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.
Loretta Smith
Keelan, I'm online.
This is Councilor Smith.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Hi, Councilor Smith.
I'll let Keelan know they probably can't hear you in chambers just yet.
Okay, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Good morning.
I am calling back to order the City of Portland Budget Committee.
Can we please call the roll?
Sameer Kanal
Here.
Angelita Morillo
Also here.
Candace Avalos
Here.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Here.
Tony Barnes
Here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Sonia Szymanski
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Here.
Melissa Williams
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmermann.
Avalos.
Smith.
Loretta Smith
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jeremy Patton
Here.
Jamie Dunphy
And could we please read the rules of decorum?
Robert Taylor
Thank you.
Welcome to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The presiding officer preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, Council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should please address the matter being considered.
When testifying, please state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you are a lobbyist, please identify the organization you represent.
Virtual testifiers should please unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Colleagues, good morning.
Welcome to day 3, our long day.
Today we will be working until at least 9 o'clock— 9 or 10 o'clock tonight, as needed.
So in service of that, as I said yesterday, once we know where things are going It's time to wrap up and move to a vote.
We have substantive materials all the way through to the end of the day, and it's better to withdraw or have something voted on quickly than to not get to it at all.
That being said, I do expect that we will have to prioritize in the afternoon and in the evening.
This morning we're going to start by doing the last few Prosper Portland amendments.
Then we will conform the Prosper budget to the amended city budget.
Then we will do our PSEF and rate ordinances.
Then we will take up the PSEF and PMO amendments.
My staff will be circulating this morning checking on whether councilors may plan on withdrawing certain pre-filed items.
We will then send an updated schedule for the day to all stakeholders after this work is complete.
So on to the work of the day.
We are now returning to the amendments that impact the Prosper Portland budget.
Councilor Avalos, I'd like you to begin by— I'd like to begin by recognizing you to finish up your work on Avalos 2.
You'll need to move and second again, and then we'll work through the remainder of this block and move on to conform the Prosper budget to these changes.
So, Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
All right, thank you.
So yeah, let me just reintroduce the amendment for folks.
Colleagues, yesterday we discussed Avalos 2, and I heard some concerns that this would hurt efforts to help small businesses.
But I think it's worth reminding everyone that immigration is a small business issue.
Immigration is a workforce issue.
Immigrant and refugee communities are vital to the city's overall economic health, reputation, and identity.
The owner of a beloved Lao food cart was taken by ICE recently.
That food cart was down the street at PSU in D4.
In Northeast Portland, a pizza cart is now closed because the co-owner and head chef was denied entry back into our country after living here for more than 20 years, working the last 6 years toward legal status.
In D3, Güero is helping to raise funding for their cook Jose, who was detained by ICE while on his way to work.
And in D1, business at Su Casa Supermercado was down 40% last year because people are afraid to leave their homes.
I have friends, I have personal friends who are afraid to leave their homes.
They tell me that immigration enforcement affects all of our constituents, and making sure that immigrant and refugee communities feel safe in Portland is an essential part of building a thriving city.
Colleagues, there will continue to be resources to help storefronts and small businesses in our budget.
Where are the resources to help immigrant and refugee communities?
We talk about the fact that there are no easy decisions with this budget.
We should talk about the fact that families with loved ones in Tacoma, loved ones forced to leave the country, are being forced to make hard decisions about their household budgets.
Last night, I saw an email from Lainey Tupper, executive director of Clear Clinic and winner of the 2025 annual Steve Lowenstein Award.
She wrote, Portland has long prided itself on becoming— on being a welcoming city that stands up for the rights and dignity of all its residents.
To leave our immigrant community members vulnerable to this massive spike in detention and deportation without the specific resources necessary to fight for their freedom goes against those values.
So colleagues, I ask that you stand up for the rights and dignity of our constituents, and I ask you to support me in Avalos 2, and I'd ask for a second.
Dan Ryan
Second.
Candace Avalos
So, or I, I move Avalos 2 for a second.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos has moved Avalos 2 and Councilor Koyama Lane has seconded.
Colleagues, we are into debate on the amendment.
Feel free to jump into the queue for any discussion.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I did want to start by, um, thanking you, Mr. Mayor, for taking the lead in creating this position and for Thank you, Mayor Wilson, for really coming on board with the Protect Portland initiative and working with council.
And thank you, CA Lee, for also being so open to implementing the vision and what we're hoping for in this area.
For me, I do see that this position is important to be citywide, and so it does make sense to me to have it in the City Administrator's Office.
I will be honest that the idea of moving Another elected's funds does feel a little bit strange, but I also know we're doing some of that with the auditor.
I believe that when a position's not as connected to an elected, not— it's not about the mayor, it could be about us too, that it can be a little more politicized.
So I think having it in the CA's office can make sense.
And I would love this position to be one that continues no matter who extend a courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
I extend the courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Keith Wilson
Thank you, Council President.
Good morning, councilors.
I agree with what Councilor Avalos talked about, the importance of our immigrant and refugee committee— community, excuse me.
The Protect Portland initiative was unfunded, however.
In the midst of a crisis, I acted.
We brought that liaison into my office.
Brenda Alvarado is doing a fantastic job.
She's indispensable now.
Moving this position punishes and defunds my office now.
You're taking $200,000 away from my office.
We already took a cut to our budget.
When I presented the budget to you, There was a cut to my office.
There's also a cut to the other elected office, which is the auditor.
We both worked together to make sure that we were gonna bring forward a cut.
There's no cuts to the council offices.
Now you're taking a summary cut and you're taking staff outta my office.
I wouldn't really think that that is how this body, as far as the budget, should be moving forward.
You asked me during the testimony About the elected office and if it was proper.
And both the elected auditor and I both said yes, we had agreed and we worked out the details.
Now you are making a summary judgment on my office.
If this position is severed from my elected office to city bureaucracy, it will lose the ability to carry the mayor's voice and the mayor's political protection.
This will result in work that must take fewer risks and respond more slowly to emerging threats.
We did this for a very material reason, to make our immigrant and refugee community, to prioritize their voice, to act fast.
And that was essentially why we moved quickly to bring it in the office in the first place.
If council wants to create a new office, they should do so without disrupting the critical community work in my office.
Community members were brought in and helped us form Brenda's role to help us understand what we need and what they need.
We're not consulting them now.
Tony Barnes
Councilor Smith.
Keith Wilson
We're just making a move without their voice, which it was a weekly conversation we had and have been having with them.
So I think that there's a host of different issues here.
I mentioned many of them yesterday.
Today, I think the salient issue is taking money from my office and defunding my office in that regard.
I already talked about the Storefront Support Program and the importance of all community members, not just our TIF districts, but providing support from a repair grant as well as a storefront activation, which helps our immigrant-owned businesses.
Sonia Szymanski
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
Thank you, Mayor.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos, I'll come back to you.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
I'd just like to say ditto, ditto, ditto, Mayor.
I just don't think that it is even proper that we do this, and I think it's awfully telling that Councilor Avalos received so much help for her district office from all the other offices because they wanted to out of the goodness of their heart.
But this is something different.
This is a grab, and it's not— it's not a grab with, um, the support of the mayor.
And we can't be raiding each other's office.
I don't even know that it's even legal for, for this to even happen, but I'm going to be voting no.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Council President, is, um, this amount of funding—.
Angelita Morillo
The—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Not the transfer of the position, but the funding for support for the work— small enough that it could happen between today and June, our June meeting?
We've got 10 days left.
Jamie Dunphy
We have a 10% limit by fund.
And so I'm not— it sort of depends.
But in theory, yes, we could potentially bring this back as a— depending on what the funding source, if we wanted to have a conversation about it, yes, absolutely.
This is something we could do in June as well.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Avalos, I got some additional information, as I said I would work to do after our meeting yesterday.
And this does cut from the fund that has the dollars Councilor Smith.
Melissa Williams
I think that's a very important position.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It's one of those positions that, frankly, I've been pretty committed to making sure we had at least some amount of, so I'm not comfortable pulling here.
I also have heard some strong arguments for— from folks close to this work who are interested in keeping the position in the mayor's office.
But I think there is strong interest on council in making sure that we fund this work, which has not been funded previously.
It's just been a single position.
And if this does not pass today and, Councilor, you're interested in working with a group to find another funding source before our June vote, I would be very interested in being a part of that partnership.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
First and foremost, I'm very curious who the community is that people are referencing, because my office spent literally all day calling all of the community orgs.
So far, the only people that I know are against this are Brenda and PERC.
Literally everyone else is for it, including Laney, who was in your inbox.
So I completely disagree with the concept that community has been consulted.
I don't know who you all think the community is, but I'm part of that community.
I call them directly and they take my calls.
So I have heard very clearly— in fact, I was going to retract this, and I heard a strong cry from the community not to because they thought it was inappropriate.
To not put something forward in this budget when we have our immigrant communities suffering right now.
It is absolutely relevant to business.
It is absolutely relevant to our economic prosperity, to what this city supposedly stands for, all of that talk that we did back in the fall.
And I'm the only councilor that brought something forward to actually put resources back into the community.
So I reject that narrative because I know that I have been working deeply with these communities to figure out what the dollars are that they need.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
Need and to figure out how to actually start putting that money and that resource into this budget.
Can we do it another time?
Sure, we could do anything at any other time.
This is the time, though, to talk about this year's budget and to allocate resources that are extra for the Storefront Program.
They are receiving $1 million extra than what they already had budgeted from last year.
So I do not see that as a significant reason to stop something that is creating a resource that people are asking for.
My neighbors literally do not want to leave their house.
They cannot leave their house.
They cannot get work.
And this is not for lack of trying.
This is not from a lack of people working really hard to make sure that they have the, the, uh, the legal support they need to stay in this country.
And we are living under a fascist country that is literally trying to destroy the immigrant community.
I'm—.
Loretta Smith
I—.
Candace Avalos
And I'm sorry if that sounds hyperbolic, but this is very personal.
Loretta Smith
Councilor Loretta Smith.
Candace Avalos
And when you have a personal relationship to communities that are being injured and hurt by this, then this is how it shows up in my speech.
So I'm really frustrated to hear that because, again, I have been working with this community and I don't appreciate being told that I'm not hearing from them because that's literally all I've been doing for the last several months.
This is something I worked it out with Prosper to find the dollars that would make the least impact on their budget and that, again, they are supporting.
You can see in that email that Donnie just sent that they support.
Loretta Smith
Councilmember Herbold.
Candace Avalos
So I think it's really unfortunate for this council to not take action right now, and I'll make sure that the community knows.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Morillo.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
And Councilor Avalos, thank you for bringing this forward and for outlining that, because I think it's really important.
You worked with Prosper, you got their go-ahead, you're not stepping on anyone's toes, and I think that the really critical part of this as well— there's a few things.
For one thing, we've seen multiple immigrants who run small businesses be taken by ICE in the past few months, including beloved food carts, beloved restaurants, and we are losing the culture that they bring to our city because of that.
So it is important to fund this work at this moment, and that is part of supporting businesses as well.
The other aspect that I think is really critical about this amendment and why I will be The reason why I'm not supporting it is because the immigrant affairs liaison position cannot live in the mayor's office.
And mayor, with all due respect, there have been numerous times where you have spoken out against policies that the council is trying to bring forward the night before the policies are set to go to council.
So I'm thinking, for example, uh, if your office is intervening on the data privacy office, Yes.
The Data Privacy Office, for example, that we voted unanimously to pass, addresses data governance, which means that protecting people's data when the federal government is targeting activists, immigrants, and using data collection to do federal overreach, to do surveillance on people, including immigrants, is critical.
Your office decided to send out an email the night before on the masking ordinance.
These are profoundly political acts, whether you feel that you are an impartial actor or not.
And because those are political decisions that are being made, the immigrant affairs liaison cannot live under your office.
They have to be able to independently act and give feedback to you, to the council, and that can happen better under the city administrator because he's not in the same political role that you are.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
And that the council is.
So that's why I think that the immigrant affairs liaison position, it shouldn't live in any council office.
It shouldn't live under you.
It should live under the city administrator.
I think that's a really critical part of how we're gonna do immigration work moving forward.
So Councilor Avalos, thank you again for bringing this forward.
Thank you for working with community partners, for not stepping on anyone's toes, for doing your due diligence.
And I will be supportive of this.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Again, it's not personal really, to be honest.
Like, we— our jobs are political and we have to push our political agenda forward, and sometimes your political agenda conflicts with what we think is going to be right for the immigrant communities.
And so we have a responsibility to make sure that that's set in an impartial position.
And Mayor, if you have hiring and firing power directly over the immigrant liaison, that means that they They can't give you hard feedback.
It's just different.
So because of that, I will be supporting this.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Avalos, last word.
Candace Avalos
One more thing to say.
You know, it sounds like people are concerned about it being a budgetary impact on the mayor's office.
I'm willing to change this to make the entire amount of the salary and the resources to community come out of that amount.
It's not ideal because that takes a lot less money that we can actually give to rapid response.
But if that is what is causing some people heartburn, then I'm willing to make that amendment.
But I need to— I need you to speak up now if that's what you want me to do.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Avalos 2?
Keelan McClymont
Avalos 2, moved by Avalos, seconded by Koyama Lane.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
I'll make sure everyone knows what just happened today.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, colleagues.
Councilor Smith, recognizing you for to, uh, introduce Smith 2, if you are prepared for that.
Councilor Smith.
I think she just fell off.
Okay, I will recognize myself.
Um, colleagues, I'm going to, uh, move Dunphy 3.
This is a— sorry, let me get my notes.
I'm sorry, colleagues.
Uh, I move Dunphy 3.
This amendment does 3 things.
First, and directly related to Prosper Portland, this amendment seeks to restore the at-risk youth outreach recreation coordinator position within parks that services 3 Teen Force sites.
Without this role, one position would be stretched to serve the whole city.
This, uh, my amendment would draw from the cannabis dollars currently committed to Prosper's Reimagine Oregon grant program.
I don't relish asking for a reduction to Reimagine Oregon, which is an important program supporting small businesses most impacted by cannabis criminalization.
Mostly BIPOC small businesses, but I believe that addiction and violence prevention for at-risk BIPOC kids in my district has to be my priority.
That's a $130,000 draw from Reimagine Oregon, leaving $1.9 million in the grant for in the fund for granting.
It is roughly a six percent cut.
Second, one of the jobs that we are seeking to protect.
Is the East Portland Developed Parks Coordinator.
Without this position, East Portland will no longer have a dedicated parks employee to lead volunteer events with neighborhood associations, nonprofits, and more.
This means less support for our parks and less support for our community.
This draws from the additional general fund contingency offered in the proposed budget.
Third, this amendment calls for a set-aside of $480,000 from the Transportation Operating Fund specifically to commit to the enormous backlog of streetlight and Thank you.
To fund a bureau directive to study the use of aluminum conductors for streetlights to deter copper wire theft.
So that is— this is the— this Dunphy 3 is colloquially being referred to as Hold East Portland Harmless.
My team went through the budget to see where we thought of specific cuts that were disproportionately impacting East Portland, and we have identified this.
I recognize that there are some trade-offs in my amendment, and if you are unable to support that, I totally understand that.
But I move Dunphy 3 and would ask for a second.
Mitch Green
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, we are now into discussion of the amendment Dunphy 3.
Anybody who would like to comment, please feel free to get in the queue.
I think you guys all want to move on today really fast and just vote on things.
Loretta Smith
Council President, I'm sorry, I don't have—.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Oh, Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Um, I do like what you're trying to do with, with East Portland, but the Imagine Oregon money I have a problem with because it's going to take away— again, this is the same thing that was put forward last year— and that would take away from, um, Black and brown businesses, um, in Imagine Oregon.
So I, I don't like where you're taking the money from.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
I like the use.
But it's going to, it's going to cause some issues.
Some of those folks are going to get less grant now just because you took that $130,000 out.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Uh, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
And in the words of Councilor Smith, ditto, Councilor Smith.
Um, I completely understand the need to reduce the backlog of street safety repairs.
I think all our districts are actually feeling that, and I do— I'm well aware of the extra needs PBOT's here, I see.
Um, I wonder— I'm curious about if PBOT could speak to the impacts of using operating contingency funds.
Trying to understand what you're doing here.
Jamie Dunphy
Yep, that's why we have smarter people than me here to talk.
Welcome.
Melissa Williams
Good morning.
Thank you so much.
Uh, good morning, Council President Dunphy, uh, members of council, and thank you to Regarding the use of the operating fund, that fund has been specifically identified for us to address emergency needs, emergent needs, like snow clearing in the event of an emergency.
And so that would directly impact our ability to follow through on those commitments to community if, in fact, we were to need to do that.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Melissa Williams
We had roughly half a million dollars left in that— left in that now very small fund anyway.
I could— I would offer that there are a number of things that are happening within the bureau now, especially as it relates to the TUF and street damage restoration fee, that create opportunities for us to be able to do the very thing that Councilor Dunphy is proposing through the And I'd also like to offer that we see that there are disproportionate impacts on the bureau— I mean, on District 1 relative to other parts of the city.
Some of the previous efforts that we've had, especially around pothole repair, have been specifically focused on District 1.
Councilmember Smith, We did a pothole palooza, or we called it March Madness, where we did 10,000 potholes because we knew that that was an area where people typically do not report potholes.
Other parts of town, we get reports all the time.
And so we ourselves took it upon ourselves to prioritize those locations because we knew that the problems existed.
I think the problem is that we're not So we have some options and opportunities to discuss how to facilitate what you're asking us to do.
Using that funding source, however, is something that we would like to be able to inform in a different way to ensure that you're getting to where you're wanting to go.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
You gave 2 really good example stories.
When we all know when there's a snow and ice storm, Portlanders expect it to be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
Candace Avalos
That's right.
Dan Ryan
Why everyone is so upset about the snow and ice storm.
Staying home, your crews are out there putting in a lot of overtime.
Do you have an estimate of how much that is when we have— usually it's a 3 or 4 day event if it's a big one?
Melissa Williams
It does range.
So the last big event, multiple day event, when we had crews on 24/7 for a couple of weeks actually, that was in the $10 million range.
Dan Ryan
Is that how much is in the fund right now?
Melissa Williams
$750,000.
Dan Ryan
Okay, I think I've heard enough.
Thanks.
Melissa Williams
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
Eric Zimmerman
Just a couple of questions.
Councilor Smith alluded to it, but I'm wondering, can you— I'm not super familiar with the Reimagine Oregon program.
Can we talk about a little bit of that?
I'd like to understand what the loss would be.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, it's currently a This program currently has $2 point— sorry, pulling my notes up.
This currently has, uh, just a little bit over $2 million in it.
It is an ongoing dollar, uh, uh, pot of dollars coming from our cannabis fund and goes specifically currently through Prosper Portland to support small businesses.
She's— Councilor Smith is absolutely correct.
This, this was, uh, this would withdraw— this would be a 6% drawdown on the ongoing amount of money that goes to Prosper Portland to support these—.
Eric Zimmerman
This specific program.
Is it targeted to any specific communities?
She alluded to it being targeted or that it would hurt specifically communities.
I'm just trying to understand that aspect of it.
Jamie Dunphy
I think historically the Reimagine Oregon grants or, you know, yeah, Oregon grants have been targeted at people who have been either people or communities that have been Impacted by cannabis criminalization.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
And therein lies the Black and brown reference that Councilor Smith made.
Dan Ryan
Correct.
Eric Zimmerman
I think I understand that.
So, okay, thank you on that.
My other question was, you know, the last director of parks, I think one of the arguments against her administration was that she added a whole lot of administration to the Parks Bureau over line workers.
And you're asking to add another administrative position.
So that gives me a little bit of pause.
I don't know a lot of programs that exist when you just add an admin to it.
So is this— what do you think is actually accomplishable by adding an administrative person or the administrative functions, if it says within Portland Parks and Rec?
What are we trying to gain here?
Mitch Green
Are you—.
Jamie Dunphy
Do you mean—.
Eric Zimmerman
Given how much they grew in administration over the last 5 years?
Jamie Dunphy
Do you mean the parks coordinator position rather than—.
Eric Zimmerman
Not the teen force, So I see, I see the Youth Teen Outreach Coordinator 2 position and a one-time full-time equivalent supporting community groups and one seasonal position supporting administrative functions within.
Are these a couple of different FTE that we're talking about in your narrative here?
Jamie Dunphy
There are, there are a, a few FTE in this specifically, yes.
There's the Teen Force Coordinator program, which is, which I'm trying to pay through the redirecting dollars from Reimagine Oregon.
And then there is the, uh, The East Portland Parks Coordinator position, which I'm trying to preserve, which is slated to be cut out of the general fund contingency.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thanks.
And I'll just note again, things would be so much easier if the budget office actually wrote these in ways where they were directly to the program offer they were affecting.
And that's not on you.
We've all been forced into the template of awfulness, but I appreciate it.
Thank you for answering the questions.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
Um, a few days ago when I was hoping that we could pass Clark 1 and Murillo's proposal— we did pass yesterday— and my proposal to cut council office budgets and the city administrator's proposed adds, um, I thought that we could fund a bunch of critical things and then fund some things that were individually important to some of us, such as this, such as the international relations position that's Particularly important to Councilor Knoll, the botanist/community garden/youth conservation corps position that I'm interested in.
I, at this point though, I regretfully am going to have to oppose this.
I just, I wish we had more money.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you for bringing this, Council President.
You know, I just kind of want to ground us back in the topic area, which is about economic development.
Prosper Portland area.
I think that what I've heard from a lot of across this dais, but also just generally in the narrative in this city right now, is that we need to be able to, however much of a moonshot, however much of a sort of, you know, let's throw something at it, see if it sticks, to signal to our communities that we're investing in trying to do things differently and make this the city that works.
And so your amendment, I see, does this.
And particularly, you're sort of saying, let's Let's send a very strong signal to East Portland that we care about you.
And we're explicitly earmarking some resources in there.
And then also there's sort of a forward-looking kind of upstream recognition that East Portland is dealing with kind of an ongoing cost associated with, like, you know, some vandalism-related activities, stripping copper wire out of these light posts, which will just continue to cost the city more and more and more.
