thank you.
I spoke to all of you over this last 3 or 4 months about a mistake I made last year when I came in We'd inherited a $130 million budget gap.
And the first thing I did was start to look at cut lists, cut items, expenses, also stabilizing employee pay.
And I capped management wages at 3% up to $100K, which is what this is proposing.
And I removed merit.
And in so doing, looking at the wage disparity between unionized and management, Last year we gave a 4.5% overall wage increase to our represented staff, and to our management staff it turned out to be a 1.8%.
Affordability is affecting us all, and I've spoke to each and every one of you and said I'm not going to do that again.
As mayor, I'm not going to take a particular class coworker employee and pay them at a different rate.
It's not fair.
They did not have anything to do with our fiscal position on where we're at.
And I said we're going to at least very minimum provide COLA to our staff.
I didn't determine what level we were going to apply it at.
I'm going to say it again.
The disparity that I've created last year was our represented staff earned a 4.5% wage increase and our non-represented was 1.8%.
We're doing this again and we're creating a situation where our city isn't an employer of choice.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
And my concern is that that gap will become less.
Compression will only be accelerated.
We need to treat the entire staff fairly across the board.
Cost of living is affecting everybody.
I'm asking that we not pass this because we have to be disciplined in our approach going forward.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor— or thank you, Mayor Wilson.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
I figured you were gonna say something pretty profound, Mayor.
I'm glad you went first because I was going to say a pack of bacon costs just as much for someone who makes over $100,000, which is me, and I have 3 grandkids.
It costs just as much for me to pay for orange juice that has risen.
It costs just as much for everything, even though you make over $100,000.
So I agree with you, Mayor, that it is not fair.
Olivia Clark
Okay.
Loretta Smith
And I think we need to identify another source.
I like what you're trying to do, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Dunphy.
And I think all these restorations are good.
And again, the PS3s, we still have not done anything for them.
And I think we need to have a larger conversation.
I'm not going to be in support of this because this is not— this is not a— it's not appropriate, nor is it fair.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Um, I may have had my question answered by the mayor.
I'm just not sure how this— the merit piece works, um, how that messes things up.
Uh, could somebody help me with that?
I know CAWE, or could you help me understand that?
Sameer Kanal
We'll have HR, uh, come up.
Eric Zimmerman
Good evening, councilors.
For the record, Ron Zito, HR Director.
Um, merit is an approach to awarding pay for performance for our non-represented staff.
Over a number of years, we've converted to a focal point system where we award a merit increase On July 1st of each year, along with COLA.
Over the past number of years, that merit has been withheld.
Last year, as you heard from the mayor, as well as a number of years ago in 2020.
We have not established a merit budget this year yet to announce to staff.
And so I myself am listening to the conversation a bit confused on how we would move forward with any sort of merit this year.
Olivia Clark
Well, that's helpful.
I, I feel like this is— well, I'm very interested in the desk clerks, and I had an amendment along with a bunch of us, uh, to restore that cut and to restore the P3s and other pieces in PPB, uh, as well as the rescue.
Um, I don't feel— I feel like this is punitive and, um, Probably not going to support it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, um, I think what I'm feeling right now is that I'm frustrated that these positions were even put up in the first place.
The police bureau has an EEO enormous budget.
And I— the fact that the thing that was put up was these desk clerks that are frontline to our communities, especially in East Portland at the East Precinct, it's just really frustrating.
Um, there are so many unfilled positions in the police bureau that they could have drawn from.
There's so many pots that they could have drawn from.
So, uh, I'm— I don't love this.
Um, Councilor The only reason I'm supporting it and plan to support it is because I want to make sure that the East Precinct has what they need.
But at the same time, I'm very— I don't love this, and I'm doing this very, very reluctantly.
And honestly, the way that this has all gone today, you know, I'm not eager to put more money into police when we couldn't even put any money for immigrants.
We couldn't even save East Portland Parks positions.
This, this just feels gross to me because I'm, I'm just exhausted by these last 2 days and hearing everybody's arguments and what they clearly care about, and it's not the community that I care about.
So I'm doing this simply as a favor, but I want to say it on the record, I don't want to do it.
And honestly, the whole budget at this point I'm probably not even going to vote for.
So thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, thank you.
I, I look at these, um, I look at our budget conversations a little bit differently, I think, than some of my colleagues.
And, and what I mean by that is I think that there are a lot of people who think that adding money to a bureau sends a signal and taking money from a bureau sends a signal.