Eric Zimmerman
Right.
Mitch Green
And this is a really creative way to say, well, let's earmark a little bit of a solution here to disincentivize that without relying upon a downstream reaction through the kind of public safety response to that, which will be very difficult to ever keep up on.
And so if I'm a member of the public and I'm looking at this amendment, I'm seeing an opportunity to say we don't want you to leave Portland.
We want you to stay in Multnomah County.
We want you to recognize that the city is actually recognizing some of its root cause issues and making a small, however small but important intervention here.
So I'm prepared to support this for that reason.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Councilor— there we go, Pirtle-Guiney.
Dan Ryan
Sorry.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks, Council President.
You know, it's not lost on me that on the sheet of councilor top priorities, this was marked as a top priority.
I am sitting in a spot on this one where I wish we had the space and time to iterate some together because I'm not comfortable cutting the transportation operating fund contingency by more than half.
But we also have recently increased funding for transportation in our city significantly, and if we were looking at some of those increased funds and how we might be able to pay for the things that you are looking at and prioritize some of those increased funds for East Portland, I'd be very supportive.
I am very supportive of bringing back that position that exists to do community group outreach.
In East Portland.
I don't know if we can afford to add a new position right now.
And so I, I wish we were in a space where we could figure out how to get you the win for East Portland that we all know East Portland needs here in a way that used dollars a little differently.
I want to put that out there because if there's an opportunity at any point to do that, or as we continue to iterate our budget process if we can figure out a way to have some of those deeper conversations about how do we get what everybody needs in more flexible conversations about funding.
I want to make sure we can do that.
I also can't slash that fund in half when I feel like there are other transportation dollars we could be drawing on instead.
I'm sorry.
Dan Ryan
No problem.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Clark.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I just had another question for Director Williams.
I believe our TUF ordinance did address streetlights.
It includes streetlights.
Yes, it did.
I'm just curious about this issue about changing them out to a different kind of streetlight.
And thank you also for clarifying the transportation operating fund.
Really kind of— I would call it a deficit.
But could you address the streetlight issue?
What are we talking about here with this changeout?
Melissa Williams
It's my understanding that it's the wiring that's used within those streetlights right now, and I know that over the course of the past several months there have been a series of reports regarding copper wiring found in any number of solutions that the city brings forward.
And what I understand is that the city is looking at Councilor Smith.
What I believe I understand is that the goal is for us to identify, or at least research, additional opportunities for us to be able to implement something different so that we reduce the possibility of theft and thereby the dysfunction of those streetlights.
So that's something that our team is prepared to do.
They probably I don't know if we have already done some of that work, and forgive me for not knowing that right now.
But I know that our signals and streetlights team is always— they're actually on the cutting edge of innovation and always looking for ways to do our work better and different and with a higher level of quality to ensure the safety of Portlanders.
So I don't know what the specific dollar amount would be when we would swap out, if we were to But as you and I have discussed previously, Councilor Clark, our streetlight network is in— I don't want to go so far as to say it's dire, but there's a great deal of need, and there's opportunities for us to explore the best ways to extend the dollars that we do have available to us.
I will again share, given that we now have a Sustainable funding source, that provides us the opportunity to do thoughtful strategic planning and do the work that's necessary to make sure that we are bringing forward the best solutions for the city, not just a series of patchwork opportunities to solve a problem in the moment.
So we're happy to be able to go back and do that work to identify the best solutions.
Olivia Clark
I'm glad to hear that.
Thank you, Director Williams.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Mr. President.
I wanted to go back to this.
Just as PBOT has said, I think we have a couple different sources through TUF.
We have the bigger pot of money, and then we have Vision Zero, which works on security issues.
I wish you would have talked to me first.
I knew nothing about this East County thing before, before you put it forward, because I am all in support of doing that.
I think we can also pay for this particular parks position, try to find a vacant position within parks to backfill this new position that you're trying to do.
It's probably an easier way to get the money instead of going to somebody else's that's not even in the City of Portland to pay for something that is in one of our city bureaus.
I think we're going to have some money in Vision Zero.
And I have some safety improvements for pedestrians and bikers and rollers in, um, in the city of Portland that are coming up.
So, um, we're, we're going to be talking about lighting as well, but I think you're going to have some real opportunities to get money out after the, after the budget.
Well, in 2027, we'll, we'll have those dollars available.
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Dunphy 3?
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy 3, moved by Dunphy, seconded by Green.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, colleagues.
Councilor Smith, I'm recognizing you for, uh, Smith 2.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
This is to restore $197,000, um, back into PROSPER's, uh, budget for the Inclusive Business Resource Network.
It is a citywide initiative.
It's Yes.
It's designed to support local entrepreneurs.
It provides free culturally specific technical assistance, access to capital, and one-on-one business advising tailored for Portland small business owners, particularly women, people of color, and non-English speakers.
And what IBRN does as well, it connects business owners to a robust network of local community providers.
I met with the minority chambers a couple of weeks ago, the Filipino Chamber, the African American Chamber, Latino and Asian Chamber of Commerce, and they're very concerned that they're going to lose resources and their members are going to lose resources for technical assistance that's designed specifically for minority businesses.
This is just another way and that they're able to be successful.
And if we take this away, this is going to be a huge problem.
The reason why I'm taking it out of the contingency for cannabis is because those dollars are meant for communities of color, and I think that is a great use of those funds.
And Thanks to Councilor Green's kind of top-notch forward thinking about what's going to be in the BLT, I think we'll be able to have some additional resources and actually go back and fill that contingency pot back up.
But I don't think we can afford at this time to— I mean, it's $197,000, and I think we need to be able to to fund that, and, um, I would urge all of you to support it.
Eric Zimmerman
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith moves Smith 2, Councilor Zimmerman seconds.
Colleagues, we— to the amendment.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Um, thank you, Councilor Smith.
I actually did a tour in District 3 for some small businesses, and I got to meet folks, um, at, at this program, and it was really awesome to hear everything that they're doing, how they're supporting women, uh, and other small businesses.
I am curious, was there a cut to this program, and like, what was the impact of that cut that you're trying to replenish here?
Loretta Smith
There was a cut to this program.
Is there someone here from Prosper?
I think it was $197,000.
Is the CFO here?
Jonas Biery
Hi, Councilor.
Apologies, if you could repeat the question.
Loretta Smith
IBRN.
She asked the question, was it— was there a cut to this program?
And I said yes.
Jeremy Patton
Yep.
Angelita Morillo
I'm just wondering what the impacts are of those cuts.
Are they losing employees?
Are they losing services?
Loretta Smith
Services.
Sorry.
Tony Barnes
For the record, Tony Barnes, Prosper Portland.
There was an ongoing cut to general fund IBRN.
Total programming for general fund is $1.35 million.
Regional recreational cannabis tax is another $500,000.
So this would— this amendment would increase from the recreational cannabis tax of $500,000 and I think $30,000 to about $730,000.
So it increases and offsets Gotcha.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
And what is the impact on the cannabis fund?
I think we took some funding out of that yesterday.
Is this further cutting into that in a way that's detrimental, or is it okay?
Jonas Biery
I would thank you, Councilor, for the question.
For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer for the city, and would just note that, as we noted yesterday, that that is a declining revenue stream, and anything that's drawn from that will be offset by the increase in revenue from the cannabis fund.
Put that further at risk as we draw from any other reserve that the city has.
Angelita Morillo
I don't know if you guys can answer this question, but the final question I have is, so the Inclusive Business Resource Network obviously serves a lot of different marginalized groups, including women-owned businesses, Black people, people of color, all of the above.
And to me, cannabis-related Restorative justice means helping the Black community specifically because of how the government has targeted them.
So what percentage of the Inclusive Business Resource Network is specifically serving Black Portlanders who have these small businesses?
Do you know that off the top of your head?
Tony Barnes
I don't have that specific number off the top of my head, but we can follow up.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, maybe I can dig into it.
Thank you, Council President.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I have another budget question.
You both just got up.
I'm sorry.
I want to make sure that I'm actually following the track here because I actually am very concerned, Councilor Smith, about digging further into the cannabis contingency.
I was nervous to dig so far into it, but I'm just curious.
I think I'm looking at the right page of the budget that shows in '24-'25 this program had about $2.8 million in total funding, and then that increased significantly to about $4.6 million last year and would now be moving back down to about $2.8 million in funding.
Is that correct?
Tony Barnes
Specific to the Reimagine Oregon program, the funding proposed IBRN, that's correct.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, so this is a, this is a part of our budget that looks like it's had significant fluctuation over the past 4 years.
The budget as proposed by the mayor returns it significantly below last year's levels but to about the '24-'25 levels.
This is an increase of about $200,000 in a 2- $2.8 million program budget.
Is that accurate?
Tony Barnes
For the current fiscal year, there is a total of— look at the exact number here— $2.6 million in general fund allocated for total programming and program delivery, as well as $1 million $49,000 for RCT IBRN program.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That's about $3.6 million this year.
Tony Barnes
In total, for all general fund and RCT programming combined, for both program delivery and programming to contractors.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And that's lower than last year's budget, but about equivalent to 2 years ago.
Tony Barnes
And there is a— there is a—.
Olivia Clark
Correct, that's correct.
Tony Barnes
There is a nuance here where there was a delay in billing for the 24-25 invoices.
So some of that budget from fiscal year 24-25 was added into the fall TAO, which has an impact on the 25-26 revised— 25-26 numbers.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you very much.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
You know, these types of funds offer us kind of an opportunity to think about, um, what do we mean about grant funding?
What do we mean about what's the role of contingencies et cetera, et cetera.
We've had long conversations about PCF's $500 million in the bank because it's got 5 years planning out.
Um, reading our— one of our DCAs' breakdown of this and says restores support for approximately 60 small businesses through the IBRN partnerships.
While beneficial in the short term to reduce the cuts in IBRN and the reliance on the volatile RCT contingency, raises concern about long-term sustainability for the program.
And I And I think that's a reasonable point.
I also think that these types of funds that come in from taxes on top of people's usage of a product, et cetera, are intended to get out the very next year, right?
So I don't actually carry a whole lot of care about a long-term contingency in those areas because I kind of reject the idea that if you've been grant funded once, you'll be grant funded forever.
I think there's an understanding that if there's money in the bucket, we get it out.
If there's not money in the bucket, we all recognize that something has changed.
But when we have these, these specific buckets that were created for specific causes, holding back for the sake of feel-good dollars later on when it doesn't come in has never been something that's really resonated with me.
And so I both recognize the structural and short-termness of this, and I think that getting Getting funds dedicated to that type of grant funding out so they can be taken advantage of is a good thing.
And it's not denying that there are out-year risks.
It's just admitting that we are not an in-perpetuity grant funding agency.
We are a when funds are available in certain buckets.
And so for that reason, Councilor Smith, thank you for bringing it, and I'll continue to support you.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yes, thank you, Council President.
Um, I probably need people from Prosper to come up again, uh, to ask a couple process questions.
I like the— I like where the ad's going, Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
I—.
Dan Ryan
It's all about small businesses.
I've been— I'm aware of that network.
I have a systemic question.
I've been, um, visiting with the cannabis retail and also warehouse network, and they, um, They're not happy because they're dealing with a lot of the same storefront crime, but it's even more challenging for them because they're cash only.
And so they're— when they're robbed, it's pretty detrimental, and they're targeted quite a bit as well.
And so they've been really encouraging me to make sure we don't cut police, we don't cut the public system network in general.
But they also complain that they don't have any voice at the table for this fund.
Tony Barnes
Right.
Dan Ryan
So my question to you is, is that true?
Are there people from the cannabis industry, if you will, at the table monitoring?
What's the system?
What's the oversight of this fund?
Andrew Fitzpatrick
Thank you for the question, Councilor Ryan.
My name is Andrew Fitzpatrick.
I'm the Director of Economic Development at Prosper Portland, for the record.
So the 3% that the City of Portland collects on top of the state's 17% is obviously—.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, that's what they always mention.
Andrew Fitzpatrick
Paid by consumers, but it does obviously affect the underlying business because you're actually able to afford less of the product when you're taxed at that level.
So that's affecting all cannabis dispensaries selling the product in Portland, of course, at that higher level.
The way that we use it is in that kind of third bucket toward small businesses, particularly from communities that have been negatively affected by the war on drugs.
Or cannabis prohibition historically.
Dan Ryan
No, Andrew, I understand that, but is that—.
Andrew Fitzpatrick
That's according to the voter's intent.
When the Portland voters passed the 3% tax, that was that kind of that third bucket that we used to fund the programs, including IBRN.
Dan Ryan
No, I appreciate that.
And that context's helpful for all of us to listen to.
But my question is, is there an oversight committee and does it include people from the cannabis retailer warehouses?
Andrew Fitzpatrick
One of the key IBRN partners, as was mentioned, it's a network of a lot of different partners serving different culturally specific service providers.
One of them, new project, is actually directly focused on the cannabis sector.
Dan Ryan
Okay, I'm going to be watching that.
And I do think that— I do think there's an overall work session someday on trying to get to the bottom of understanding this, because you did say it's declining revenue.
Andrew Fitzpatrick
You're making a great point, because obviously cannabis businesses are very hard up right now as far as sales numbers.
They're not doing that well, and they are also victims of crime frequently.
So we do want to be there for them in the ways that we can and definitely welcome their input into how the IBRN serves their interests.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
So I do think this is a longer conversation.
I appreciate that you both seem to be aware of it by the nodding that Cornell's doing.
Andrew Fitzpatrick
Thank you, Councilor.
Dan Ryan
I do hope that we look at the cannabis storefronts that are out in the neighborhoods that you're talking about and they get some attention with what we're Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Yes, I, I totally agree with you, Councilor Ryan.
I had an amendment last year for Green Hop, which is in your district, Karanja Cruz, and because we had so many amendments, I was not able to, to bring it forward to be able to ask for some resources because He needed resources for operating funds because he's a cash-only and because of the federal thing.
There was some, there were some issues behind that.
But, um, he—.
Dan Ryan
They're doing workforce as well.
Loretta Smith
Yeah, and they're doing workforce.
He wanted money to train and do workforce.
Um, and so I wasn't able to bring it forward, but I do think that we should have a work session on this or bring it through the Committee of the Whole.
Uh, Councilor, um, Kanal, to be able to have this conversation because we're, we're talking about people putting, um, BLT into the community, and they need to be able to do that at the same rate as everyone else.
But I just want to say, I, I, um, I really urge you all to support this.
I know it's $197,000.
It's coming out of the marijuana cannabis, um, um, reserve— well, not reserve, contingency pot.
But we— Now that I know that it is one of those things that we need to pay attention to.
I will be paying attention well before the budget to make sure that they're not in this situation next year.
Uh, we just need to get that.
And, and, and if we— if what you say is true, Councilor Green, that we're going to get additional monies, we can put that money back in from that pot as well.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
I got in the queue largely to echo what Councilor Zimmerman was saying about the disposition of these funds.
I agree with that 100%.
I just The extra point I'd like to make is that there's a lot of affordability challenges and cost pressure and inflationary challenges that not only consumers are dealing with, but also these small proprietors.
And so I think we get a lot more bang for our buck by drawing forward in time the expenditure of these funds to support those businesses, to keep them whole, to keep them going so they can generate— continue to generate to the economic cycle of our city.
And so Strong support for this amendment.
I'm prepared to vote yes on it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Smith 2?
Keelan McClymont
Smith 2, moved by Smith, seconded by Zimmerman.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Absent.
Keelan McClymont
Smith.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment is approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no, and 1 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Avalos still has— I have been told that Councilor Avalos is not planning on pursuing Avalos 5.
Eric Zimmerman
That's right.
Jamie Dunphy
I believe that's what I was told by her chief.
Um, colleagues, we have made it through our, our amendments to Prosper Portland.
We will now open the Prosper Portland budget and reconcile it to the amendments we have just passed to the city budget.
Prosper Portland staff has prepared a conforming amendment that will do just that.
Keelan, is that all ready to go?
Keelan McClymont
I'm going to look to Ruth.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, if we need a moment, we can do that.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
We might need a moment.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Avalos, I just wanted to verify, are you moving Councilor— okay, all right.
And I'm going to look around the room and see if we are ready for the conforming.
If we are not, Then we will move to something else for a second.
Yeah, let's go ahead and take a 5-minute recess.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Oh my goodness.
Jamie Dunphy
And we are back, colleagues.
We are now going to take up consideration of item 8, I am gaveling out as our City Council Budget Committee, and I am gaveling— I'm recessing the meeting of the City Council Budget Committee, and I am reconvening from recess the Prosper Portland Budget Committee.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We need to ungavel out.
Jamie Dunphy
We need to ungavel out.
Which gaveling am I— which gavel did I just do wrong?
Robert Taylor
I think you did a great job.
We're gaveling into the Prosper Portland Budget Committee.
Jamie Dunphy
That's right, we are.
We are gaveling in as the Prosper Portland Budget Committee.
Thank you all for your patience with me as I figure out how to do this for the only time.
Prosper Portland staff has prepared a conforming amendment to true up their budget to the city amendments.
It has been submitted to the clerk, and I move this amendment.
Sameer Kanal
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
And Councilor Kanal seconds.
Is there any discussion on this conforming amendment?
Can we— wait, we were supposed to do a roll call as the Budget Committee.
Dan Ryan
Is that right?
Robert Taylor
I can confirm that a quorum of the Prosper Portland Budget Committee is present.
Sameer Kanal
No roll call is necessary.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, City Attorney.
Unidentified speaker
May we—.
Jamie Dunphy
The conforming amendment has been moved and seconded.
There is no further debate.
Can we please call the roll on the conforming amendment?
Keelan McClymont
Council President, may I confirm who seconded?
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
All right, Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Still here and aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Tony Barnes
And we're voting.
Keelan McClymont
Is that— that was an aye?
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That was an aye.
It was just a hesitant aye because we haven't seen it, so I am trusting that staff got it right.
Keelan McClymont
Should be posted.
Jamie Dunphy
It is posted online, but—.
Sonia Szymanski
Is it?
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
You want to keep going?
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The conforming amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, are there any further amendments to the Prosper Portland budget?
Seeing none, amendments to the Prosper Portland budget are now complete.
I am now recessing this meeting of the Prosper Portland Budget Committee.
Item 8, the Prosper Portland City Budget, will be taken up in a final vote Tomorrow?
Melissa Williams
Is that right?
Jamie Dunphy
That can't be right.
That's— nope, it's later today.
And I reconvene from recess the Portland City Council.
Do we take roll again?
There's a lot.
I'm sorry, there's a lot of moving parts here, and I apologize.
Robert Taylor
If you're, if you're coming back from recess, you don't need to take another roll call.
If there is a question about a quorum being present, any member may demand the roll call.
Dan Ryan
Perfect.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, colleagues, as we figured— as I figured this out.
Thank you, sounds great.
Um, colleagues, we need a few more minutes to, uh, fix the rate ordinances.
Uh, our friends at Metro changed their rates more than we were anticipating, so we have a little bit of a delay on that.
So we're going to move into our, uh, amendments that are related to the Portland Clean Energy Fund dollars, the mayor's proposed usage of for operations in the Public Environment Management Office, or PMO, and the proposed usage of tree permitting program.
We have 2 amendments which are most directly addressing the PMO allocations from PSEF and 3 that are most directly addressing trees, and we will look at those separately.
In the first block, we will begin with Avalos 1, then Novick 1.
And so I turn it over to Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
All right, colleagues, Avalos 1 restores Portland Clean Energy Fund dollars and reverses the proposed diversion of PCF resources toward Portland Solutions and the Public Environment Management Office.
I want to be very clear about what this amendment is and is not saying.
This amendment is not saying sidewalk cleaning, trash cleanup, lighting, or public environment management are unimportant.
Those services absolutely matter.
Portlanders deserve clean, safe, and well-maintained public spaces.
But those are core city responsibilities.
They are not what voters created PCEF to fund.
PCEF was created through a hard-fought community campaign rooted in climate justice, environmental justice, workforce development, and long-term climate resilience investments, particularly for frontline communities already disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis.
East Portland has an average life expectancy 10 years less than the rest of the city as a result of environmental injustice.
And I'm deeply concerned that we are slowly transforming PCEF from a community-led climate justice Fund into a catch-all operational backfill for broader city budget pressures.
Because once we normalize that logic, once every climate-adjacent service suddenly becomes eligible for PCF funding, the fund slowly stops functioning as the transformational investment tool voters were promised.
And importantly, I want colleagues to understand that these concerns are not just coming from me, even though I know you hear from me the most.
A broad coalition of environmental justice organizations, climate advocates, labor groups, And community orgs submitted a letter opposing these proposed reallocations and warning against treating PSF like a general fund piggy bank.
Their words.
They specifically raised concerns that these diversions undermine the climate investment plan, bypass community-led governance structures, and pull dollars away from already approved climate justice priorities.
And frankly, I think they're right.
And one of the core principles of the climate investment plan is community leadership.
But these reallocations were not community-driven.
They were not proposed through the PCF committee process, and they were not part of the voter-approved vision for this program.
We are already hearing from bureaus that these reallocations create future funding gaps, deferred infrastructure costs, and additional budget pressure in later years.
So this is not free money.
We are borrowing against the future of a voter-created climate justice fund in order to solve present-day operational budget problems.
And I— colleagues, I think we need to be very careful about the precedent we are creating.
Because if we allow voter-approved funds to be continuously stretched, repurposed, and operationalized whenever the city faces financial pressure, then voter intent becomes optional.
And I will add, that puts us at very real legal risk for PCF.
To me, the will of voters is not optional, and I urge you to support Avalos 1.
I move Avalos 1 and look for a second.
Sameer Kanal
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos moves Avalos 1.
Councilor Kanal seconds.
Colleagues?
To the amendment.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I share Councilor Avalos's concern about using PSF funding for sidewalk cleaning.
I also do not want to slash funding for PMO without knowing how we're going to restore it.
That's why I proposed Novick 1, which would take the, the money that the mayor takes from the BES PCF pot, take that away from PMO.
It would give that money to parks for urban forestry to replace general fund that's currently being used for urban forestry, because I think the mission of urban forestry is closely connected to climate.