And that might be true for folks who are just reading headlines.
I think I look at the work specifically.
Um, and so, you know, there are, there are some of our bureaus parks is probably the best example of this.
Do 50 things.
You can add money to parks.
It doesn't necessarily mean you're adding money to the things that people think of when they think Portland Parks and Recreation.
And there's— that's the case for many of our bureaus, I have to say.
When I look at this particular one, I'm looking at what's the work that we want to try and fund.
I think that we've talked a bit about the funding source, so I won't go into that.
But in terms of the folks who are frontline.
I really appreciate that clarification, that point from Councilor Avalos, and not just at the East Precinct, but that's included, but the North Precinct as well.
And I'll note that this— the proposed cut did not take anything from the Central Precinct.
And so I want to just try to close that gap and make our parts of the city get the same level of service when they walk into a police precinct right at that first interaction.
Additionally, I think that there's a really important point that Councilor Clark brings up a lot about cuts that are pennywise and pound foolish.
And when you don't— the natural human inclination when you are the closest desk to the unstaffed front desk is to go and try to respond if someone comes in.
And that's the person who's going to be there is probably either— it's either going to be unstaffed, which is bad, or it's going to be a an armed police officer, which is not necessarily a bad outcome, just an expensive one.
And so staffing up these positions also has the impact of saving us money.
I've had the ability to meet a couple of these folks, not necessarily the ones who are up on the affected employees list, but folks who work at the front desk in the past and since coming into office.
And I think that it's a role that might appear appear purely administrative but isn't.
It's a role that has an impact in terms of customer service, in terms of engagement, in terms of just making sure that it's not— nobody's coming to, um, okay, maybe not nobody, almost nobody is walking into a police precinct on a good normal day, right?
So in that situation, you want someone who is going to be that first line of communication, that first point of contact, to be prepared to do that, to be able to do it in a trauma-informed way.
And these folks So I think it's important, and we can talk about should we be funding something else, but what we're seeing here is that the big amendments are not necessarily doing that well.
So here we are coming back with another one.
And like I said, we funded the St. Johns fire engine.
Thank you, colleagues, for that.
We funded the CHAT program.
Thank you, colleagues, for that.
Now we're here on the next one.
That doesn't mean that it's the only one.
It doesn't mean that it's the last one.
And I think, as I mentioned, the rescues, I'm still going to be fighting for that in the adopted budget.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
But I think we have to look at this in terms of the work itself in a vacuum and say, is this something that makes sense and are we moving in the right direction?
Because there aren't a lot of other options out there to fund this in the remaining amendments.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Ryan, last word.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Thank you, President Dunphy.
This has improved.
I've heard from a few colleagues that we could probably bring something, something, excuse me, to the adopted, and I will be bringing an amendment to the adopted.
Um, budget, before they adopt a budget, to bring back the desk clerks at the precincts.
I can't imagine going to the, the monthly meetings that I attend there and other times when I show up, um, for community meetings to not have a person welcoming constituents at the precinct offices at both North and East Portland.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Dunphy 4?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Kanal.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, no for now.
Look forward to an amendment.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Steve Novick
No, for reasons previously stated.
I do want to say the one thing I like about this amendment is actually adds to general fund unrestricted contingency No.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keith Wilson
No.
Candace Avalos
Reluctantly, yes.
Olivia Clark
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, colleagues.
We have one more amendment.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you, Council President, and thank you colleagues for your patience this evening with me.
I'm not going to move Koyama Lane 4 anymore, and we'll figure it out and use my office budget to make sure that that Tribal Nations Summit is funded.
And I actually have a revised amendment to KL6 regarding the Montavilla Park shelter here on paper, and there's a copy in your email inbox.
Thank you to CBO and my team for making that quick fix.
The revised proposal It's clear that the funds for the project are from the park's local option levy fund.
I'm very proud to have the support of County Commissioner Julie Brum-Edwards and also Representative Thuy Tran for this.
My hope is that we've debated this enough and we can move straight to a vote.
I would like to move the revised version of Koyama Lane 6.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Koyama Lane moves revised version of Koyama Lane 6.
Is there a second?
Loretta Smith
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Green seconds.
Colleagues, to the new Koyama Lane 6, any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane 6, moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Green.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, we are going to take a 5-minute recess to allow our staff to figure out what it is we just did, and we are going to close everything else out.