And that would free up general fund to be used to restore PMO.
I think that this preserves the intellectual integrity of PCF and also preserves PMO.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Steve Novick
I also would add that I wasn't that concerned about the mayor's use of the BES PSF fund.
I was concerned about what he's using it for.
I think that the stormwater green infrastructure/bioswale stuff that BES is using the PSF money for is the kind of thing that BES should be doing anyway.
It was famous for doing it 10 years ago before there was a PSF.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Steve Novick
So I realize it might look like, well, Novick's just moving money around, but I do think that it's important both to preserve PMO and to preserve the intellectual integrity of the— of PSIF.
So I'm sorry to like launch into mine in response to Councilor Avalos's, but I think they're so directly tied that I thought that it was essential.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Colleagues, there we go.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
As I look at Avalos 1 and Novick 1, I see a choice before us that is another one of these no-good choices situations.
We can either put these funds back where they go and leave a hole in core service work where the mayor had put these funds, or we can change the CIPs without sending that change through the PCF committee, but ensure that these funds stay in key climate work that PCF does fund, retain that core version of PCF, and retain the core services.
I want to be clear though about what is not an option, because I see these 2 choices before us and I fear we are going to end up in the same place we did yesterday on other topics where we all want to do something and just can't agree on how to get it done.
Because it is not an option to me, and it should not be an option to any of us, to keep these funds where they are.
PCF funds cannot just be used for something that's tangentially related to a CIP.
They must also be used for something that is aligned with the core PCF mission.
And while I understand the, um, The tiny thread that connected where these funds were to where the mayor used them in the budget, I don't believe that that work aligns with the core PCF mission.
So I hope that as we move through this, if neither of these pass on the first vote, we can figure out a solution that retains the integrity of PCF.
Because As both of the options before us do, they have different trade-offs.
Personally, I prefer Novick 1 because it does not leave a hole in our core services.
But not doing either should not be an option to us, and I hope we take the time to figure this out.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Because I fudged everything in my speech on the intro, I just want to clarify for those watching at home.
We are not on rate ordinances yet.
We are currently convened as the Budget Committee.
So just wanted everybody to be very explicitly aware of what we're doing.
And again, thank you for your patience with me.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
With one caveat, I agree with everything that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney just said.
I think the only caveat is I'm not really sure what the core service that would be lost here would be in that scenario.
And I'd love to have that conversation as we go.
Seems inevitable from who the sponsors are of the other amendment and that previous speech that these are both gonna go 6-6, but I am going to vote in favor of Avalos 1.
I do think that it is appropriate to put this back where it was and to have the process go forward.
I think we've been asked to do that.
I think Councilor Novick has raised several times the importance of having transportation be a bigger part of the PCEF conversation, and the response he received was go through the process of amending the CIP.
I think that's a fair request.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick.
Sameer Kanal
And so this puts it back in line with the CIP and opens up a conversation that we should, we must actually have after this budget about how we're going to adjust the CIP to cover a lot of the things that it doesn't currently cover and ask the committee to help engage in some of those trade-offs.
And I don't think the other alternative does that.
So I'll be supporting Avalos 1, and I do hope that someone will shift over.
I think we're racking up the 6-6 count.
Jeremy Patton
Councilor Smith.
Sameer Kanal
Like we did last year.
And I hope that that doesn't happen as often as it does because otherwise it will be a long day without a lot of progress.
But I think it's important that we talk about why this is the way it is.
And it's not about— I agree with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, it's not about the question of should these funds be in PMO.
I think there's— I think the overwhelming majority, if not necessarily consensus, census agree with that.
But I do think that there is, um, some conversation around where the money, um, what, what, what the core services of the city are and where the money should go instead.
But again, I'll be supporting Avalos 1.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, thank you.
Um, I'm prepared to support Avalos 1.
Um, I want to thank you for your leadership in bringing this forward.
I knew that I wouldn't have to do this because I knew that you were on top of it, and I was just going to I support what you're doing.
You know, I just want to make the point broadly that— just echo this sort of CIP amendment process fidelity piece.
I think, you know, just to sort of pull this money in on an ad hoc basis was highly inappropriate.
So it's important that we restore it back to its strategic programs.
I want to say also that the City of Portland already, across all of our bureaus, relies significantly on hundreds of millions of dollars of PSF fund.
And so we've gotten to a place where it really has become a big piggy bank, and it does come at the expense of our communities.
We are dealing with an energy crisis right now, um, where, um, people are exposed to $6 per gallon gas.
That's only going to go up.
Uh, utility rates are going up.
And so if we wanted to find new sources of use for the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
We would look to that sort of offset in the future, not, um, I don't know, sidewalk cleaning and trash removal, which by the way, I don't know why this isn't done by the ESD that already— that ratepayers already pay for to do this work.
That's a question we need to have and conversation we need to have.
Why is this not a responsibility of the Downtown Clean and Safe?
Um, so for that reason, I'm, I'm going to support Avalos 1 today.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Avalos, I'll come back to you.
Just, uh, Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
Um, the very first homeless cleanup plan I ever wrote was actually with Councilor Koyama Lane's chief of staff when she was at the county, Mary Lee, and we wrote it for the Thousand Acres area out near Troutdale because there were so many camps in and around the watershed that it was about keeping trash out of the watershed.
It was environmental more than it was I say that because there wasn't a whole lot of concern when this money existed in BES, whose job it is to keep the stormwater infrastructure in the watershed healthy and clear of trash.
I find it a little disappointing that you cannot really be for free and open camping and also reduce the trash cleanup programs.
It is not environmental to allow what we saw on the streets of Portland in 2021, where trash was everywhere.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Eric Zimmerman
To find its way into the bioswells, into the watersheds.
If you've walked around Portland in the last year, it's probably the first time in 5 years when the bioswells didn't look like something out of a horror movie.
That is because of these types of programs.
That is because BES was funded to do this type of work.
And BES said, you know what, PMO is actually more responsive and able to do it more quickly and better than we are.
And so some areas we'd like them to take on this task.
And so this concern seems to be more about because PMO is somehow related to problem solver networks or involved with the business networks or is inside the umbrella of Portland Solutions.
That is the concern because this seems kind of hypocritical, frankly, from the change from when this was a BES focus.
Oregon's past of the Oregon Litter Pickup Program was all about keeping trash out of our environment.
So I do think that this is PCEF-related.
I don't know how many air conditioning units are PCEF-related, but there are people here who have supported that and haven't brought that up as a problem.
I think that the idea that there is some work that is happening that is considered city general fund or city core service, and can it or can it not be related to the climate, is a valuable— and my answer is yes, it can.
As we green up our fleets, we can do that more quickly because of PCF dollars.
I think that eventually, without PCF dollars, eventually the fleets of Portland would get more and more electric over time.
We are able to do that more quickly with PCF dollars.
We are able to clean up litter and trash in this community more quickly with PCF dollars.
And I think that that is an important point to make here.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
I'm not both going to reduce shelters in the same year, reduce trash pickup in the same year, reduce overtime in the same year, reduce outreach services in the same year, because 2021 is the horrorscape of Portland I do not want to return to.
And some stuff— the broken window theory is actually correct.
Less trash on the ground means the next person throws less trash on the ground as well.
So these things matter.
You have to stay up Stream of it, and that is a metaphor both for why we want the watershed clear and why we do this program.
So I would certainly not support this change.
I do think that the neighborhoods, frankly, are benefiting from it, and PMO is stretching dollars across all districts in ways that I don't see a lot of other places stretching dollars.
So, uh, I want to just— I want to answer one point because the point that my fellow councilor brought up Not all areas are covered by an ESD.
And as PMO becomes more successful, we are seeing more areas take an interest in an ESD, and they're all gonna take on their own flavor.
And I think we should be supportive of that because each neighborhood has its own need.
But the ESD doesn't cover a lot of areas.
And when we talk about the how trash affects areas not covered by ESDs, PMO is a first responder in that sense.
And so I am all in on PMO.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
And I will stay all in on PMO because it's the most responsive, most impactful organization in the city of Portland.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Murillo.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
If we want to talk about the past, we should probably talk about the fact that in 2021, 72 people died in Multnomah County because of a heat wave that happened, which is why the Portland Clean Energy fund allows people to buy AC units because we have people that are too poor or live in apartment buildings that are not regulated and don't require the use of AC, which means that we have elderly people, people with disabilities, and others who— and just anybody who can't handle that heat wave, which is a direct result of climate change.
So there actually is a direct climate nexus there.
I think we're talking about very vague garbage pickup as if though we're doing some garbage pickup along the Willamette River or something to try to keep our water clear.
But what we're actually talking about is campsite sweeps, and that is very different.
And the reality is that PMO, primarily the way they operate, is to take feedback from businesses and then directly address their concerns, which means doing sweeps in front of those businesses.
So the ties to environmental cleanup, I think, are tangential at best.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
And that's why I'm going to be supporting moving these dollars back to the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
We've also been told as a council that we can't even consider raising the tax on corporations for the Portland Clean Energy Fund, lest it becomes some sort of issue that will upend the fund entirely.
But we have no issue, it appears, stretching what the Portland Clean Energy Funds are used for, which inherently means that we are threatening the fund legally.
Councilor Smith, you have 2 minutes.
So I think that we have to be really diligent about protecting what these funds are used for and why, because it is such a core part of the city.
And, you know, as we are having discussions about what we are funding and defunding, I think it's a little disingenuous to not point out that the reason some of these shelters have to close is because they have been poorly managed.
Most of the beds have been empty.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
And we need those dollars to go back to the general fund.
It's not because we're just willy-nilly here wanting to cut things.
It's because the shelters, as they have turned out, are not effective and they're not efficient.
And I also want to point out that the first people that are going to be impacted by climate change disasters are going to be our unhoused neighbors that live outside.
During the fires of 2020, when all of us were trapped in our apartments and we had our windows sealed and we were wearing masks because the smoke was so thick that the sky was bright red all day long.
I visited encampments where people couldn't breathe and they were outside.
So yeah, we just talk about these people like they're garbage, and I can't use the clean energy funds that way.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I really deeply share that emotion that Councilor Murillo just, um, expressed, and I'm not going to debate the definition of environmental justice with people who are clearly not interested in understanding.
Look it up.
But I do want to respond to the concern that reversing these reallocations somehow leaves a hole in PMO funding, because respectfully, the mayor already created a hole elsewhere when these dollars were pulled out of existing climate investment plan priorities in the first place.
That is the part of the conversation that keeps getting lost.
We are talking about dollars that were already supported, approved, um, that were already supporting approved climate investments, bureau work, and long-term climate resilience priorities.
And BES and PBOT have both already indicated that pulling these dollars creates future operational and infrastructure pressures.
So the question is not whether there is a hole.
The question is, where are we choosing to create it?
And my concern is that we are increasingly solving short-term operational pressures by hollowing out the long-term capacity and integrity of a voter-created climate justice fund.
I understand the desire to support PMO.
I understand the desire to support public environment management work, but I don't think that the solution can simply be, well, PSF has money, so let's use it, because that is exactly how voter-created funds slowly drift away from their original purpose over time.
Steve Novick
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
Candace Avalos
I am deeply concerned about the legal threat that we are going to be facing if we continue down these paths.
And ultimately, if the city believes that there are core ongoing operational responsibilities, and I believe many of them are, then we need to have an honest conversation about funding, about funding them through stable core city revenue, not by continuously stretching the definition of what PSF was meant to do.
I think ultimately it is important to me that we move these dollars back.
Councilmember Koyama Lane.
And we can have a further discussion about how to put things back into PMO if desired.
That's not my interest, but my interest is a clean amendment that will restore the original intent, and then we can have that debate later.
So I would really urge people to vote for this.
I don't plan on voting for Novick 1.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I recognize this is somewhat tangential, but Mr. Mayor, Councilor Avalos said that PMO does sweeps.
Is that true?
Jamie Dunphy
I'm gonna have to call up Sky on that one.
Candace Avalos
To be clear, that's not what I said, so that, that question is irrelevant if that's— if you're trying to quote me.
Steve Novick
So maybe that's what Councilor Murillo said.
Candace Avalos
Well, then don't quote me.
Skyler Breckernapp
Uh, Skyler Breckernapp, Director of Portland Solutions, for the record.
Um, no, PMO's not involved with camp removal process whatsoever.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Actually, Skyler, can you stay up here?
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Part of PMO's role is to address the concerns of businesses that are logged, and then they call upon different organizations at the city to address those concerns, one of which is Portland Solutions, which does sweeps.
Is that correct?
Skyler Breckernapp
So they coordinate with different businesses and different pieces of the bureaucracy within the city.
They will give people, I guess, the link to submit a complaint to IRP or the Impact Reduction Program for a camp removal.
Unidentified speaker
So yes, I guess in that sense they can coordinate, like pointing people in that direction, but they're not involved in that process or funding that process.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, when I did the PMO tour earlier, when we first got elected, we did a tour with a lot of different agencies.
PMO was one of them.
They specifically talked about how well-coordinated Portland Solutions and sweeps are with them for their businesses.
So they— I'm sure they're not putting on the suits and doing the sweeps directly, but to act like there is no ties with PMO and how they operate with sweeps is absolutely absurd.
Let's be so for real about what this organization does.
And frankly, I guess we could also remember what PMO did with removing the bike lane in Southwest Portland.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Portland without having a public community process because they just decided to do it on their own.
And for some reason, the city government responded to this one organization agency.
Regardless, it is completely tangentially tied to the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
So looking forward to the vote.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Maria.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, is that a legacy hand read?
Okay.
Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Avalos 1?
Keelan McClymont
Avalos 1, moved by Avalos, seconded by Kanal.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama-Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick to Novick 1.
Steve Novick
I think I already made my case.
I think we should move along.
Jamie Dunphy
Uh, do you want to introduce it?
Steve Novick
Oh yeah, sorry.
I introduce it.
I seek a second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick has moved Novick 1.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney has seconded.
Colleagues to the amendment?
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Just wanted to ask a question here, 'cause I'm looking at the physical piece of paper that was added in here.
I'm curious how the— so what I'm seeing is $3.8 million, which is the piece of money going to PMO, would be moved to urban forestry, but only $1.9 is moved back.
Can you speak a little bit to this, or am I misunderstanding here?
Steve Novick
Let's see, did we screw up in what we passed out?
It would—.
Sameer Kanal
Or is it 2 different sources of about $1.9 million each that are collectively adding up to the $3.8 million?
Mitch Green
There's a backside of the page.
Steve Novick
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
So it's the tree maintenance and the urban forestry.
Each one is about $1.9 million.
Collectively, that adds up to the $3.8 million that's being taken out.
Yes.
Okay, um, I've already spoken.
I'm not going to do it in this moment, but, uh, I've already spoken to why I have concerns about this.
I, I'm not sure if there's an appetite for having the separate conversation that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney mentioned would have the, uh, the, the broader support of the body of moving the money out.
Um, but given the way that this one is written, is eminently dividable.
Into the first 2 lines and the second 2 lines, that's something we should consider.
I'm not doing it at the moment though.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I just wanted to respond to what Councilor Knoll just said, which is— I appreciate— is not dividing in the moment.
I mean, it is— we do need to remember that we have the adopted budget and there might be a number of issues that we return to in a couple of months.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
I'm just hoping that we can have BES, Parks all come on up here and help us understand and make sure that this has a zero impact on operations and it's just a color of money question.
And I think that's fair.
Councilor Novick, is that your intent here?
Steve Novick
Um, well, compared to the mayor— I mean, I think BES might say that the mayor's proposal had some impact on their operations, But compared to the mayor's proposal, yes.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, because of what I'm seeing—.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome, folks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Good morning, this is Priya Dhanapal, DCA for Public Works, and I believe the question is impacts for BES and parks for Novick 1.
Eric Zimmerman
It looks like Councilor Novick's amendment gives BES another 3.8 from PSF.
Steve Novick
No, no, it, uh, it takes the, uh, it, it takes the money that the mayor took from BES to give to PSEF and essentially reallocates that to parks.
And then it backs out parks money, that's general fund that's used for tree-related stuff, and backs that out.
And then that amount of general fund goes to PMO.
So there's no impact on BES compared to the mayor's proposal.
The mayor's proposal already took the money from BES, that PSF money from BES, and gave it to PMO.
Candace Avalos
Go ahead.
Steve Novick
The impact is that parks funding will be shift— some parks funding will be shifted from general fund to PSF funding.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so given the problems that happened last year with the change to parks and PCF, I'd like to just understand a little bit about the impact as you read this document.
And actually, the Portland Solutions Director should come up as well because I want to make sure that this PMO doesn't also get hurt by this.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
For B, yes, there's no, uh, change in impact compared to what was proposed in the mayor's budget, but I'll let Parks speak to what the impact is.
Sonia Szymanski
Yeah, good morning.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Sonia Szymanski, Interim Director of Portland Parks and Recreation.
Sonia Szymanski
2 Years ago, Council took a similar action, swapping PSF for general fund in urban forestry.
Olivia Clark
It's a little bit more complex accounting, but I don't think it has an impact on service delivery necessarily.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
And then Portland Solutions, no change in— I'm getting no change at all.
So this is quite literally just color of money?
Steve Novick
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
That's all, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I'm curious, just given my experience with this in the budgeting process, are the— How does the direct general fund versus overhead map on all this?
Are there any interesting complications?
Can you describe that, please?
Steve Novick
I'd actually ask the budget office to come up to address that.
I think that there's no complications, but— and CBO didn't raise any concerns, but if Ruth can address that directly, that'd be great.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you all for coming up.
Good to see you.
Olivia Clark
No overhead impacts.
Mitch Green
Okay, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Zimmerman, is that a legacy hand or are you—.
Eric Zimmerman
It's not.
Jeremy Patton
I—.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
I wanted to actually now just address it from the— to the mayor, right?
You, you crafted this budget.
You had either— sometimes we have reasons we put specifically certain things to certain areas, but I did want to get a chance to see if this has downtrace effects for anything in your Larger vision on how you're using these different funds in different areas for different tasks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thanks.
Keith Wilson
Councilor does not.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so no concern?
Loretta Smith
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I just want to make absolutely sure that I understand this.
It's sort of a, you know, shell game here.
So could you just slowly one more time walk through the shift of money?
And what I'm hearing you say is everybody's kept whole, there's no problem here, but it's highly suspect to me.
Steve Novick
Well, Councilor Clark, I just have to say that we can't go on together with suspicious minds.
So this is a matter to me of preserving PMO and my own intellectual piece of integrity.
What the, what the mayor did was take money out of the BES PMO pot, which is not a pot I was particularly fond of because I think it's being used for stuff that BES should be doing anyway, and he put that into PMO.
I do not think that PMO, particularly the street sweeping part of it, Is a legitimate PSF function.
So that concerned me.
I also didn't want to trash PMO, so no pun intended.
We looked at how urban forestry-related stuff is funded in parks and realized, somewhat to my surprise, that there's still $3.8 million in general fund being used for that.
To me, tree stuff is particularly Climate-related because trees both protect people from the effects of climate change and also they are carbon sinks, so they help to prevent climate change.
So my thinking was it was perfectly appropriate to move some PSF money to displace the general fund that's being used for tree-related stuff in parks.
And so I felt much more comfortable saying no, PSF money for PMO, use more PSF money to displace general fund in parks, and then shift that general fund to PMO.
Olivia Clark
When I was at TriMet, we called this a switchy-switchy, which is a great term of art.
I think I follow you.
I think this is a— well, I'll think about it for a second.
Steve Novick
I mean, I wanted to sort of reiterate what Councilor Pirtle And he said it does matter what money is being used for what.
I am not comfortable— I'm not comfortable trashing PMO.
I'm also not comfortable using PSAP money for PMO.
This is my solution, and maybe it looks suspicious, but it's something that I proposed in order to let myself sleep easily.
Olivia Clark
I wouldn't want to interfere with your sleep.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Councilor Novick.
This is a really elegant solution and it's complicated, so thank you for good work on this amendment.
I've been involved in this swapping before and it's hard, and the nonverbal that I saw today was very different than the nonverbal I saw 2 years ago.
So reading the room, I'll be supportive of this.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Really quick, thank you for thinking deeply about this, Councilor Novick.
I believe that you care a lot about climate resilience and preparing for climate change and how it's getting worse and worse.
But as I hear you talk about where you think PSF funds can go and can't go, that does remind me of what we see The mayor also doing.
And I think the folks that need to be doing that are the people that are on the PCF committee that are outlined in PCF.
I think it needs to go through that process.
And so I really need to stick with pushing for what Councilor Avalos was trying to do and hope that if we land 6-6, that there are— that there's someone up here that's willing to reconsider their vote for Avalos 1.
So I will be voting no.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Novick 1?
Keelan McClymont
Novick 1, moved by Novick, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney.
Sameer Kanal
Noting that we can come back to this if we need to, and I, I am open to the division.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Pirtle-Guiney.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
No.
Steve Novick
No.
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Steve Novick
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Loretta Smith
No.
Melissa Williams
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
No.
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, we're moving to our second block of With this block, we're gonna begin with Koyama Lane 2, then Novick 3, and then Zimmerman 4.
I'm gonna ask— I'm gonna recognize Councilor Koyama Lane to introduce her amendment, but also give Councilors Novick and Zimmerman an opportunity to introduce theirs if they're interested.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you, Council President.
I'm bringing forward Koyama Lane 2, which restores 14 positions that are currently funded Through PSF funds in the tree permitting and urban forestry program, all which sit within the Portland Permitting and Development Bureau, Department, PP&D.
Anyway, not long ago, this team had roughly 40 PSF-funded positions doing this work, and after reductions including major cuts in last year's budget, the program is now down to 26.
Jeremy Patton
Thank you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The mayor's proposed would eliminate another 14.
And this can no longer be considered trimming around the edges.
This is really gutting this program and undermining our ability to protect and expand Portland's tree canopy.
At the very same moment where our body has made major climate commitments to our community, we're seeing that these cuts have already been having real impacts.
Tree permit wait times have grown from 2 weeks to 6 months.
Angelita Morillo
Councilmember Herbold.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Inspectors are arriving at sites where trees have been cut down before the permits were approved.
I'm assuming people are getting frustrated and are just going forward.
Further reductions will likely mean more unpermitted tree removals, more canopy loss, more development bottlenecks, more code noncompliance, and increased difficulty meeting our legal obligations under Title 11.
So I have had community members ask me, Whether this group, these employees should just be moved back to Parks where there is more institutional experience with urban forestry and with PSEF implementation.
I'm not bringing that forward right now because I want to provide stability and avoid continuing ping-ponging these staff between these 2 bureaus.
And what I am hearing and seeing is that Parks and PP— Indeed, are working closer together and are trying to figure this out.
I believe we should give that coordination a chance to succeed.
So to be clear, the positions I'm asking to preserve are all within PP&D.
2 Are in there in the Urban Forestry Review Program.
One's a Development Services Technician II and one is a Senior Tree Inspector.
And then there are 12 additional positions in PP&D doing this work.
That are code specialists, tree inspectors, technicians, analysts, coordinators, and a supervisor.
Where is this funding coming from?
It's already been approved.
These are PSEF-funded positions.
So these positions were approved by the PSEF committee through the amended Climate Investment Plan, the CIP.
We passed this.
The funding comes from the CIP contingency.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Same as Councilor Novick, which he'll explain.
So PSF has budgeted these funds for this work under SP34, which supports tree protection, care, and workforce development, which, you know, has combined that CEP invests more than $140 million in these priorities.
I can absolutely answer more detailed, more questions if needed.
I will tell you, I have gone like very in the weeds on this.
I know more about tree permitting than I ever thought I would.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Melissa Williams
My—.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
At this point, my focus is less on relitigating like the transfers and how that happened, and it's making sure that these programs moving forward can function effectively.
I think there maybe at some point there's some— that could be some value in creating clearer accounting and transparency around which positions are PSF funded fully or partially, where they sit, so it doesn't get messy and cloudy like I have observed.
Um, and in this process, I've been able to learn things like, you know, why has Portland's canopy, tree canopy, declined in recent years?
Talk to scientists and urban forestry experts that, um, believe that climate impacts are hotter summers, drought conditions, and, uh, heat dome.
Alan, you're unmuted.
And wildfire smoke.
Wildfire smoke.
Those have committed to stressing and killing many of our common tree species, especially western red cedar and certain firs here in the area.
And when we lose those large-form trees, it really takes decades to replace that canopy.
And also when we have periods of intense development pressure, that contributes greatly to our canopy loss.
So it's broadly understood that without Portland's tree code, the decline would have been significantly even more, even worse.
So I would really appreciate your consideration and support.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, you are moving this?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes, I would like to move my amendment.
Steve Novick
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane 2, and Councilor Novick seconds.
Colleagues, to the amendment.
And Councilor Novick, I'm going to recognize you to also discuss Novick 3, give us a preview for it.
Steve Novick
I'm happy to support Councilor Koyama Lane's proposal rather than mine.
My proposal is slightly narrower, just addressed 12 permitting positions.
Councilor Koyama Lane has explained why she added the other 2 positions.
So I'm hoping that we can go ahead and pass hers and save some time.
Jamie Dunphy
Perfect.
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
I also will be proposing Zimmerman 4 in the future once this is passed or over because A couple of, couple of things are at play here.
It was stated in the reading of this that nearly 40 positions were PCF funded, and I'll just say, colleagues, that is flatly untrue.
10 Of those positions were levy funded, and the action you took last year was to ensure that levy funding did not go to code compliance.
And we did that after some articles and some reporting and some appearances by certain directors of a certain program who just flatly did not think that we had a problem with the way our code compliance folks were working in tree code.
You took that action, and I think that was the right action.
I think it's largely why we passed a parks levy.
That being said, 27 PCF-funded positions were moved over, and that was also in response and was good.
Because of accounting reasons, that PCF funding Did not pay for all 27.
And so we see that reduction reflected here.
What is important to note, and this is why I think that Councilor Koyama Lane and I are both bringing restorers to use some PCF funding, but the appetite that you have for how much will be the question.
And in, in, in talking with our DCA, About what is the out— because we're both pulling from the PCF contingency fund that is designed to support urban forestry and tree canopy.
The difference here is how much do you want to spend in enforcement?
And where we are both pulling from is going to affect the tree planting programs in the future.
And for me, that balance means that Zimmerman 4 restores 6 code compliance folks.
Tony Barnes
Yes.
Eric Zimmerman
In the code compliance piece so that we can do the things like Councilor Koyama Lane says of keeping some timelines there.
But the more we take out of that means in the out years, less will occur in the planting.
I'm going to talk about my values.
I value more deeply the planting of new trees, the care and feeding of new trees, and expansion of the canopy more than I care about the goon squad of the former urban forestry going out and telling people You can or can't cut your tree, that you did or didn't violate, that when you say my tree is going to fall on my house and Urban Forestry says no, it's not, and then it does.
We did a lot to fix that.
I do think that they need to have enough staff to do the minimum of the code compliance work.
And I'll tell you folks, as one of the representatives of the most tree-canopied areas, my constituents are talking about better customer service.
Jeremy Patton
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
Now, and I think they are on the right path, and I, and I agree with Councilor Coyle and Elaine, we're not in the question of moving back and forth, but giving them a few more staffers using PCF dollars, I think, is a responsible one.
The question to you is how many more to give them and how much in the planting in the out years do you want to give up if we go fully into Koyama Lane 2?
And so I don't know that we're in disagreement in the purpose here.
We're in disagreement about the The amount.
And so I would ask you to reserve your vote on Koyama Lane and consider, which I think will help balance the planting and enforcement with Zimmerman 4 when we're done here.
But Councilor Koyama Lane, I have appreciated that we talked early on how this would go.
I'm not prepared to support this because it's not only some PSF funds, it's also 2 parks employees that are currently vacant in the Parks Department.
Melissa Williams
Right.
Eric Zimmerman
And bringing them into the more code compliance to bolster that up would be very concerning.
For those who are working in code compliance, I think that the change that's happening is really good.
Some people left because they didn't want to do code compliance in the way that PP&D says we do code compliance, which is holistically.
And I think that offers us and the city administration a great opportunity to do urban forestry in the parks where we expand the canopy.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
And urban forestry in the PP&D, where we make sure people are doing things the right way, fairly and legally, in a more equitable, more sustainable, and frankly, in a way that keeps the public on our side with urban forestry.
Because I think we were falling down the glacier last year in the way that urban forestry was felt in our community.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
I have a quick— just a question to ask, and you touched upon it a little bit, Councilor Councilor Zimmerman, um, Councilor Koyama Lane, will this add, um, the needed materials and services for the, um, for the employees with your, with your amendment?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I would love to ask Ruth Levine that question.
Sonia Szymanski
Um, I believe the answer is yes.
Olivia Clark
I was looking to see if anyone—.
Candace Avalos
Yes, yes is the answer.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It would.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
So I'm trying to parse between these 3 amendments because they're all getting us What, Councilor Knoll?
Melissa Williams
Sorry.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
There's Novick 3, Koyama Lane 3, and Zimmerman 4.
Councilor Zimmerman, you just said that Novick 3 and Koyama Lane 3 also include the movement of current parks employees.
Councilor Koyama Lane—.
Eric Zimmerman
Just a correction, only Koyama Lane.
Novick is only the piece of employees.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Koyama Lane, are the 2 positions in your amendment that are not in Councilor Novick's amendment existing positions in parks which are being moved?
Keelan McClymont
Nope.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Can you explain what those 2 positions— what the change in those 2 positions are so that we can understand if there's actually a potential reduction in tree planting here?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
What do you mean by change in the 2 positions?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Well, Councilor Zimmerman said something about less tree planting under the other amendments.
So maybe Councilor Zimmerman, can you expand on that?
Eric Zimmerman
Yes.
So for all of us, if we're pulling from the PCF reserve, we're really pulling from the out years to fund this year.
I was not meaning that those 2— I don't know what those 2 positions are.
I'd have no idea what they are.
I just know that they're 2 vacant parks position employees.
What I'm talking about is if you decrease year 5 to fund year 0, Yeah.
Then the planting part of that is really what was designed according to our SEDSA service area, and that, that would be the part that would be diminished based on the scale in which we fund this year.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So your argument is for a smaller increase in order to keep more in contingency for out years?
Eric Zimmerman
Yes, ma'am.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
And could— I'm not sure because we're dealing with parks and PCF and a few other things who the right staff person is.
But I would like to understand how much is in contingency, and of that, how much is there because we plan to draw on it for program in out years, and how much of it is there because we always keep some extra for potential cost— cost growth in out years?
Who is the right person from the administration to answer that question?
Okay, Council President, I see people nodding to Claudio.
Are you Are you okay with that?
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
Welcome, Claudio.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So Claudio, help me understand the impact of all of these in-out years.
And I think to understand that, what I need to know is how much is in this contingency fund, how much of that is set for continuation of program, and how much of that is set for overrun, miscellaneous, come what may, things like that.
Steve Novick
Sure.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
What risk are we creating?
Claudio
So Claudio Finance property technology manager with Parks and Recreation.
Unidentified speaker
So the strategic program that we're talking about is SP34.
Steve Novick
Mm-hmm.
Unidentified speaker
It has about a $105 million allocation that includes really 2 components.
That was for street tree maintenance, and also it was where the $7 million per year swap landed.
So that was then split up.
As part of last year's budget.
Part of it now goes to PP&D, part of it remained with parks.
The parks allocation remained at $89 million, and only $79 million of that is programmed over the 5 years.
And so the remainder is for— is essentially the contingency as it was described.
And that is really to address— this is a brand new program and— I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Substantial.
And so for any unanticipated challenges, changes that we face along the way.
So we'll reduce that contingency and would require, you know, depending on where we end up with the program, it might require additional trade-offs in the future.
But at this point, we don't see those.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So there's $10 million total set aside for unanticipated needs.
Over how many years at this point in the CIP process?
Unidentified speaker
That would be over the remaining period of the program.
But because of the slower startup, it all shifts out a little bit.
So really, I would have to take a look at the latest plan, but it's something in the realm of 3 to 5 years.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So $10 million over 3 to 5 years, which means if we were to spend it all down, we could spend between $2 to $3 a year on program.
Presumably we don't want to spend it all down, so we should be looking somewhere around the $2 million mark per year if we want to make sure we don't draw into other programs in out years.
Unidentified speaker
I think that range is reasonable.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
That gives me pause on some of these larger amendments, although I want to do as much as we can.
Council President, I'm going to think about those numbers while we sit here.
I wish we had something that was more in the $2 to $2.5 million range before us.
And I really appreciate the work that my colleagues have done to make sure that we're talking about this because it is important that we do something here.
Thank you, Claudio.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
So I'm just trying to make sure I'm up to speed on this.
There's 12 positions in Novick 14, Koyama Lane and Zimmerman.
And there's— thank you.
And there's— that's if the mic didn't pick that up, 6 for $1.5 and change.
And the only— that's effectively the only differences here from what I understand.
Keelan McClymont
May I clarify?
Sameer Kanal
And the 2 additional are vacant.
That's what I'm understanding?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Councilor Novick and I have the same 12 positions.
And then I also restore the 2 positions that are currently in decision package 27294, if you want to look them up.
And there are 2 positions within PP&D, and it's a senior tree inspector and a development services technician to process permits.
Candace Avalos
Great.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Those are— those 2 are part of the review program and are a little different than the other 12, but are all within PP&D.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Sameer Kanal
And the only question we have here is the sort of opportunity cost.
On the back end here.
And I think we're weighing that against something that I think Councilor Green mentioned earlier, which is just the value of money is— but present value of money is higher than future value of money.
Um, okay, that's all I need to know.
Steve Novick
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Connell.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
I just want to be the last thing I say, I think, underline, underscore that protecting our tree canopy is not Yes.
It's not just about planting new trees.
It also is really about preventing the loss of large mature trees that we already have.
New trees are very important, but they really take decades to provide the same environmental benefits as existing canopy.
Mature tree delivers way more shade.
I've done the bike ride, I don't know if others have, from East Portland to Laurelhurst Park.
It's quite different.
The large trees can give stormwater interception, carbon storage, cooling, and also neighborhood character way more than a newly planted smaller tree.
And once larger canopy trees are removed, the loss is really immediate while replacement benefits might not really materialize for 30 to 50 years if the new trees survive at all, because not all of them do.
We hope they do, but not all of them do.
And this It really matters because a lot of Portland's urban forest is on private property.
Of Portland's roughly 4.2 million trees, about 2.9 million are privately owned.
Public trees, street trees, park trees, Forest Park make up the remainder, with Forest Park heavily skewing the public canopy totals.
Okay, I'm gonna— I could just keep going, but I think protecting trees is important.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Let's do it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Novick, I'm sorry, you've already spoken once.
I'm gonna go to Councilor Green.
I'll come back to you.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
I just wanted to add a little bit to this conversation about the trade-off through time, thinking about the out years.
I think it is really important to think about that.
For me, the cost of losing mature trees in year 1, year 2 has a compounding cost over time.
And it takes a really large investment to make that up, and it takes a long period of time to make that up.
And so while I do think that we need to make sure that we've got the resources in the out years to sustain and perhaps expand this program, I need to ground us again that we are also simultaneously talking about spending $75 million on a project that's not even in the CIP, that has unverified and, you know, maybe tenuous CO2 carbon abatement benefits, whereas— and that's $75 million— whereas we, we could, we could surely, with the, with the priorities in this community, uh, make our tree program whole at any moment of time, as long as we were clear-eyed and honest about our trade-offs.
So I just needed to say that.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I'm really trying to understand this.
This is not— these are not mutually exclusive, these 2?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No, it's, it's like level 1, level 2, level 3.
They just kind of build up.
Olivia Clark
They are not mutually exclusive?
Eric Zimmerman
Well, it couldn't pass more than one.
If we pass Koyama Lane or Novick, I wouldn't put mine because it's new.
Olivia Clark
Okay, and are we, are we not talking planting versus compliance?
Keelan McClymont
Is this enough?
Olivia Clark
Can somebody address that?
Steve Novick
Can I address that?
Keith Wilson
Sure.
Steve Novick
Mr. President?
Candace Avalos
Sure.
Steve Novick
So SP 34 isn't just about planting, it's about planting and maintenance.
And I see the permitting program as sort of a form of maintenance because if we don't have a permitting program, if people apply for a permit and don't get an answer for weeks and weeks, Or if they just know that nobody's watching the store, they're going to be cutting down trees.
And meanwhile, a lot of really responsible people who don't want to do that will be waiting patiently for their permits for months, and that can include permits to remove dangerous trees.
So SB 34 is not just about planting, it's about maintenance.
And actually, I don't know if this is planned in the next few years, but one of the things that's envisioned for SB 34 is taking over street tree maintenance for the entire city Including rich areas of town where I think that, you know, people in Eastmoreland and maybe even Laurelhurst can afford to continue to maintain their street trees better than we can afford to lose the permitting program.
So I think that what Councilor Koyama Lane and I are trying to do is consistent with the larger mission of preserving trees, and I don't think that it I'd like to—.
Eric Zimmerman
Similarly, I want to be really clear.
Last year in your action that I was leading, we made no changes to the parks program that plants and maintains and takes care of and does the science, right?
But we did make a change to the code compliance wing of the ordinance.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
And so these amendments are all about that, because here's one of the things that happened.
We didn't change— none of us changed the amount of PCF dollars that went to the tree code compliance employees.
It came over with $3.6 million.
It's in the budget today as $3.8 million, natural growth.
But what did occur is that the amount of employees that that funds is less than what it was when it was in Parks and Recreation.
And so this is about a restoration to the code compliance arm of the urban forestry initiatives.
And what we would be doing today in any one of these 3 amendments is increasing the PCF allocation to code compliance.
It doesn't touch parks whatsoever.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
Except that each of us is taking out of the same strategic program because they've kind of said in their planning, all right, about $3.8 million is going to go to code compliance, and I don't have the number on top of my head, the rest is going to go to, to planting.
The more we take to put in code compliance, the less in the out years goes to planting.
So there is the, there's the rub that I think that we can experience here, and that's the difference.
Olivia Clark
So I understand that yours is a more incremental approach.
Eric Zimmerman
Is that correct?
Candace Avalos
It is.
Eric Zimmerman
It's 6 FTE at $1.5 million instead of $3.2 million and 14 FTE.
And if I had, um, you know, if I thought that we were off to the races with a code compliance program that wasn't riddled with complaints just 18 months ago, uh, maybe I'd feel a little differently.
But I do think incremental growth is important.
And what we're doing here is also acknowledging that the mayor's proposed budget kept the PSEF whole.
It didn't touch that, but the PSEF whole cannot pay for the number of FTE that that program was initially designed for.
That's a value judgment.
You can all say, is that a good design or bad design about the amount?
But yes, it is more incremental.
Olivia Clark
So I think Councilor Pirtle-Guiney raised the question about the out years that Perhaps if Koyama Lane was a smaller amount, it would be more appealing.
I'm just worried about those out years.
I mean, maybe there's more money in the out years.
I'm not sure.
So I'm really, I'm really wrestling with this, whether to do the incremental approach or sort of the full meal deal.
So I'm just going to noodle that a little bit more.
Thank you.
Thank you for answering my questions.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Checking the queue for folks who have not spoken yet.
I believe everybody has, so I'm just going to start at the beginning there.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Oh, sorry, Councilor Morillo.
Keith Wilson
I don't—.
Jamie Dunphy
I think you're right.
You have not spoken yet.
I apologize.
Angelita Morillo
That's okay.
Thanks, Council President.
I know you're balancing a lot.
I think that we need to be pretty robust in how we support this, which is why I'm going to support the Koyama Lane version.
And the reason for that is I think at one of our I can't remember which one.
We got an update on the tree permitting situation and what happened there.
And I think compliance on the permitting and people, community members getting feedback on it went from 2 weeks to 8 weeks.
So it's taking almost 2 months for people to hear back about whether or not they are in compliance, if they should cut down their tree.
Some people, because of how long that wait time is, they're just dealing with it themselves.
I think that's a good point.
Without getting that feedback.
So it's having a lot of adverse effects on our tree canopy and also for constituents that are getting that customer service aspect of this, right?
So I think it's really critical that we restore this in the way that it needs to be.
And I think what Councilor Koyama Lane said is completely correct.
I mean, I— last summer I was going around, I went through District 1 all the way back I walked through District 3 during the heat wave and I was handing out Gatorade bottles that were frozen.
And the difference that you feel in the neighborhoods that don't have big trees is like 10 degrees difference, right?
We're talking about life-saving shade and also beauty for our city.
The reason people talk about when they come to Portland, it's so beautiful and green here is because of the work of these people.
So I am gonna be fully supporting Koyama Lane 1.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
And I know there are more people in the queue and there's further discussion maybe, but I would like to call the question on the Koyama Lane amendment.
Jamie Dunphy
I'm going to limit debate to those who are currently in the queue and we can get to a vote rather than calling the question, if that's all right with you.
Okay, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, I'm hearing a lot about the value of money now versus out years and the ability to fix it later.
And we're We're doing a lot of drawing from contingencies across the decisions that we're making.
Later is a council 5 years from now that some people here will probably still be on.
Later is leaving things to the next batch of leaders in our city to make decisions on 10 years from now.
Later, in some cases, is the decisions my kids will have to make.
And so when I hear people say, oh, we'll figure that out later, we can just say later that we made the wrong decision now, I'm not willing to vote that way.
If we think that it is important to have more people doing this work— and I think Councilor Murillo is right, 8 weeks is not acceptable.
People make bad decisions when they have to wait that long.
No Portlander should have to wait that long to get a decision on what they can do on their property.
If we decide that that's important today, it's also important 3 years from now.
So if we have $10 million to play with, and if we know it needs to last us 3 to 5 years, and we know that costs go up every year, I will support any combination of positions that adds up to about $3 million.
I can't support more than that.
So maybe this amendment will pass without me, but if it doesn't, Councilor Koyama Lane, I'd love to hear more about those 2 positions and if they are more important than some of the other inspectors so that we can get the most important positions we need for under $3 million so that we can sustain these positions for the rest of the CIP.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Oh my gosh.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I just want to— thank you, Mr. President.
I just wanted to note that these amendments restore code compliance staff and PP&D who would be eliminated by the mayor's proposed budget.
So I actually had a conversation with a union leader last night who said, you guys talked for 9 hours and didn't restore a single one of the jobs in my union.
And I said, well, I hope tomorrow we will restore 12, just thinking of mine.
So that's Something I just wanted to put on the table.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Zimmerman, I had limited debate, but I'm going to give you the last word.
Eric Zimmerman
I just— thank you, I appreciate that.
If the director of PP&D or SEDSA can come up, I just would like to understand how many of those are vacant, how many are full, and those that are vacant, how quickly they can be hired up.
Because perhaps to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's position here, there might be a middle ground between 6 and 14.
Well, I'm happy not to vote for it, but I'm also trying to compromise.
You're the one who's asked for compromise all session long.
So how many are vacant and how quick can you hire up your vacancies if you go to 14?
Mitch Green
So 6 positions are filled, 6 are vacant within PSEF, and then the other 2 are vacant with the IA.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so 6 positions are filled.
And you have funding for how many?
I guess I'm trying to understand.
So, okay, 6 are gonna be laid off with no restore at all.
Is that how I should read that?
Mitch Green
So right now is the way the budget's proposed.
It's cutting 14 positions.
So 12 from PCF and 2 from the IA.
Keith Wilson
Got it.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Keelan, can we please call a vote on Koyama Lane 1—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
2?
Jamie Dunphy
Koyama Lane 2.
Sorry, folks.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane 2, moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Novick.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yay for trees.
Aye.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Olivia Clark
This is a really difficult vote, but I'm a no.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
The amendment is approved with a vote of 8 ayes and 4 nays.
Jeremy Patton
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
So colleagues, we are— Councilor Zimmerman, am I correct that Zimmerman Ford is no longer—.
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you.
So colleagues, it is 11:45 right now.