Please be back here at 9:30.
Thank you.
Welcome back, colleagues.
Colleagues, before we start, I'd like to let you all know that I am going to be abstaining from the next 2 votes.
Yes.
Councilor Mitchell, you have a motion?
I have a motion to approve the changes to the budget.
Thank you.
We have 2 abstentions because of the funding that was added for Leach Botanical Garden.
As I announced at the beginning, my wife works for Leach Botanical Garden, and so I am abstaining from the next 2 votes.
But we have to vote to approve the changes our individual floor amendments have made to Attachments B and C of the memo associated with the budget.
This has the effect of incorporating all of the changes so that the approved budget, which we will vote on next, reflects our amendments.
May I have a motion to approve the changes to the attachments?
Mitch Green
So moved.
Candace Avalos
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Green moves, Councilor Kanal seconds.
Keelan, will you please call the roll on the package of amendments and changes to Attachments B and C?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay, uh, Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
I just enjoyed watching Robert Taylor go like this to me.
Um, thank you, Robert.
Um, sorry I'm late.
I have to trust that this is about the attachments.
Yes.
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye to the attachments.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Priya.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Novick.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Clark.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Avalos.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Abstain.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Uh, the motion is approved with 11 yes votes and 1 abstention.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
You'll recall that on Monday, colleagues, there was a motion and a second to approve the report that comprises the city's 26-27 Approved budget.
We are now voting on that motion as amended.
Keelan, will you please call the roll?
Sameer Kanal
Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page here.
This is approval of the report and transmission to the, uh, TSCC?
Jamie Dunphy
I believe that is correct, yes.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, it's nice to not have to withdraw this one, uh, this year.
I vote aye.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keith Wilson
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Eric Zimmerman
I just want you to know this is really like the beginning of the budget process when we send it to TSCC, so I know this feels climactic, but here we go.
It really starts now.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Abstain.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The motion is approved with about 11 ayes and 1 abstention.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, as the Budget Committee, we must also approve tax levies.
I'm going to read about 3 pages worth of doc— oh, it's just 1 full page.
I'm wrong.
The city shall levy its full permanent rate of $4.57 and 7/10 of a cent per $1,000 of assessed value and $30 million Aye.
Opposed?
Aye.
Motion passes.
Resolution number 2, $279,801,933 for the payment of voter-approved general obligation bond principal and interest, and $279,235,522 for the obligations of— for the fire and police disability and retirement fund.
$1.40 per $1,000 of assessed property value for parks levy Parks Local Option Levy, and $0.4026 per $1,000 of assessed value for the Children's Levy.
Furthermore, the city shall levy the amount listed in Attachment E for rural urban—.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Bleh.
Jamie Dunphy
Try that again.
Furthermore, the city shall levy the amounts listed in Attachment E for Urban Renewal Collections.
May I have a motion to approve the tax levies?
Steve Novick
So moved.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal moves.
Is there a second?
Steve Novick
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick seconds.
Keelan, please call the roll.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Kanal.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The motion is approved with 12 aye votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, do not get excited by this next sentence.
I now adjourn this meeting of the City of Portland Budget Committee, and I reconvene from recess the Portland City Council.
We are now in consideration and guess what?
I now recess this meeting of the Portland City Council and reconvene from recess the Prosper Portland Budget Committee.
Keelan, can you please call the roll?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Kanal.
Jamie Dunphy
We, we have to approve the Budget Committee for Prosper Portland now.
We are doing an attendance roll, not a vote.
Just seeing if you're here for the Budget Committee of Prosper Portland.
Mitch Green
I can confirm a quorum's present.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, thank you, City Attorney.
At this time, there is a motion on the table to approve the report that comprises the Prosper Portland budget as amended.
Budget Director Levine, is there any further action needed to reconcile the Prosper Portland budget to the City of Portland budget?
Candace Avalos
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Keelan, please call the roll.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The motion is approved with 12 aye votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
I now adjourn the meeting of the Prosper Portland Budget Committee and reconvene from recess the Portland City Council.
Colleagues, the approved budget will be published as amended on the city budget office website.
Note that this budget will correct an error in the budget book in prior years' actuals that caused some to appear out of balance.
This is purely a technical correction for the purposes of compliance with state budget law.
Looking around at my professional colleagues, friends, that is the budget, and the meeting of the Portland City Council is now adjourned.
Keith Wilson
Council is adjourned.