We only got a 5-minute break before.
What I'm going to try and do really quickly is get us through the reading, the first readings of our rate ordinances.
And then we will break for lunch until 1 o'clock.
Okay, does that sound right?
Okay, everyone looks concerned.
Keelan, can we please take up item number 2, or do I need to gavel into the City Council?
Okay, I'm now recessing this meeting of the City of Portland Budget Committee, and I am Bringing back from recess the Portland City— meeting of the Portland City Council.
Sonia Szymanski
All right.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, cool.
Keelan, can we please read item number 2?
Keelan McClymont
Document 2026-158, amend Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund Code to allow a transfer of interest earned in FY 2024-25 for the FY 2026-27 budget.
Jamie Dunphy
Amend Code Section 7.07.06 Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none in the queue, this item moves to second reading.
Keelan, can we please read item number 3?
Keelan McClymont
Document number 2026-159, adopt solid waste and recycling rates and fees for franchised residential collection and the commercial tonnage fee affecting Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, there is an amendment to this one as Metro just recently updated their solid Metro or solid waste rates and we had to amend this.
So Councilor Clark.
Olivia Clark
Yes, I would like to, sorry, I'd like to call up an expert on rates to help us understand this amendment.
Okay, very funny.
Jeremy Patton
Thank you, Councilor.
Appreciate the opportunity.
What happened here is last year, as you may recall, we had to push the rates through as an emergency ordinance because of the lack of time between the Metro action on the disposal fees and our rate-making process.
Disposal fees at Metro is one input to our rate model.
This year we tried to solve that by using last year's Metro disposal fees Compounded by an inflation assumption, which is what we filed with your ordinance.
In the meantime, Metro did finish its process last week and adopted a disposal fee that was quite a bit higher than our assumed rate.
And so you got feedback from haulers that that was a potential financial problem for them.
We have submitted a revised substitute exhibit at the request of your office.
That is an attempt to provide an estimate of what that difference is.
We have not run the rate model again to get the precise number, but this number has been coordinated with the haulers and is an approximate of the gap that is in between what we initially filed and what Metro adopted.
And colleagues, the amendment is posted online, but I'm also going to go ahead and just email it to everybody so you can just And the numbers, just for clarity, change the residential rates between $0.15 and $0.30 a month to make up that disposal fee increase difference, depending on your cart size.
Olivia Clark
Well, colleagues, this is something that we did discuss in the Public Works Committee early on, and we knew that we were doing something before Metro had made their decision.
So we did discuss this with them.
Now this is really just updating based on what Metro has done.
Jamie Dunphy
And so Councilor Clark, you're going to move this amendment?
Olivia Clark
I'd like to move the amendment.
I don't know what the number is.
Unidentified speaker
Clark 1.
Olivia Clark
Clark 1.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
And is there a second?
Steve Novick
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick seconds.
Colleagues, it should be in your inbox if you're interested in reviewing the specifics.
Is there any discussion on the amendment Clark 1, amending our solid waste rates?
Sameer Kanal
Point of information, can we just get a second to read it?
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
I was trying to talk a little extra so people could continue to talk.
We'll pause for a moment.
Candace Avalos
Point of information, is there another— why are 2 things named Clark 1?
Jamie Dunphy
Uh, this is a separate item.
Candace Avalos
But that's confusing to the public.
Jamie Dunphy
Sure, we are— we have gaveled out of the Budget Committee and we are meeting as the City Council now.
And so this is Clark 1 to Item 3.
Candace Avalos
Okay, yeah, I think it's not ideal.
That it's the same.
So I think in the future that should be different.
That's confusing to the public.
Dan Ryan
Sure.
Jamie Dunphy
Give folks a few more seconds here, um, see if there's any more discussion.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
I, I just want to make sure I'm, I'm 100% up on this.
I have no Well, actually, it's not actually about the amendment now that I'm thinking about it.
So I will wait till the underlying.
Jamie Dunphy
Sorry.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Ryan.
Keelan McClymont
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
I just have a process question.
Councilor Clark, Vice Chair, Vice President Clark, did the haulers come to the meeting with Public Works?
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Olivia Clark
Yes.
And they actually expressed this concern that we were doing something before Metro had made a decision.
So Metro's finally made their decision.
Dan Ryan
Okay, and can you explain to the public how we're really at the mercy of Metro on this one?
Olivia Clark
Well, we are really at the mercy of Metro on this one.
I don't know what else to say.
Dan Ryan
It's a very unsatisfying vote every year we discuss.
Angelita Morillo
I'm sorry.
Dan Ryan
Yeah.
Olivia Clark
This is the way the whole situation's been set up.
Dan Ryan
Does the public or the haulers ever go to their meetings when they make these decisions and then we get blamed for whatever they decide?
Olivia Clark
Yes, the haulers are nodding in the back of the room, yes.
Dan Ryan
Oh, I believe the haulers.
Melissa Williams
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
Do people actually go to that meeting?
And shake your head like this.
Olivia Clark
Yes, they do.
Dan Ryan
People go besides the haulers?
Olivia Clark
Oh, you mean the public?
Candace Avalos
Yeah.
Olivia Clark
I don't go to the meeting, so I don't know.
Dan Ryan
It's just my annual I don't like this process statement.
Yeah.
And I don't know how we're supposed to fix it, but it's, it's, it's not working.
It's not good.
So, so thank you, Metro, for once again just giving us this information, and we're at the mercy of your decision.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
I'm looking to, uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
I'm pretty sure last year we had all the rates come through the Finance Committee and we heard them all.
So this year, have all the different rates that we're going to be voting on, have they just gone to various committees, or Because we got to look at them all right from one fell swoop, I felt like.
But I know the Hellers were here last year.
Thanks for being here again.
But we'd done that a little earlier.
I'm just trying to— is this everybody's first look at them?
Jamie Dunphy
Uh, we had a work session.
We talked— we walked through these at one of our—.
Eric Zimmerman
For each?
For like the Hellers?
Jamie Dunphy
No, we had a single work session on rates.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, my mistake.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah.
Okay, colleagues, seeing No one else in the queue.
Can we please move to a vote on Clerk A?
Keelan McClymont
Moved by Clerk, seconded by Novick.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Reluctant aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Thank you for your work on this, Director Engstrom.
I think you've done us all a solid.
Sonia Szymanski
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, this non-emergency ordinance now moves to second reading.
Steve Novick
Keelan—.
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, Councilor Kanal, you had a question on the underlying, and I apologize, so it doesn't move quite yet.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
I just wanted to ask the director a question and just get this on the record, and this may end up being my, um, not quite annual version of what Councilor Ryan was talking about in terms of this.
I just wanted to make sure on the record, and thank you for coming back up and all your work on this, this does not currently have— this year in this process, we're not doing anything with relation to adding— um, I understand the policy question about renters being able to decide their own thing is outside of The rates question, but we're also not doing anything about creating a rate or a process for weekly garbage pickup.
Is that correct?
Jeremy Patton
That is correct.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Sameer Kanal
I would love to just put on the record again that we need to have this option as many of our other cities do.
And I think that as it comes to solid waste management, having the option to do that, especially for people who cannot decide the size of their container, is really important.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Now this item moves to second reading.
Keelan, can we please call item 3?
Keelan McClymont
Document 2026-160, revise transportation fees, rates, and charges for the FY 2026 through '27 and amend transportation fee schedule.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Wait, I did 3, I meant 4.
I apologize, we just did 4.
3.
This— thank you.
Item 4.
Y'all, this is a lot of moving parts.
I apologize.
Um, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance for item 4, our transportation fee schedule.
Is there any discussion?
Councilor Ryan, is that a legacy hand?
Dan Ryan
Yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, Mr. Mayor, Mr.— Madam Director of PBOT, One last question.
Last year is when you snuck in the 10 PM parking on us.
From your lips to the City of Portland, parking will end at 10 PM, or no changes— that was a better way to put that— no changes other than the fee, but no changes in hours in this fee schedule.
Am I correct?
Melissa Williams
You are correct.
Eric Zimmerman
Oh, those are great words, Mr. Mayor, because she's made the executive decision.
Thank you, Madam Director.
No further questions.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
First, thank you.
I was gonna ask that exact question.
Second, I did want to just check that there's a change here where one of the rates in a couple places called monthly swing shift is going down from $145 to $38.
And I just wanted to get some transparency on that.
It's on page 2 in a couple places at multiple Parking garages.
There's also a Zone 5 Elliott discount tier 1, which I'm supportive of that, but that's the only other thing that I'm seeing that's going down, um, throughout this.
Just wanted to flag that.
Melissa Williams
You want me to answer the question?
Sorry, I'm Melissa Williams, director of the Portland Bureau of Transportation.
Sorry, I didn't acknowledge that earlier.
Um, uh, thank you for the question, Councilor Kanal.
We made some adjustments based on the conversation, the hearty conversation that we had last year about parking rates and fees, and especially the impacts of that potential increase on swing shift workers.
And so we worked with our— worked with SmartPark leadership to reduce the rate so that swing shift workers would not feel an impact of an increase.
And so that's That's what that shift is, downward, correct?
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Thank you so much for doing that.
Melissa Williams
Absolutely.
Sameer Kanal
And I wanted to— we often call you up and say, uh, I wish you hadn't done that, but thank you for doing this.
Melissa Williams
Absolutely, our pleasure.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Director Williams.
Melissa Williams
Just stay here.
Loretta Smith
Yes, thank you.
Melissa Williams
Um, how much revenue did we increase with the new We were anticipating that when we increased the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., it would be roughly $1 million of additional revenue.
We recognized that that increase was not worth the heartache that it was causing the community.
And so we were pleased to be able to make the change.
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
Didn't we change the amount per hour?
Melissa Williams
We did change— oh, what is that?
Loretta Smith
That's—.
Melissa Williams
Yeah, Jeremy can provide that.
Loretta Smith
What was the new revenue that we brought in with the change of the amount?
Jeremy Patton
Jeremy Patton with Public Works.
The increase for all of the hourly rate increases is about $2 million.
Loretta Smith
Okay, new revenue.
Melissa Williams
That's correct.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Connell, is that a legacy?
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, um, Councilor Williams, thanks for still being there.
I think because we have passed and then I'm looking at this, are any of these, um, increases above CPI or inflation, which is like 3.5%?
No, none of them are.
Jeremy Patton
There are some increases above inflation, but mostly those are around areas that were not full cost recovery in the past.
So we're trying to get to full cost recovery on those particular items, but those would be the only ones.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
And then while you're both here, we need to talk about how we can offer parking relief to the working class employees, especially at our restaurants downtown.
So can we make sure we carve out time for that?
Melissa Williams
We're happy to do that.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay.
Dan Ryan
I think because the increase in TUF, it's hard to justify any increase that's over inflation.
So I think I got a mixed answer.
Yeah.
Melissa Williams
Jeremy, are the increases parking increases or—.
Jeremy Patton
They're not parking increases, no.
Melissa Williams
That's what I was thinking.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Tony Barnes
Thanks.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
I appreciate that.
I didn't hear it right.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks, Jeremy.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor, uh, Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, thanks.
Um, first, I think what we're talking about here— I'm going to sneeze, sorry— uh, is the, um, with the cost recoveries in Exhibit C, right?
Sorry, sneezing on camera.
Um, it's got—.
Eric Zimmerman
That video lives forever.
Sameer Kanal
Uh, but yeah, in Exhibit C, um, there's a lot of new rates, and I think there's a couple that are jumping.
Is that the things that we were not doing cost recovery on before?
There's one in Exhibit D as well where, uh, a non-metered parking reservation fee for a parking reservation device placed by city is $0 to $70 now.
Jeremy Patton
Yeah, most of the new fees that you're seeing there are related to the— um, we talked about a little bit last week— the PP&D fees.
They were originally collected by PP&D.
Those were creating new fees in transportation and, and removing the interagency between PP&D and transportation.
So that's what those new fees are.
Sameer Kanal
So those are not jumps relevant to the previous question?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Correct.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, thank you so much.
And then I think the, the other piece is, is the swing shift is, I think, addressing some of but not all of what, um, Councilor Ryan was talking about, but it is afternoon-evening restaurant workers would be affected by.
Thanks.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Vice President Clark, last word.
Olivia Clark
Just really quickly, um, I want to reiterate Councilor Ryan's comment about restaurant employees.
I think that he and I want to work on some alternatives with you in the future, whether it's in Public Works Committee or elsewhere.
We're pretty concerned about that.
So thank you.
Melissa Williams
Happy to do that.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Clark.
Colleagues, this item now moves to second reading.
Keelan, can we please call item 5?
Keelan McClymont
Document 2026-161, revised sewer and stormwater rates, charges, and fees for FY 2026 through '27.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, is there any discussion of this non-emergency item?
Vice President Clark, is that a legacy?
Loretta Smith
Oh, sorry.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Seeing no one else in the queue, this item moves to second reading.
Keelan, can we please call item 6?
Keelan McClymont
Item— or document 2026-162, adopt rates, charges, and fees for water and water-related services for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026, and ending June 30th, 2027.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, this item moves to second reading.
Keelan, can we please call item 7?
Keelan McClymont
Document 2026-134, authorize water revenue bonds to finance water system capital improvements for an amount sufficient to produce net proceeds of up to $525 million and to refund outstanding water revenue bonds.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
We will be voting on this.
Is there discussion on the item?
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Is CFO Biery available?
Oh, I caught you right in the middle of taking a drink of water.
I apologize.
It's almost like we, uh, have to all be human when we're in this room.
For half the day or more.
CFO Biery, and in an earlier version of these bonds, you and I had a discussion right here about the length of the bond and your comfort or discomfort therein.
I believe at that point we were talking about a 40-year bond.
I believe what we have before us today are 30-year bonds, and I just would like to I would like to understand from your perspective, and the types of things I'm thinking about are our credit rating, the other things we need to bond for, how long this project will last, and when we need to have the bonds paid off to start saving for end-of-life repairs or replacements.
At a 30-year bond, how comfortable are you from a fiscal perspective with us moving forward with this project?
I think it's a great question.
Jonas Biery
Yeah, thank you, Councilor, for the question.
For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer.
30-Year term is something that we are comfortable with.
We've been migrating the utility, many of the utility borrowings towards 25 and 30-year maturity dates.
And so this is consistent with that strategy.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, and that answer is different from when I asked you about a 40-year bond?
Keith Wilson
Correct.
Jonas Biery
40 Years would be a different risk profile and something I'm less comfortable with.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
I really appreciate that.
And that gives me a lot more clarity Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yes, thank you for being up.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you for being up here, Jonas.
Now, just to confirm, this increase does not include the TUF bill, the TUF that we passed.
So the billings, this billing doesn't include that.
Jonas Biery
I'm sorry, Councilor.
Dan Ryan
So we passed TUF, that's going on to the water and sewer bills.
And these increases that I see on this chart does not include that.
Jonas Biery
So the water bond ordinance that's under consideration is only secured by water revenues.
And so that would not include the TUF or any other revenues outside of water system.
Dan Ryan
I would like to get something from someone that would then have a 3rd category that says what the estimate would be with TUF.
Loretta Smith
Added.
Dan Ryan
Am I asking something that I, I've been in these meetings and we, we proved tough.
I was told that was coming out of the bills from water.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Are you looking at item 6, Councilor?
Dan Ryan
Oh, I'm on 5.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We're on 7, which is the bonds.
Dan Ryan
Oh, we went through 5 and 6 so quickly.
Olivia Clark
We did.
Dan Ryan
Okay, I snooze and I lose.
I was, I was reading these and I didn't realize we were through them.
Okay, but since I have the floor, I will be I will be asking for that because this is disingenuous that it doesn't include that.
Thank you.
And now I will raise my hand, put my hand down, and you can all just laugh at me.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Tony Barnes
Bye.
Jamie Dunphy
You know, we're all figuring it out today.
There's a lot of moving parts.
I went ahead and put myself in the queue.
I'm just going to go ahead and say I still have major concerns with this project.
I am deeply concerned about the long-term affordability of this project.
I am deeply concerned about I mean, I'm concerned about the cost.
I know we don't have an option at this point, but I want to say to the community that this is not us saying tough, you're just going to suck it up and deal with whatever we're dealing with.
There will still be conversations about this.
We are moving forward towards this water filtration plant because we have to.
We will find ways to make this affordable.
My staff was looking Through some projections of what this alone could cost us, plus some of the other future things that we know are coming.
And truly, there are scenarios in the future where water bills are in the hundreds of dollars every month.
We need to be really intentional about this.
We need to be really strategic about making sure that we are keeping affordability front of mind.
And so just wanted to make sure that that was said.
Thank you.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
I'm not going to relitigate some of my earlier arguments about an alternative.
I appreciate the Bureau's willingness to engage me, One Water Bureau, on that question.
I'm just going to note, following up on what you're saying here, Council President, is that I think one of the most important tasks for this city is to pursue a legislative agenda that takes infrastructure seriously in the state of Oregon.
And not foist such a large cost that is external to the city.
I mean, the costs of this project are driven by factors outside of the control of the City of Portland.
And at the state level, I think we have opportunities to think creatively.
We have a treasurer who can think creatively.
We should be pursuing an agenda that tries to inject capital from the state level into our municipal enterprises to lower those costs.
I think that we need to pursue a legislative agenda that That pushes for kicker reform so when we get triggers, that it disperses back to municipalities as grants, as block grants, to allow us to buy down the cost of our very expensive infrastructure.
Those are things I think we should think about on a forward-looking basis.
I apologize to the City of Portland that this previous government failed to do the necessary oversight of this project that has led us to this position.
Councilor And so we will not let that continue.
We will do oversight and we will make sure that we are controlling our costs and finding ways to provide new money for this project to buy down its costs.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I really appreciate the comments that you and others have made, and I want to reiterate what Councilor Green has said.
This is not just a Portland problem.
It's a statewide problem with infrastructure for all cities.
So as our representative to the League of Oregon Cities, I'll certainly take that forward, um, no question.
And at the same time, I will just reiterate that we've also made a commitment, um, in the Public Works Committee to talk about rate redesign.
This is something I know is, um, dear to, uh, Councilor Green, and I'm committed to exploring that.
I'm sorry, my other members of the committee.
To exploring that and seeing what we can do.
But I think it has to be a multi-pronged approach to dealing with increased infrastructure costs statewide, not just Portland.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Novick, last word.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I just wanted to say to Councilor Green that I'm happy to work with them on kicker reform.
At a minimum, we could get the kicker changed so that it's spread out more equally among people, which would make everything more affordable for middle-class people.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Keelan, can we please call the roll on item 7?
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Bertolini?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama-Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
No.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Candace Avalos
I'm here, I just need a second.
Keelan McClymont
Oh, sorry, I thought I heard you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Avalos voted aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye, thank you.
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Keelan McClymont
The ordinance is passed with a vote of 9 ayes and 3 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, it is 12:10.
That is all the rate items we have to do.
We are on lunch recess until 1 o'clock.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
Melissa Williams
Captions test.
Captions test.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome back, folks.
We are now back in consideration of item 1.
And so I am going to recess this meeting of the Portland City Council and reconvene from recess the City of Portland Budget Committee.
Welcome back, everybody.
Colleagues, there are 2 items that were marked as the highest office priority by councilors in our priority poll that don't go well into another category block, so I'd like to move forward with them now.
Those are Novick-Morillo 1, related to staffing of the Data Privacy Office, and Kanal 1, related to the funding for developments by SEI and Williams and Russell.
Councilor Novick, I'm going to start with you.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
And I just realized I don't have copies of this to pass out.
I apologize.
Let me— earlier this year, Council unanimously approved the creation of a City Data and Privacy Office and directed the City Administrator to The office is essential to protect the privacy of Portlanders, particularly in the face of federal overreach.
This amendment finalizes the deployment of the City Data and Privacy Office.
This is not new program funding.
It is budget neutral.
We're completing what council already voted to do after the proposed left— budget left it half-built.
Consistent with the administration's implementation plan, it realigns 3 positions along with the 2 BPS positions proposed for realignment and the mayor's proposed.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Steve Novick
A manager from BPS to serve as the citywide data and privacy officer, the chief data officer.
One FTE systems analyst, senior, from BES, funded roughly 85% through overhead, 15% through an interagency agreement with the bureau, focused on public works-related data and privacy issues.
One vacant FTE applications analyst/generalist from BTS to ensure proper span of control and meet the city's privacy and security needs and facilitate coordination between BTS and the new office.
Olivia Clark
Second.
Steve Novick
I would now like to move Novick-Murillo 1.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick moves—.
Angelita Morillo
Can I second my own?
Candace Avalos
You can.
Angelita Morillo
Great.
Jamie Dunphy
So Councilor Novick moves, Councilor Murillo seconds Novick-Murillo 1.
Colleagues, we are now in debate of the amendments.
Feel free to jump into the queue, anyone who wants to discuss this.
I think some of us are well fed.
Yeah.
And Councilor Green?
Mitch Green
I support it.
I think that we should take a vote and pass this.
Keith Wilson
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Pausing again for a second to see if anyone else wants to join the conversation on the data privacy.
Councilor Bertolghini, do you want to?
Councilor Ryan?
Tony Barnes
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
City Attorney Lee, I would like to have you weigh in a bit on this.
I remember this legislation.
And I knew it was the right thing to do in terms of data privacy standards, in terms of what the market was asking for.
I was skeptical only because, you know, our budget, and it's hard to add another office at this time, another bureau at this time.
So you all got involved in building this as legislators, or did you work with the— So we worked with the city attorney's office.
I just wanna know who.
Steve Novick
We actually worked largely with Tracy Warren.
Angelita Morillo
And I wanna be clear that this is not just creating a new bureau with new employees and things like that.
It is a realignment of existing workers and things.
So it's centralizing the work that's being done.
And this is, since we voted on it unanimously to pass the ordinance, this is a technical amendment to make sure that it actually gets implemented now.
Dan Ryan
Just wasn't in the committee that had this conversation, so I get to ask questions 'cause I'm always curious, if you haven't noticed, 'cause I like to understand how the operations work at the city and where we pulled them from.
Who did— did we— we got clearance that this was the right places to pull from the right bureaus?
And Tracy, could you just give a little bit to those of us that haven't been involved in the details so we understand?
'Cause it is a big endeavor to add this office, and I'm glad that we are.
Candace Avalos
Welcome up.
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
Sonia Szymanski
Thank you, Council.
Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator for City Operations.
For the record, happy to talk through the City Data and Privacy Office.
So a couple of things have happened since we first met on the topic.
The mayor included 2 positions in his proposed budget, and then we did a process of market analysis, reaching out to other jurisdictions to understand the type of work that, that is happening in offices that are similar.
And then we developed some really high-level position descriptions, and then we went out and we looked for areas where we could realign the work based on the similarity.
Dan Ryan
Okay, so all the bureaus where we're snatching people from to build this, they were all part of the process?
Sonia Szymanski
They, uh, so for the manager, yes, I worked with the Deputy City Administrator for Community and Economic Development, Donnie Oliveira.
The other 2 positions were originally discussed with council, also worked with Donnie on those.
The other positions were things that we evaluated through the core realignment and were able to identify that they had similar work.
They were already slated to be moved for core realignment.
So instead of moving it to that footprint, we determined it fit better with the work that would be in the City Data and Privacy Office.
Dan Ryan
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I wanna follow along with the questions that my colleague, Councilor Ryan, just asked, because if this is the next step of what we did, that makes a lot of sense, and I'm trying to understand if there's anything additional.
Sonia Szymanski
So, DCA Warren, does this fully cover from existing positions Yeah, so a couple of things I would point out is that we will need to, next fiscal year, move these positions into the overhead model.
So these are currently funded, some of them, not all of them.
2 Of the positions are funded through their bureau, and they will remain focused on the work that they provide to their bureau while the office is being developed.
Once we have the office fully developed, we will move in the next fiscal year to put those positions into the overhead model, which is typical when they are going to be providing citywide services.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So when you say in the next fiscal year, does that mean we'll see a transfer and they will draw down overhead funds in '26-'27, or does that mean that as you propose a budget to the mayor and then to us for '27-'28, we'll see a shift in funding for these positions and an increase in overhead marginally in order to support that?
Sonia Szymanski
That is correct.
Um, huh, the latter.
That is correct.
Yes, the second that you talked about.
One thing, another thing that I would add is that this does include the foundation level of support that's needed to get that office started.
I think that it will be up to city leaders to determine if there's an opportunity to do that work even better after that office is developed.
That would come by way of a proposal from the citywide data and privacy officer once they are hired and able to start assessing the needs of that office and the work that's been identified in the resolution and the ordinance.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, and in the plan that we would be voting on in this budget amendment, Are we— how do I want to ask this?
This is the bare bones.
This is the basics.
Are we able to do work for all bureaus with this plan, or because we have some positions that are just supporting the bureaus they come from, will we not be able to support the work of all bureaus?
Sonia Szymanski
I can't answer that right now.
I think that once Once the city data and privacy officer is hired, they will be able to have a better assessment of the work that they would like to provide citywide.
That takes a lot of engagement across the city to fully understand where data sits, what type of governance framework is already in place in different areas, and build a proposal.
As we reviewed the resolution and the ordinance, we felt that this Staffing was adequate to provide baseline.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
And are the staff who are currently in this, in these positions, were they aware before this amendment that they were potentially going to be changing their role to be doing this different work, or does this come as a surprise?
Sonia Szymanski
So the, my understanding is that the, the work of the office is very similar to the work that they're already performing, and the staff are moving with the work.
Olivia Clark
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And is this upclass or downclass any positions, or are they straight lateral moves?
Sonia Szymanski
There is, I believe, one Systems Analyst 4 that is vacant in the package that we will be looking to reclass because it doesn't align with the work.
That level of classification is typically doing software development, and that's not the work that we're asking this office to do.
So we would change that classification.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Sonia Szymanski
And then recruit for it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
DCA Warren, can you talk a little bit about what's at risk If we don't do this, where we're vulnerable?
Sonia Szymanski
I don't— so I want to approach the answer to that question a little bit differently because I do think, you know, and our Chief Information Officer Elise Rosenberg is here as well to help answer this question, but we have a good information security program.
So I don't believe what we are looking to resolve What we're looking to resolve is governance over the data that the city has access to across our enterprise and making sure that it's governed across the city in a way that is consistent, protects folks' information, and provides the support to bureaus so that they know what that standard framework is.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Olivia Clark
And I appreciate that answer.
Having gone through some of that at the state level, I really appreciate the gravity of that effort.
Can you talk about also, does this have any relationship with where we're going on AI?
Unidentified speaker
Thank you for the question.
Elise Rosenberg
Elise Rosenberg, I'm the Chief Information Officer for the record.
It does.
So I think I would bucket the work that we're talking about into 3 areas: security, which will still remain with the Bureau of Technology Services, though in partnership with this office; privacy; and data governance.
And maybe the difference between security and privacy, we have legal requirements and we have legal and operational risk around information breaches or about information being inappropriately shared in violation of compliance.
Privacy is about policy and governance around what information we want to share within our legal purview.
And then governance is about what is the sort of authoritative source of truth, which, and how can we be better aligning the data that we have within the organization?
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
Around that source of truth.
Elise Rosenberg
So which is the database that has the record of city properties, for example?
Not the 12, but the one.
And that's the governance component of that.
And so— and I am so sorry, I lost the actual question in that.
Olivia Clark
That's okay.
You're singing my song on that one list.
Elise Rosenberg
Oh, AI was your question.
I'm sorry.
Olivia Clark
AI was—.
Elise Rosenberg
So the better control we have of our data as a city, the better we can have some assurance around what information is shared through AI.
What we have right now is a strong policy.
We have a lot of guidance for employees, and we've had our first rollout in a very security-controlled, very limited way of Microsoft's Copilot Chat Basic.
And what that does right now is allow for interaction with AI only where an employee Affirmatively points a data source to that AI for that query only.
So it's not scanning our data, it's not mining what we have.
It's an employee saying, take this file, do this one thing with it.
And if that file is tagged as confidential, it will not be accepted into the program.
And so the better we can control our data footprint, the better our future interactions So what does this realignment package mean?
Olivia Clark
I hear what you're saying about the bureaus.
What does it mean for the council?
Elise Rosenberg
So I think what it, you know, and maybe Councilors Morillo and Novick, you better speak to your policy intent, but as I understand it, it's about providing the citywide governance structure to help folks like in my shop say, how would we implement a data standard as promulgated by this office in compliance coming back to my shop with those security rules?
Unidentified speaker
And so it provides the ability to have that citywide data standard.
And I'm sorry if I'm speaking for you.
Angelita Morillo
No, I think you said it perfectly.
I don't really have much more to add.
We need people who are experts in this.
You and I, we're not going to be— I can barely use my Outlook.
We're not going to be experts on all the different tech that the city procures, but we can have people who look at that, but not only look at that through technical expertise, but also the data governance aspect of it is taking a look at how, why, and when we store data.
That's what's the really critical and new part of this.
But you said it perfectly, so thank you.
Olivia Clark
Can I just ask one more question?
I want to ask a question of CA Lee.
Unidentified speaker
How does it—.
Olivia Clark
How do we stack up here against other cities that you've been to?
Steve Novick
I think we're moving in the right direction.
Sameer Kanal
A lot of cities, when you look at cities our size or larger, already have this system in place with proper leadership and oversight of those areas.
Unidentified speaker
We're building that as we speak today.
So we're right— we're on the right path, but we're not where our peer cities are on this conversation.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Olivia Clark
Thank you all for the answers.
I appreciate it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, I'll be real quick.
I think it's, it's a process question.
So this is complex, and it feels like we're behind other organizations our size, and we're trying to build this.
Got it.
So this— I'm experiencing what feels like a technical amendment coming from the administration, and then 2 councilors got behind it.
Or did you dictate to the administration how this should be built?
Angelita Morillo
We've been working hand in hand with the administration to create this.
We worked with the employees that are going to be realigned, and they are thrilled and excited to engage in this work.
And we all discussed this as a City Council.
You voted for this.
Steve Novick
Right.
Angelita Morillo
Tracy actually sent out a written report, and all of Council received that.
So it's gone through a very robust process hand in hand with the administration and the employees are thrilled and excited to be working on it.
And Councilor Novick, sounds like you might have something to add.
Steve Novick
Yeah, I mean, I just wanted to say we've gone back and forth and discussed which individual positions are we going to use from where.
There's been several iterations of that.
So it's been a very collaborative process.
Dan Ryan
Okay, sounds good.
It's just taken me back to the issue of form of government.
That's fine.
But we're having one of those moments.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Novick?
Steve Novick
That was all I had to say.
Jamie Dunphy
Fair enough.
Okay.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, is that a legacy hand?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Legacy hand.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, no problem.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Novick-Murillo 1?
Keelan McClymont
Moved by Novick, seconded by Murillo.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Great work to my D3 colleagues.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
I appreciate that.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Thank you, colleagues.
Keelan McClymont
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
Jamie Dunphy
Excellent.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
Councilor Kanal to Kanal 1.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, I'm going to move Kanal 1.
Kanal 1 is an amendment to the budget that would use $2.5 million from the BLT reserve fund, BLT reserve stabilization, to fund Williams and Russell.
I don't know, there's an online speaker.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, Kristen, you are, uh, unmuted.
Jamie Dunphy
Try it again, Councilor.
Sameer Kanal
All right, take 2.
Um, I, uh, would move $2.5 million from the Business License Tax Reserve Fund to the Portland Housing Bureau to be Distributed, with $1.5 million going to Self Enhancement Inc. and $1 million going to Williams and Russell.
We have had this conversation several times.
I think it is worth having a brief, you know, reminder of why we wanted to fund this.
But I want to— and I'll get to that at the end here— but I want to talk about the fact that this has now been sought from various parts of the Housing Bureau's dollars, including the money that was discovered, including some of the money that was Yes.
Unspent and eventually settling on trying to transfer it from the social housing fund during the spring technical adjustment ordinance.
That did not have the votes to pass.
So in looking for another source of funding to ensure that we are meeting our obligations, including our stated commitments to both increasing the available number of housing units within the North Northeast Preference policy, um, supporting this particular project from SEI, and of course Williams and Russell, which involves, um, homeownership opportunities.
And that's what this particular funding would go towards.
Um, I was looking around for it.
My team and I found this particular, uh, source to be the more preferable one and put together the, um, the amendment.
So this, uh, again would put money towards these 2 projects.
I want to take a second and just remind everyone that, um, Back in June of 2025, we approved a massive increase to a lawsuit settlement that was to the descendants of those displaced by the planned but never conducted expansion of Legacy Emanuel Hospital.
Legacy's own explanation of where that land would have been and where the area of people who were pushed out were includes The area where Williams and Russell is.
And in fact, that's part of why it's located there.
It's part of why it's called that.
So this is definitely related in the sense that we are talking about restoration.
We are talking about putting money into, again, the North Northeast Preference Policy as well.
And I'm happy to go through whatever may have concerns, but I did want to mention that there is a note that will be paired with it in the adopted budget.
Jeremy Patton
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
To talk about the sort of mechanisms.
But the idea here is transferring the money so that these projects can be made whole, that they're able to, on July 1st, start using it to close the funding gap on the one hand and help ensure that the homeownership opportunities are created there while we still maintain the other important work that we have all been talking about for, I think, about a year and 3 months now around social housing.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
And retaining that revolving loan fund.
So I'll stop here, but I will formally move Canal 1 and ask for a second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal moves Canal 1.
Councilor Koyama Lane seconds.
Colleagues, to debate to the amendment.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I've been watching CFO Biery for the last minute and a half seeing if his head was going to explode.
That yesterday we dipped into the BLT reserve fund for the fire engine.
Which brought it down, as I understand it, to $6.2 million.
This would bring that down to $3.7 million, which is a tiny fraction of the BLT.
And I think that I'm going to ask CFO Biery to come up and express his concerns.
I think one thing he'll talk about is our credit rating.
Another thing I think we need to be mindful of is we rely on the BLT money as well as the property tax money simply to fund city operations.
And a tiny glitch in collections would now push us into the red, which would mean we'd have to make cuts to city services in the middle of the year.
But CFO Biery, please give us your thoughts on further dipping into this reserve fund.
Jonas Biery
Thank you, Councilor, for the question.
For the record, CFO Jonas Biery.
My head is not yet fully exploded, although certainly feeling some anxiety.
Yes.
So as We started discussing yesterday and related to another amendment that used the same resource.
We have very little, maybe half or so of the contingency that we had available last year.
We know last year we needed that contingency and in fact heard pretty direct criticism from members of this body about not having enough contingency.
So I just wanna flag We are elevating that risk right now, and we will probably have to come back and resolve that this year.
The, as you said, Councilor, at that 2.5%-ish level, one, a change in one major taxpayer in their profit pattern that results in receipt of business license tax, a significant change in profit margins within a single industry in this country.
Jeremy Patton
Yeah.
Jonas Biery
Could result in greater than $2.5 million, $3 million, excuse me, impact.
So I just wanna be explicit about that is the sort of risk that this is continuing to elevate for the city.
Additionally, as noted before, pretty high risk of credit rating impacts and the millions of dollars of annual impact that that would incur to the city citywide.
Keith Wilson
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
May I respond to that?
Thank you, Council President.
I just want to point out that a tiny fraction is a, uh, that's a subjective thing.
It's, uh, $8.7 million.
This would take it to $3.7 million.
Um, there are other, 2 other amendments that relate to this that we haven't voted on yet as well.
Um, and also, I don't know, uh, if you can divide by zero.
I certainly can't, but it was zero last year.
I want to ask, uh, CFO Biery though, Is the contingency that you were talking about that the council pushed back on taking money out of, is that referring to the compensation set aside?
Jonas Biery
Yes, Councilor, thank you so much for that question.
It is not.
This reserve was zero last year and we had compensation set aside at, I don't know, $20, $25 million in total contingency.
That number is zero.
This reserve replenishes a portion of that.
So I want to be really explicit that the contingency that we had available last year, we do not have this year with the very limited exception of this suggested BLT reserve stabilization, which also I want to be clear is accompanied by a budget note in the mayor's proposed with a defined strategy to replenish that and build it up to a level that actually supports that credit rating and fiscal responsibility that's a core city value.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah.
As part of the compensation set-aside elimination of that fund, we were told in work session that the responsibility— because previously what would happen is if you— a bureau had a staffer paid $100,000, it went to $110,000, that bureau would still get only the $100,000 and the $10,000 would be replenished.
I'm oversimplifying.
And from the compensation set-aside, and that responsibility was kind of collectively borne.
Mitch Green
Okay.
Sameer Kanal
Now, we were told in the work session that the responsibility would remain with the bureau entirely, meaning the entire responsibility for paying all of the salary as increased by the fiscal year would stay there.
So we were told that as a way of saying the need for this fund is now significantly less.
There's still the overtime possibilities, but that the need for the compensation set-aside is significantly less.
Fast forward to today, and now we're being told that it is as necessary as it ever was.
So my question is, which is it?
Jonas Biery
Yeah, Councilor, I think there's some misunderstanding about the differences.
So based upon feedback from this council last year about frustration with the way comp set-aside was managed, we shifted that risk matrix.
So instead of having it set aside on a citywide basis, it's now aligned and transparent in the current service level budget costs to be managed within those bureaus.
And it is partially true that that shift reduces the need, the size of the citywide contingency.
What is missing from that analysis is that the value in having that comp set aside in the old structure Is that that counted against, for example, the way the rating agencies calculate available contingency.
And it did provide flexibility at the end of the day in how that contingency was ultimately determined by council to be used.
We've lost that flexibility and we've lost the ability to include that number in the math that the rating agencies, investors, and use in assessing our credit strength.
So I think partially yes, but also quite significantly a little bit different.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Sameer Kanal
I think I responded to Councilor Novick, and it's technically his time, so I'll stop here and wait for my—.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Jonas, please don't leave.
Um, can you tell us what percent of— and I'm just focused on general fund discretionary dollars here— What percent of our budget we have in available reserves, reserves that are not dedicated to specific projects or funds or things like that, we have this year compared to last year?
And if you happen to have it, maybe give me a couple of years before that.
Jonas Biery
Yes, Councilor, thank you for that question.
I'm just pulling up the data, and what I have is the calculation as performed by the rating agencies, so their assessment of of where those available general funds lie, what they count as available.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Take whatever calculation you have as long as it's consistent.
Jonas Biery
Maybe slightly different than the way you asked the question, but that's the data that we have.
In 2023, that amount was over 20%.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Jonas Biery
In 2024, it was around 17.5%.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Jonas Biery
In 2025, it was just about 15%.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Jonas Biery
In 2026, we believe we're gonna end the year close to 15%.
We don't know that till we have the actuals and audited information, but around 14 to 15% this year.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
What do we have currently in the budget?
So mayor's proposed plus amendments adopted to date.
Jonas Biery
Yeah, so my, as I've been trying to keep up, my math is that as of what passed yesterday, We are around 11%, uh, and, and this amendment, uh, would put us obviously below, uh, below that 11%, approaching 10%.
Sonia Szymanski
Okay.
Jonas Biery
And, and as we mentioned yesterday, the benchmark for the rating agencies is 15%.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Jonas Biery
Um, just one other note, uh, Councilor, related to that question is, as I mentioned, um, the mayor's proposed included a budget note, um, with a strategy and intention to build that strength up with an intentional plan so we can get back towards that 15% level.
That's a really important tool when we have these conversations with rating agencies to be able to show them that even though we're making some difficult decisions in a moment of fiscal crisis, that we're still thinking ahead and building that stabilization plan.
As we're pulling from this reserve in some of these amendments, we are limiting, maybe eliminating our ability to make that case, which is sort of also not helpful for fiscal stability.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Colleagues, I, um, fought really hard for these funds just a couple of weeks ago.
These are projects that I very much support.
These are projects that are led by community to create homeownership opportunities for the community in North and Northeast Portland, and let me just name it specifically, led by the Black community to try to create opportunities for Black Portlanders who were displaced from my district.
I don't ever want to vote against these projects, but colleagues, it is starting to feel like we are drunken sailors who found the reserve stash of rum, except instead of rum, it is a reserve stash of dollars.
And if That's not supposed to be funny.
No, it's not.
If our credit rating drops, then the budget challenges we are facing today will be minuscule compared to what we have to do to be able to afford the bonds that are needed to do the basic projects that our city needs in the future.
And so I am really close to a place where I am thinking that I am going to vote against anything that pulls from reserves moving forward for the rest of the day.
I'm not sure exactly what we have on the agenda, so I don't want to promise that there are no exceptions to that, but I think that as much as I care deeply about these projects, I can't dip in reserves for anything other than the very basic core functions of our city at this point if we are already approaching 10%.
Thank you for that information, Jonas.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Um, CFO Biery, the— does the rate— do the rating agencies look at— if you're looking at the broad set of balances that are can be thought of as liquid, their contingencies, their reserves and the like, whether you call it BLC reserve or not, or stabilization fund or not.
Do they look at your credit risk as the first money out or the first— first money out or the last money out?
Jonas Biery
Councilor, I can say pretty confidently they don't look at it in that lens.
They look at, as we discussed very briefly yesterday, a complex set of factors, one of which among the most Heavily weighted is available reserves, particularly in the general fund.
They also look very critically, and this has come up in the discussion here just this afternoon, around policy and management strength and willingness to make difficult decisions to maintain fiscal strength.
So I want to be really cautious about trying to pigeonhole it into saying there's one thing or one range of things.
It is important to say again out loud that the one thing Literally the one thing that both rating agencies in that whole suite of complexity, the one thing they have called out as what could make the rating go down is reduction in reserves.
So I don't want that to skip past this body that in that complexity they have called out one action.
Mitch Green
That's the only action?
Jonas Biery
That is the action they've called out in the category.
And you've been provided the rating reports.
I'm happy to remind this body again, The very first thing they list, what could make the rating go down?
There are other factors that are out of our control, decline in population, decline in other revenue streams that are out of our control, federal legislative, federal-state legislative action.
The action that's in our control is protection and maintenance of those reserves.
Mitch Green
I appreciate that answer.
So in the mayor's proposed budget, the budget was balanced in part by drawing down $44 million of contingency money.
And so I just raised that, folks, because we're talking about $2.5 million for these 2 projects in North-Northeast Portland as being the threat to our rating agency, but we have yet to talk about $44 million in the mayor's budget being drawn down from that same set of contingencies that could also support a positive credit rating agency.
And that's notable for me.
I'll also note that— We danced around this a little bit, but I'll say it again.
We sold a very— there is a very valuable transaction that happened within fiscal year or calendar year 2025, and I'm not sure, maybe Peter knows the answer to this, but if we have a value, if we have a transaction that's subject to the business license tax that happens in a calendar year, I think we would expect to see those revenues materially— you're shaking your head no.
Can you say more?
Jonas Biery
Yeah, Councilor, that's not accurate.
So while we We do anticipate there will be a large transaction that occurs in calendar '25.
That will be tax year '26, in which that becomes a profit on that taxpayer's tax roll, and probably fiscal '27 or '28 before we see those dollars in the door.
It's very likely, knowing taxpayer behavior, that that won't be a single one-time action, that it'll be spread out over Multiple tax years.
I would also add, we have zero insight.
Maybe you have more intel than I do.
We have zero insight into that taxpayer's whole suite of profit loss.
And so we don't have maybe the confidence around that timeline and the final dollar amount, which we've had conversations in here.
Mitch Green
Yet we've talked about, we've We talked about the confidence around that number being $40 to $50 million to complete the capital stack for the Moda Center.
That's what we've talked about.
And so that's notable for me because we are saying— Tina Kotek came here in front of the Moda Center and said council better stop, quit playing politics and just pass this deal, presumably with that money in the next couple of months.
Okay, so if we've got that money to legislate for that purpose in the next couple of months, Why are we shy about $2.5 million for these 2 projects in the north-northeast part of the city?
And then, you know, colleagues, I'll just note that yesterday I brought forward a package that would have created $3.325 million in money that we could have used for anything, that we could use for this project.
We could also use it to top up the BLT reserve.
And this body was a little gun-shy About, you know, cutting some executive salaries at the top, or not their salaries, but those position authorities.
So if we're worried about broad liquidity position of the City of Portland, we need to take it in a holistic context.
I'm kind of frustrated by this sort of one part of the balance sheet conversation that we're having and not the broad holistic piece that we're— that is a statement of our priorities.
Keith Wilson
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor, uh, Sorry, the queue moved on me.
Sorry, Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you, Council President.
I think if we want to talk about drunk sailors finding rum, then we got to talk about how everyone's been using contingency.
And I think that Councilor Green outlined that pretty well.
But I would also point out, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, that apart from the amendments you filed that took money So we're doing the same thing.
And what I've been told is that these projects are absolutely urgent and critical, so urgent that I can't get the answers to my questions about what it will fund and that I must approve them immediately.
And I have been very critical of a process where council has been earmarking funds Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Mayor.
Angelita Morillo
I have voted no on 4 projects without proper vetting.
I even voted no against the Hacienda one.
Despite the rumors that have been spread that I'm picking and choosing different communities to fund, that is not true.
I really do care about good governance and giving these dollars out in the appropriate way.
But what I have been told is that these projects are absolutely critical, absolutely urgent.
The community is demanding this, and that if we don't do this, with this pot of money that we have here right now, then it's going to be taken away from generations who would benefit from the social housing fund that we created, from the revolving loan fund that we created, from something that council said that we would invest in later on.
So there is a lot of hypocrisy here with regards to what we're willing to fund and why.
And I can't help but wonder if this is actually not about funding these projects now, or if it's about taking away money from the social housing fund later.
Because that's what I've been told is urgent, that we have to do it now.
And there is this pot of money in order to protect the social housing fund and the revolving loan fund.
I would approve this amendment despite not getting the pro forma.
Not getting information on these projects.
But I would do it because I think it's necessary.
And again, we're talking about collective impact of the BLT and the general fund contingency, but there is no reason that this project is any less worthy than the projects that we already funded with insufficient information.
As a matter of good governance, we need to correct that going forward, and I expect that.
We shouldn't be in the business of earmarks given without key information on financing and impact, but it would be unjust to draw the line here when there is a viable funding source today.
Councilor Smith was right to be frustrated that other projects got funded and this one didn't.
There was not consistency across the board for how people voted on this.
Well, I was consistent, but so I think we have an option here on the table today, and I will be supporting it for that reason.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
I would love for us to pass this today and support both SEI and the Williams and Russell project.
You all know I taught 4th and 5th grade at Fabian School, and so the last time we were talking about this, I had various Black Portlanders reach out to me who I've taught their kids or they taught with me at Fabian and they were very hurt.
And they said, Mrs. Koyama Lane, we heard that you didn't support SCI and we want to know why.
I had a lot of conversations explaining that I cannot take money away from social housing, but I am happy to find another path.
This is that other path.
This is that vote.
Here's my vote.
Rayshawn, thank you for calling me.
Candace Avalos
This—.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I promised I would do this.
I'm going to do it right now.
Here's my support.
So if we want to fund this, this is how you get my vote and we can wrap this up today.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
Um, I just want to note that, um, as of now, that BLT reserve is $6.2 million.
This would drop that to $3.7 million.
And then the core realignment proposal, which Councilors Murillo, Green, and I brought brought forward would cut another $3.3 million.
So that would leave the reserve virtually nonexistent.
I think that's important to note.
And Councilor Green, I think you were suggesting that the mayor's dips into contingency might have already made us drunk, but I fear that every additional dip will bring us closer to alcohol poisoning.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I, I think I'm having déjà vu all over again.
Um, can somebody just remind me why we're not using housing funds to pay for housing?
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, I, I think it's been— I appreciate the question.
I think it's been hinted at several times.
There's a lot of money in the Housing Bureau that is for bricks and sticks, and then there's money That's for people.
And I'm oversimplifying here, um, but actually I'm going to ask you a question, CFO Biery, uh, just when I get there.
So hey, I'm so sorry, I genuinely am.
Robert Taylor
You gotta—.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, uh, but when it's my turn, I'm responding to a question now.
But, um, the, the simple thing is that, um, there's really one type of, uh, fund in there that is for both, and that's this revolving loan fund.
And The concern that keeps coming up is instead of taking it from other places in the Housing Bureau, there's the NOFAs, there's all these other places.
The idea is we have to take it from social housing only, which I'll remind everyone was something that we all approved looking into in a 12-0 resolution back in March 2025.
And instead of taking it from there, we are looking and finding other sources.
I think it's exactly what Councilor Koyama Lane talked about, and I can speak more to that in a minute.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Um, Jonas, I guess I'm just curious, was this credit risk raised with the mayor when he created all of these new reserves?
I guess I don't understand why, uh, the mayor with an unapproved budget gets to make all of these reserves, apparently make our credit at risk, and then we're at fault for making a change.
So did you raise these with the mayor, and when and how?
Jonas Biery
Yeah, Councilor, thank you for that question.
It raises a really important point that was mentioned, uh, yesterday, um, which is, um, yes, as those decisions are being made, my job is to communicate those risks.
Um, my, um, belief based upon a few decades of experience working with this is that what was proposed in the mayor's budget put us, as I said yesterday, kind of right up towards the edge of what would be comfortable to mitigate those risks.
By leaving at least that 4%-ish number, the $8.7 million in the reserve, and building a scaffolding via the budget note around a strategy to replace that is on the more protective side of protecting that rating.
And so that was the communication that was provided, and that's what was reflected in the mayor's proposed.
Olivia Clark
Sure.
Candace Avalos
I guess it just feels confusing that the mayor is allowed to create new things, put us at risk regardless of what level of risk you think that is.
And then when we're trying to make adjustments or we're trying to make amendments to the budget that again reflect the communities that we represent, the priorities that we all have, 'cause we're all elected too and we have the budget authority, and yet we are deferring to a mayor who gave us gave us an unapproved budget and we have to defer to those decisions?
I don't understand.
Jonas Biery
Yeah, no, Councilor, that's a great observation and a great point.
And I wanna be really clear that, you know, my job is to state the facts about the risks and trade-offs.
And so if Council chooses, as was in an amendment, if Council chooses to make an amendment that adds to reserves, that's your prerogative.
If you choose to take a path that reduces those reserves, That's a thing.
It's a point in the conversation.
You're right, absolutely.
It is council's job to make those decisions and balance those risks and priorities.
And my job is to illuminate to you what the risks and trade-offs of some of those decisions might be.
Candace Avalos
All right, well, it sounds like the mayor also assessed those risks and chose to move forward.
So I think we are assessing these risks.
We are realizing what's important to the community.
I'm interested in moving forward, so I plan to support this.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Murray, did you already speak on this one?
Okay, so Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Um, so for those who don't know, there is a, uh, practice, or the way that the, the structure works when you file an item, a standalone item here, is that it's not at first visible to all your colleagues, and then as it gets— goes through the various stages of approval, um, it becomes visible later.
After I submitted this amendment, I became aware of another proposal to put money into these 2 projects as well, and I want to be upfront about that.
It once again, however, takes the money from social housing.
And so I want to talk about that because it seems as though, from everything I can tell, sometime in the next month, these 2 projects will be funded.
And the only 2 things that we have yet to figure out is where does that money come from?
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
There's a question about when as well, but the timing is pretty similar, so it's a couple days either way when these would take effect.
So the 2 questions are, where does that money come from, and is this gonna be something that we politicize to death?
Is this gonna be something that makes a political football out of 2 really important projects?
And more important than the 2 projects are the people that are involved in them who are great, the people that could live in these developments when they are done, either as renters or as homeowners.
Either way, that is something that is going to happen.
But are we going to use these people as a political football?
Are we going to do once again what has been done for generations with people in North and Northeast Portland, in particular Black Portlanders?
And I would love to get to a place where there is a 12-0 vote.
But once again, we have the idea of here is something that you care about being said by one side of this council.
And so here's another thing you care about.
The only way you're going to get this thing you care about is if you defund this other thing you care about.
Councilmember And that is the unnecessary politicization.
We saw it earlier with the amendments we saw yesterday, right?
And there's a very clear pattern of this happening.
So I'm going to push back on that and I'm going to say I don't need to explain why these programs are so excellent, why these 2 particular places we want to put money are.
I'm actually going to read from what my colleagues wrote about it.
Raymond C. Lee
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
And I want to note, 5 of my colleagues who wrote collectively are co-sponsoring something that says, and I quote, homeownership is a primary driver of household wealth creation, yet access to homeownership in Portland remains inequitable, particularly for Black households and other historically marginalized communities.
The Williams and Russell site represents a historically significant location in North and Northeast Portland where past displacement of Black residents has had lasting economic and cultural impacts.
Self-Enhancement Inc. is a trusted community-based organization with a demonstrated track record of serving Portlanders.
Councilmember including Black youth and families, and advancing economic opportunity.
Targeted investment in homeownership development in high displacement risk areas is a necessary strategy to prevent further displacement, promote community stability, and support intergenerational wealth building.
I'm skipping ahead.
Affordable housing homeownership projects located within the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area that receive funding administered by the Portland Housing Bureau are subject to the North-Northeast Preference Policy, which That's important as well.
That's end quote.
And I couldn't say it better than that.
And so the question is, are we going to today make a decision that will get the money out the door from this fund, uh, or— and, and do it with an overwhelming majority support?
Or are we going to again deadlock in a 6-6, inevitably creating a second 6-6 in a couple weeks when there's a standalone document on it?
Um, and end up using folks who could be living in a restorative development project as a political football once again.
And I'll note that I offered several people on this council the opportunity to co-sponsor this, and I would love if anyone still wants to, that offer remains, and I'll even take my name off it if that helps.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
You know, I don't usually jump in to correct the record.
I let things that are incorrect stand, but there was a lot there.
So I want to be clear.
In my first amendments, I introduced one thing that pulled from reserves as a placeholder to make sure we have a conversation about an important asset in my community that did not have a funding source, and I was hopeful that there might be additional funds that we could look to.
The only other things I have introduced that pulled from reserves were an attempt to find a compromise— the only attempt to find a compromise that has been introduced since we got up here.
Compromise is not, colleagues, I hope somebody just changes their mind and decides to vote with us, which multiple people have described as a compromise up here today alone.
The fund that was created in housing was described as for social housing and RFPs for important projects, not just social housing.
If that is a change and the intent is now based on some unsaid thing and colleagues doing work outside of this dais that it is just for social housing, that is news to me.
There certainly, as somebody said, could be an actual compromise where we look to something like the NOFA money to fund these projects, but that hasn't been brought forward.
Compromise is not do it my way or else, and we need to actually start figuring out where we can come together to do the things that are important instead of just demanding that people come to your side.
Things are politicized because There are not enough people up here willing to bring new ideas forward, hear their colleagues, and try to iterate.
And it would be great to see that iteration happen.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
I think there's been a lot of discussion about why we're not using housing funds created as a council.
And the reality is those are social housing funds and revolving loan funds.
That is what they're supposed to be used for.
I don't know, it's in the title.
It's not that confusing.
It's very simple.
Social Housing Revolving Loan Fund.
Social Housing Revolving Loan Fund.
The debt buydowns will create units that are going to be permanently affordable for generations to come.
That's not a question.
When we're talking about a city where Black Portlanders can't afford a single one-bedroom apartment, On the median income for Black Portlanders, we are talking about a social housing fund that is going to directly benefit the communities that we purport to care about.
So aside from not raiding a fund for a purpose that is unrelated to the fund, well, the reason we are not just using those housing funds is that every dollar of the social housing and revolving loan fund that doesn't get spent is a unit that is— that isn't purchased to create permanent affordability at the lowest AMI levels.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilmember Herbold.
Angelita Morillo
That's what we're looking at.
Or is money that we are not going to get back via the revolving loan fund mechanism, meaning that we don't just lose $1, we lose that dollar getting reused again and again and again for generations.
We can do the right thing and fund the projects that need to be funded while also protecting the fund that is going to provide payoffs for generations to come.
The BLT is also an appropriate pot for this purpose.
It is a one-time expense coming out of a one-time fund meant to serve a one-time expense.
And it is a fund that will be replenished and substantially increased in the future, doubling in FY27-28 and growing owing to the Blazers sale in '26-'27.
These funds are going to be replenished.
So if we are simply taking away— if we're saying we're not going to use that today, to fund these projects that are so urgent that I am not allowed to get details on it or ask questions, then I think that this is just an attack on the social housing fund.
If we really want to talk about justice and delivering immediately for these communities, we have a pot of money that we can use.
We could relitigate all of the amendments and whether they take money from the BLT, the Superfund, The pool amendment of $5 million, but I don't really think that's relevant to the conversation right now.
What is relevant is that, again, we've been told this is urgent.
We have an opportunity to correct this considering that people were inconsistent in their votes for what things are funded.
And we can do that today and we can put this conversation to rest.
And then the community can also benefit from social housing and the revolving loan fund.
That's actually compromise.
It's actually compromise to say we understand that social housing is a top priority for you, and by the way, a top priority for the entire council that voted for it, discussed it in the housing committee, researched it, approved the reports, approved moving ahead with this.
And now we have an option for a different fund so that everybody has a chance to win today.
And I have been probably the most critical of this process of earmarking Different organizations without getting proper information, without getting the pro formas, but I'm willing to put that aside today.
That's compromise.
I'm willing to put that aside to get this done for these people because I've been told that this is urgent and because I want to protect the Social Housing Fund.
So I really would urge my colleagues that this is the quickest way to ensure that justice isn't delayed if that is the priority.
Raymond C. Lee
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Um, colleagues, the sponsor of this, Councilor Kanal, has requested a brief recess to work out a technical detail with this amendment.
I am going to give us a brief 10-minute bathroom break.
Please everybody be back here at 2:10.
And we are coming back to order.
Councilor Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Yes, um, so I— with you, if you'll indulge me, Council President, if I hypothetically were to withdraw this momentarily, would it be okay if to allow another amendment to go forward?
Would I be able to come in after that?
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
We, we can move on to Morillo-Green-Novick 1 and then come back Okay, thank you so much for that.
Sameer Kanal
I will do that at this moment.
Um, for those who are following along, I am not abandoning this.
I'm just withdrawing it to let this go forward while we need a couple more minutes to figure out some things, and I don't want to hold up the whole process.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Uh, colleagues, we're going to now move over to our item related to the realignment process.
Uh, previously, Pirtle-Guiney 5 and Dunphy 4 were also in this block, but those are both on hold for right now.
So Councilors Murillo, Green, and Novick, I'm turning to you.
Angelita Morillo
I can kick it off for us.
Thank you, everybody, for engaging in this process.
Looks like we have a few folks still missing.
But the core services realignment is really to put a pause on the entire implementation of the core services realignment package.
The only changes that should be advanced are the cuts to already vacant positions and the 14 manager or supervisor positions identified in the mayor's proposed budget for cuts.
Thank you, Deputy City Administrator.
This decision package is a response to a couple of things.
Workers and unions who have been left out of the process, who should have been brought in as they can provide greater insight into what breaks when certain positions are eliminated or what critical areas of work are neglected because they can't be reallocated.
The importance of keeping frontline workers that keep city services running every single day.
The risks of failure to internal systems across city bureaus.
Concerns that shared even by the executive level, and the unintended consequences of implementing a rushed process.
And I want to highlight a timeline of events that helps paint a picture of what it looks like to implement a rushed process.
On May 12th, staff began receiving official layoff notices via a meeting with HR managers and CPPW union representatives.
On May 15th, HR verbally told CPPW that layoff dates.
Were being pushed back to July 15th, 2026.
On May 18th, HR provided to CPPW a list of people being laid off due to seniority protections and bumping, and the layoff bumping list contains several known errors, including people who were classified incorrectly and people who were being bumped despite upcoming vacant positions within the bureau that could have been filled.
CPPW alerted HR to get that corrected.
On May 19th, CPPW received written updates that layoff The new layoff date was June 30th, 2026.
HR confirmed the qualifications of a staff bump into another position and that they're being determined with information available to them, including years of old resumes and position descriptions, not an accurate assessment of qualifications.
This again is likely to generate a grievance as a contract violation.
CPPW alerted HR that one bureau's management may have been updating vacant position requirements in order to avoid laying off members moving into those positions by creating new, more intensive job descriptions.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Councilor Smith.
Angelita Morillo
And HR has agreed to communicate with the bureau about how to— how trying to subvert seniority protections is a violation of the contract.
The outcome at this point is unclear, but is likely to generate a grievance as well.
Without an accurate bumping list, HR began having layoff meetings with members affected by seniority and bumping.
And after concerns from managers and CPPW were raised, HR postponed, canceled those bumping and layoff meetings with additional staff until an unknown future time.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
So it's very clear from what we have heard from these employees that they were not consulted to the extent that they needed to be.
Many people were left out of this process, and it's very unclear what the actual impacts of this realignment is going to be.
And that is why this amendment is going to buy us time to actually look at those impacts so that we can save core services not just for our employees but also for the people who are receiving the services who live in the city of Portland.
So this is going to be funded by $3.2 million in the business license tax operating reserve for 18 FTE in the general fund and 1 FTE in technology services.
The remaining 27 FTE totaling $4.8 million will be packed by the contingencies of the funds that the respective FTE work from.
And that is our summary.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, and Councilor Maria, are you moving this amendment?
Angelita Morillo
Yes, I'm moving the amendment to be discussed.
Jamie Dunphy
And is there a second?
Mitch Green
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Morillo moves, Morillo, Green, Novick, 1, and Councilor Green seconds.
Colleagues, we are now in debate of the amendment.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I beg your indulgence.
I'm going to talk for a bit about the painful process I have gone through dealing with this issue over the last week, and I will warn you that it doesn't make me look good.
So I have been concerned about what I've been hearing about core realignment, including from the administration, for a number of months.
But I kind of felt like, well, it's not council's job to micromanage the executives, so I don't know what we can do about it.
At some point in the last couple of weeks, I've been hearing about specific positions that people had grave concerns about.
And a couple of them were positions that actually I was told raise money.
Tracy Warren
Yes.
Steve Novick
And one of them, I realized that I personally know the direct manager of that person.
And I called her and she said, yeah, I don't know how the hell I get along without this person.
And I don't know who would've thought that I could.
So that worried me.
And I looked at what was then the Rio Green proposal.
And I was like, you know what, in terms of this worries me too, but in terms of the balance of worries, Yeah.
I'll sign on to it.
I should not have done that without talking to the folks in the administration who would have to implement it, without sort of going through, you know, I should not have done that.
However, and since then, a few things have happened.
One is we've dug for yesterday, as we were just discussing, we've dug further into the BLT reserve with an extra $2.5 million, which raises the concerns we've just been talking about, about impact in city operations and on our credit rating if there's a slight change, a slight negative change in our BLT revenues.
Also, I did what I should have done initially and had a lengthy conversation with Tracy Warren and another one with Jonas about what the impact of this would be.
And they raised concerns, which I hope that they and the mayor actually will bring up now.
So I was, as before, I was worried about the implementation, then I was worried about the implementation of The core realignment.
Now I'm worried about the implementation of this.
Because most of the specific positions I'd heard specific concerns about were in PBOT, I actually asked Tracy if she could help me find out if we did a pause just for PBOT, would that be workable?
And she and Jonas came back and said, actually, if you're going to pick a bureau that could handle that most readily, it would be PBOT.
So frankly, If I were going to make a final decision today, that is probably what I propose— pause just for PBOT.
We do not have to make a final decision today, though.
We have until the adopted to make any decision about whether any legislation is necessary.
And I've checked, nothing we're likely to do would affect the 10% rule.
So we can wait until the adopted.
What I would like to do between now and the adopted is, for one thing, I'd like to have a conversation.
I told the mayor this an hour ago.
Set aside a day where the mayor, the city administrator, maybe a couple of us, Tracy, Ron Zito, sit down with the unions and talk through the issues, not just with core realignment, but the issues that Councilor Murillo just raised about how it's being implemented and how the concerns about how the layoff process is working That would exist whether it was part of a core realignment process or not.
I, again, I really appreciate the idea that— one thing I want to say about the specifics of Rio Green Novick is that it is really prescriptive and detailed and arguably ultimately puts councilors in a position of making one-by-one decisions as to who gets laid off, which I don't know that we need to do.
I mean, I don't know that we want to do.
So that is what I'm hoping.
I've actually suggested as a date for sort of a summit of labor folks, the mayor, the city administrator, Tracy, Ron, a couple of us, if we can fit, is next Friday, which I believe is May 29th.
I know that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney has a suggested budget note in the works.
I'm interested in looking at that.
I don't think that we should rush to approve that or anything today.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Steve Novick
So again, I realize that I'm horribly disappointing some of the— some of our union colleagues by talking about putting a pause on the pause, but that is where I have— that is where I've wound up at the moment.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
I wanted to find out if this amendment includes any PS3s.
In the, in the realignment, does it approve any restoration of any of, of the PS3s at all?
Okay.
Raymond C. Lee
No, the answer is no.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Murillo, for leading on this.
I'm glad that my office could support You know, yesterday we talked about how it could potentially be so catastrophic to the City of Portland to engage in a cut exercise for the top management in the City of Portland, and how in fact that might be dehumanizing.
I think you used that language, Mr. Mayor.
It's dehumanizing.
But I'll tell you what feels dehumanizing— rushing a core realignment process Where the rank and file are just simply told by some outside contractor that your job doesn't matter, that we can do without yours, that we don't have enough time to engage the workers because we just— you're not as necessary to this process as these professionals that we've hired out, that we've contracted out.
That's pretty dehumanizing.
And so again, I think in an organization where we have billions of dollars of contingency reserves spread across the organization, and we know we're going to get— we have forecasted expectation that we are going to be able to replenish this fund in a meaningful amount of time.
It's prudent to be able to pause here and say, can we do it right?
That's the other side of this conversation.
You can't on one side of it say it's reckless and irresponsible to identify a 20% budget cut for top management and then use your very highly paid DCAs to help you figure that out as a priority, and then on the other side say it's okay to continue to just go forward with this while we know we've got layoff slips out.
It's disruptive to their families.
They're going to lose healthcare on July 30th.
Those are the stakes.
And so I challenge my labor counselors up here To think about that and remember what your values are when we think about what is our priority in this situation.
I'm going to share with you a chart right here.
So this is from SAP.
This is our internal financial database.
And I showed a version of this yesterday, and it shows the difference between the supervisory personnel versus the non-supervisory personnel over the last several years.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Mitch Green
And the impact of the core realignment, if we were to implement Morillo-Green-Novick 1 today, that little red line there up at the end would be the impact on that ratio of non-supervisory to supervisory.
So you might hear today that if we, if we were to adopt this amendment, it'd be catastrophic because workers wouldn't know who their bosses were.
I still see a lot at the top.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah.
Mitch Green
So I'll just leave it there, colleagues.
And I'm sorry if I'm being hyperbolic and passionate about this, but I see people in the back of the room weeping because they don't know what's going to happen to the healthcare coverage for their families on July 30th.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Knell.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
First thing first, if— I don't know if this is affecting anyone's thoughts on this one, whether or not you want to save money in the fund for the one we just I think it's tabled, but don't worry about it.
I'll get to that in a minute.
But I did want to talk about, specific to this amendment, we have done a lot of things in this budget already, but what we haven't yet done is stood up for our workers in a really meaningful, broad way.
We have had 2 opportunities so far to correct the relative slope of our organizational chart, which has become Yes.
Less of a pyramid and more of a pillar.
We haven't taken that, but we've also not addressed the idea that we have set a target without necessarily doing all of the preparatory work to get there.
I have talked to colleagues in a slightly different amendment context about how important it is, I think, that the city administrator gets a change management person because of the way that we've had to go about this.
I think that's a really important thing.
And I will be supporting that particular position when we get to those conversations because of how difficult it is to be realigned.
And I mentioned that I've experienced it not as someone who's been realigned, but as someone who got hired newly into a service area core that people were getting realigned into.
I want to just make a rhetorical point here, which is that it is— and I appreciate the people I'm going to name here very much for the work they do, but it is very easy for us to get input and advice from people like DCA Warren and CFO Beery, and they give good advice and they're credible, but it's very easy to get it from them because they're here in this building.
And one of the challenges with managing a large organization is you get to see some people more than others.
I don't know the name of a single person in PBOT except from the people that I toured with who actually pay the fills in potholes.
I did a couple tours.
I met some people there, but I don't see them all the time.
They're not here in the Portland Building or in City Hall.
And one of the challenges that we face is that by necessity, by necessity gives us more information from the folks who are here and also from management.
And as a manager, I was a Manager 1 at the city.
I understand what limiting factors that has on your informational base.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
So I, I just want to start by, by laying that out there.
I think it's really important that we get these things right.
I've, I've very strongly appreciated what Councilor Ryan has talked about on some of these issues in the past, where there is— there are times where it is better to work together as a service area and not have everybody in the bureaus.
There are times where sometimes it's better to have your direct report be in another place and be embedded in a bureau.
I think about equity all the time, that it is It's definitely helpful to have a line dotted or straight to the Office of Equity and Human Rights and not have all the equity people just be out kind of on 27 unique islands.
That's different, and that can be done by itself.
It does not require a 20% target over 2 years.
It does not require layoffs.
And so that's the distinction that we're talking about here.
I really appreciate the colleagues who have been working on this.
Jonas Biery
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
I think it's a necessity.
We had other opportunities to take the right stance for our workers, our rank-and-file workers, our union workers, our workers that do not work in City Hall or the Portland Building, although some of them do work in the Portland Building, and you're great too.
I appreciate you all as well.
But, um, I think that's just a really important point to think about here.
We don't have a lot of other opportunities coming up to do that.
And so I just want to thank all 3 of the councilors who worked on this.
And say it's time that we make our commitments that we've made in countless votes on approving union contracts where we say Portland is a pro-union city and this is a pro-union council and to actually live up to that.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Kanal, I appreciate what you just said because I have often said that the reason that we see that dividing line where management grows and frontline workers doesn't is because it's easier for people to say yes to a layoff for somebody whose name they don't know.
And so I appreciate you recognizing and acknowledging here that dynamic.
Thank you.
In the conversations that we're having.
You know, I could say ditto, ditto, ditto to almost everything Councilor Novick said, as many people up here often do.
We have had some real, what I think are grave concerns raised to us about some of the positions captured within realignment, positions that are labeled For example, as IT, because they use GIS tools but they don't manage that tool like somebody who should be in a core service area, they apply it to work being done.
And we need to catch those.
One of the inefficiencies of the way our processes work here is that many people start to do similar work when we hear those things, and we don't all know that others are working on it.
And to that end, because I knew it might be referenced here, Councilor Novick referenced a budget note that my team has been working on that I am not planning on moving today because we are holding budget notes until later, and because I think that it or this amendment or any other work best comes after the summit that Councilor Novick described.
But I wanted to make sure folks had it so that it wasn't a thing hanging out there that no one had seen if it was referenced.
And we sent it to the clerk too so that it can be posted and available to the public.
I will say it is a little bit drafty because we were working on it for the budget note deadline, not for today.
We need to get realignment right.
Because if we do realignment right, although it may be painful because there may be places where there are layoffs, it will be because it is the right model moving forward to provide services to Portlanders.
And if we do it wrong, it will be disastrous for our employees and for the people who we serve.
So, Councilor Novick, I want to thank you for having some conversations and getting agreement to have that.
I think summit was the word that you used.
Um, Councilor—.
Steve Novick
So far, I don't know if I've gotten agreement from anybody.
I've just floated the idea.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Oh, well, I thought it sounded like you had gotten agreement that we were going to pull this together.
Um, Councilors Green and Murillo, I want to thank you and Councilor Novick for working on something here.
I think we need to continue this work over the next couple of weeks, bring our labor partners in.
Um, I think there should be a few councilors in that room and actually have the conversation with our top managers and our labor partners about how we move this forward so that we can get the most efficient service for Portlanders as possible in a way that actually provides good services and figure out what needs to be in this budget before we pass it in June.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
I'm checking my queue very quickly.
I'm going to go ahead and extend a courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Keith Wilson
Council President, thank you.
Council colleagues, thank you.
And I want to thank the sentiment from Morillo, Green, and Novick.
I share your same focus.
Anytime we have departures of staff, it's a failure.
It's a failure in our community.
It's a failure in our city to manage it appropriately.
We're at this point right now.
We have hard work to do.
We were greeted with a $130 million deficit last year.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
And it grew to $160 million this year.
CFO Biery put together a 5-year stabilization program.
We're in year 1.
It's crisis response.
And these are very difficult decisions that are not going to get any easier on any of us.
But we need to develop the muscle memory in which to run the city well, effectively, and with fiscal responsibility, which is the mandate from our residents.
This process didn't happen overnight.
It happened before my tenure started, and we've spent 16 months now going through this core realignment in a very effective, meaningful, inclusive manner.
My concern with this amendment is, is that it's pitting coworker against coworker.
Managers are as important as any staff member, whether represented or not.
Mitch Green
Councilmember Smith.
Keith Wilson
It's the alarm that I have.
We need to continue to focus on one city because the only way we change the culture to address these crises is together.
When we unfairly pit each other against, all of us are losers.
No one wins in that regard.
And then the, the, the point is, is we've talked about contingency funds for the last 2 days.
We set up these reserve accounts for a reason so we cannot have to pick from them, so we can get back to a growing revenue-focused city instead of one that is, from a self-inflicted standpoint, continuing to devolve downward.
This is the year in which we make that pivot and we start talking about our resurgence and our recovery, and we're doing it together.
While I know today is extremely painful, Mm-hmm.
We have to continue the hard, important work.
This amendment only allows us 45 days to make the changes in something that has been going on for over 16 months.
This started well before any of us arrived here.
We need to have the diligence and the trust in our teams to move forward.
And Councilor Novick, I understand we want our union partners at the table.
I can't agree more.
And the point I noted an hour ago, Fine, I'm happy to be a part of any summit, but it also has to include the management staff of our city.
Again, it's one city.
We have to do this together or else it'll just tear us apart at the seams.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Mayor.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Mayor, I just want you to realize that a lot of our employees do not think that this has been an inclusive process and It's taken 16 months, but I think that we know that there have been some significant mistakes made in the process.
The supervisor I talked to said, nobody asked me how I can get along without this position.
She's somebody I have a lot of respect for, and she's a straight shooter.
And I don't know how many other instances like that there are.
So I, again, am— I hear what you say about— I actually would like to hear DCA Warren talk about concerns about the elements of the Rio Green Novick proposal, specifically the 45-day turnaround.
I do think that it's really prescriptive, and I'm willing to hear concerns that it's unworkable as written.
But things have gone on for 16 months, but we are not in a good place right now.
And I think we do need to do some work over the next couple of weeks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Smith.
Steve Novick
To see if somehow we can get into a somewhat better place in terms of both whether we're undermining city services by cutting the wrong people or dehumanizing city employees by just sort of treating them poorly in the context of the, of the layoff process.
And as far as bringing city managers in, of course.
I mean, I, over the past couple of days, have been having some conversations with DCA Warren and some conversations with Carrie Coe with CPBW.
And Tracy said, hey, put Carrie in touch with me directly.
I want to do that.
So I'm not saying we exclude the managers.
They're an important part of the conversation.
DCA Warren, would you share some of the concerns that you, that you brought to me about that, about what Maria O'Green Novick has written?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Absolutely.
Tracy Warren
For the record, Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator, for city operations.
I want to start by clearing up information related to the number of positions and specifically people that will be impacted through reductions of both citywide decisions as well as core service realignment.
Loretta Smith
Pardon.
Tracy Warren
So in total, we have 116 employees that are impacted by the proposed budget.
94 Are represented, 22 are non-rep, 17 are managers.
Of that, 46 are part of core service realignment.
Within those numbers, 32 are represented, 11 are managers, and 3 are non-rep. Today, As early as this morning, council had restored some of the cuts citywide, and last count, we had restored about 11 out of those total 116 positions or people.
So I wanted to start there to just really put some context around the magnitude and scope of decisions that we're making.
Related to the people.
I care deeply about the people of this organization.
The hardest time I've ever had in my career as an HR professional is laying people off.
I never want to do that to people.
I know how much they care about the work of the city and how much they rely on the money that we pay them.
So I do not take these decisions lightly at all.
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Tracy Warren
And, you know, the colleagues who are sitting next to me, as well as in the room, spent a great deal of time deliberating over where could we take potential cuts without breaking things, causing additional risk to the organization, risk including legal risk, additional costs associated with cuts.
So we spent a lot of time doing that, and we gave you all different levels of proposal to reflect worst-case scenario and how we might be able to mitigate.
I will say that had council came back to us and said, you know, we actually don't want to cut at that level, we could have came back to you with more ideas because we do appreciate all the work that people are providing.
Jonas Biery
Thank you.
Tracy Warren
For the City of Portland and specifically to the core services.
I want to turn it over to a couple of our directors, Elise, our Chief Information Officer, and Ron, our HR Director, because I think they have some really specific examples of the type of things that may go wrong based on the way the amendment is written out today.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Elise.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Allyson Rosenberg, Director of the Bureau of Technology Services.
Appreciate the opportunity.
I think that the couple of examples of concerns I might cite are in what I understand is the intention to pause and retain the represented folks in the bureaus where they currently reside, but not pause the alignment or cut of the management staff.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
And we have a couple of examples where that could lead bureaus to have an untenable span of control with those folks that remain without the management staff.
So for example, in the Bureau of Technology Services, part of our realignment intention was to combine some teams that both do desk-side support.
So the folks that come and do an awesome job when you need help.
Dan Ryan
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
That requires hands-on machines.
We have folks on one team that do that for police, and we have folks on another team that do that for the rest of the city.
So part of our plan was to combine those and combine the management.
If we remove a manager but don't do the combining, then we have 11 folks without a manager who would have to be absorbed.
Tracy Warren
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
In a group that already has 37 folks reporting to the other 3 supervisors there.
And in another example where we have bureaus who either through the hiring freeze or in anticipation of realignment have been pausing on making decisions about filling supervisory or management staff by leaving staff in bureaus as opposed to in a service area, we might have folks that end up with 20 or 30 direct reports because they've deliberately chosen not to fill those positions.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Herbold.
Unidentified speaker
Chosen to await realignment or they've chosen not to request exceptions to the hiring freeze.
Thanks, Elise.
Good afternoon, councilors.
Ron Zito
For the record, Ron Zito, HR Director for the city.
I do want to emphasize a point that DCA Warren made a moment ago, which is the fact that every single one of these impacts, the 46 under the core services realignment, is an individual that we care deeply about and do not want to see impacted.
That includes whether they're represented or non-represented, particularly as it relates to this proposal and this amendment.
There are impacts of leaving staff without a direct manager.
I don't want to be redundant to what Elise just shared, but I'll share just a couple quick examples.
One in BES, which is— and both of these examples include managers who are excellent at their jobs and critical to the delivery of these services.
So one in BES has a team of 13 staff who perform and oversee HR duties as well as fleet, financial, and planning duties.
They report— and this individual reports directly to the director of BES with a span of 21 reports.
Their departure and the reassignment of staff outside of BHR would increase that Director spanned to 34 direct reports and 1,200 total indirects, an untenable span of control.
Another example would be in Portland Parks.
Again, another really critical individual who— Coordinator 3 that currently supervises 5 direct reports.
If, if there was a cut there and staff would be reassigned to that next-level manager, that next-level manager is also being cut, and that would leave 18 employees without a direct manager, all of those moving up to the Deputy Director of Parks, and they would balloon to over 20 direct reports.
And again, that's not— that's just the direct reports.
That's not even to speak to the operational impacts that would leave folks without oversight.
I won't go into those, but that's maybe just where I'll leave it.
Tracy Warren
Thank you both, Ron and Elise.
I asked Ron and Elise to share these examples because I think it's important for you all to understand the magnitude of the work And decisions that went into combining teams and working towards a service area model for embedded teams.
We did that, and we had the emphasis on creating a span of control across those areas that was more reflective of the feedback that I've heard through this council.
What that means is, is that it's going to take us time to undo the work, just like it took us time to get to this point.
If you undo part of that work and leave the rest of it, we will spend a good amount of time figuring out how to make sure employees are supported and can do their jobs before we will ever be able to get to the level of detail that you are asking us to do in the amendment.
We can't just drop everything and walk away.
It wouldn't be helpful to employees or to the org.
Steve Novick
Mr. President, I want to ask the mayor and City Attorney Lee if they have the capacity in the next couple of weeks I believe we can in the next couple weeks.
Raymond C. Lee
I know there'll be some people out of office towards the 29th, but if we can make it happen before then, we could probably build in the capacity for that.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Steve Novick
And also, I think I see Carrie Ko with CPPW in the audience.
I'd like to ask, with your permission, Mr.
Jamie Dunphy
President, if she could give sort of her perspective Happy to, but just noting we are at 11 minutes for this section.
Mitch Green
Council President, I was in the queue to ask that same question, so I would cede that time.
Jamie Dunphy
Great, thanks.
Unidentified speaker
Hello, Kerry Ko, president of City of Portland Professional Workers Union.
Kerry Ko
If I had known I would be speaking, I would have taken out my Invisalign, but here we are.
So thank you for inviting me up.
So your question to me, Councilor Novick, is our perspective on how this is going?
Raymond C. Lee
Yes.
Kerry Ko
So for the past year, CPPW and our other labor allies, and even some of the supervisors that you all are speaking to, been speaking out about how core realignment is affecting your staff and how we have not been included in the process, how people have not been asked to explain what their jobs are, what they do, how people are caught up in this who are not associated with those areas of work, how you are taking HR people who work in the bureaus right now, moving them into the HR bureau and taking them out of the union, right?
You are union busting those positions.
And how we think that this needs a clear plan, clear priorities, and a clear way forward that it does not have right now to our understanding.
And so we put a year— I mean, I think that folks are right.
This is not something that's happening overnight.
This has been a year or more a year and a half even maybe of planning, and this is still where we're at.
And I think that's important to note, that this has had a lot of time to figure out the plan, and we are still not there yet.
And so rushing it in the last moment of the budget process, which is what it feels like to the staff who are being impacted by this, by laying them off on June 30th without extending healthcare to July first, which from our experiences would be at least the minimum to do, that feels like you are not taking seriously the work that they do and you are taking a risk in losing that work that will negatively impact the city.
This is not just your training analysts who are providing safety training across the city.
This is not just your GIS folks at PBOT who are providing critical work.
This is Not just your HR professionals who are doing a huge variety of work around the city.
This includes folks who are doing tree training with community groups who have been scooped up into the HR realignment.
Why is that?
Is HR going to start training community groups to plant trees?
I don't think so.
These are the kind of questions that we have, and these are the kind of problems that you're going to deal with when this— as this moves forward so we can take the time to do this right or deal with the risks of doing it wrong, negatively impacting both your staff and the communities that rely on the services that we provide.
That is our take on the matter.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Carrie.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Novick.
Thank you, Carrie.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
Oh, I should—.
Jamie Dunphy
Marine, I, I—.
Raymond C. Lee
You go ahead.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, thanks, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Um, I— this is an incredibly frustrating discussion for a lot of reasons.
I think we all sat here in the same room yesterday when we saw council colleagues go to the mat for management positions and leave frontline workers Today to be left up on the altar of sacrifice.
The mayor says it's important because we're all colleagues and we are all the same and we all have important roles.
And I think that that's true in spirit but not in practice, because that's not actually what we're seeing playing out here, and that's not what we're seeing playing out in the cuts.
Because yesterday we saw in the mayor's proposed budget in what my council colleagues are doing, that people are only fighting for managers and not for frontline workers.
And when we have a high amount of managers but not enough workers to actually implement the work of the city, then what we are doing is also hurting those frontline employees because their workload isn't necessarily changing or being offset.
They are still having to deliver all the same core services, but now they're working 3 jobs But they have one manager to occasionally give them feedback.
I'm also— it's absolutely mind-boggling to me, honestly, to hear for the first time this idea of a summit.
It's a half-baked idea that the mayor hasn't even committed to.
And you know what it sounds a lot like?
It sounds like a pause.
It sounds like a realignment pause.
I have no idea what we're hoping to accomplish in this summit.
In a process that has taken months to work on, when we are proposing an amendment today that our cut on the span of control is an average of 1 to 3.
So for every supervisor or manager that is cut, that would be an increase of 3 full-time employees for a year for us to figure out this process.
And Mayor, I'm not sure where you got your 45-day number.
Loretta Smith
I don't know.
Angelita Morillo
I would love to hear what your justification is for that, because this is a pause to give us more time to figure this out for a year.
I— this is just astounding, honestly.
Also, I think we filed our amendments ahead of schedule on Thursday.
They were due Friday.
We're talking to people.
People are bringing in last-minute ideas of a summit.
This is the first time I'm hearing of it.
What are we doing here, people?
We have an opportunity to support frontline workers today, not later on down the line.
And I like that this council, every single time we have an opportunity today during the budget cycle to actually do an amendment to fix things, we keep saying, well, don't worry, we can do it months later.
No, we can't.
The employees that are going to be laid off right now are going to be gone.
Councilmember Koyama Lane.
And it is also extremely disturbing to me that in the meetings we've been having with the executive behind the scenes, they're openly telling us that they might have to rehire some of these experts later on.
Do we actually think that these city employees are going to just be waiting for us to call them back?
No, they're gonna go get other jobs.
They're gonna take their expertise elsewhere.
And I think the CPBW employees that Average span that they've been at the city is about 10 years.
You think you're just gonna acquire 10 years of institutional knowledge again with new people that you bring in when you have to rehire their expertise?
We are losing the fabric of our city in these people that are holding it all together.
And I know we have tough decisions to make.
I just wish that they were being made more thoughtfully.
I wish that we didn't have city employees coming to our offices telling us.
Secret feedback because they felt like they couldn't talk to us.
I wish that they had been engaged before all of this.
And so I am asking you colleagues who claim to be labor champions to pass the realignment package today so that we can pause this process and do it the way that it should have been done.
And I want to point out as well that back in the fall, I asked about all of this.
I asked if continuing the realignments was a good idea, and we were set— we were told yes, it was.
I asked if management or anybody else had concerns about the level of cuts that were needed to be done because they might not be able to achieve it, and they said yes, that they could do it.
And now we are here today.
Tracy Warren
Councilor Smith.
Angelita Morillo
So this isn't a— this isn't a budget note.
This isn't a suggestion.
This isn't a summit for which we don't even have an agenda for yet.
This is an actual material change that we can do today.
So if we— can we please be serious today and just actually get this done?
I, I am just genuinely appalled.
I don't want to hear about A summit that no one has discussed as we are amending the budget.
That is insulting to city employees, frankly.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Koyama Lane, and apologies for skipping you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No worries.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, President Coe, for coming up, uh, not knowing that was going to happen.
Also, thank you to the directors that came up and the DCA for sharing.
To me, this pause just makes so much sense.
I am a little surprised right now.
This is a pro-labor amendment that really says we need to slow down.
I'm actually not sure if my colleagues all realize that we, this council, is known around the world as a pro-labor city council.
I have an article pulled up right now that Lori Wimmer and I were so excited that came out on November 20th that says how the labor movement built a coalition to transform Politics in Portland.
People are watching us.
Now is a time to think about what it means to you to think of yourself as pro-labor, to think of our council as pro-labor, because I have heard from some of my colleagues up here who have said they don't want to pause merit pay for managers or COLA for managers making over $150K or $200K because they think it would be bad for morale.
Councilor Guess what?
The morale's really bad for our rank-and-file union members right now.
This needs to be an amendment, not a budget note.
Councilor Murray, I was trying to remember, um, Murillo 7, the budget note from last year.
Or was it 7, the one around communications?
Unidentified speaker
9?
Sameer Kanal
11.
Unidentified speaker
11.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Oh my gosh, we've been submitting for a year on how we communicate between the— Yeah, let's not, let's not, please.
Let's have it be an amendment.
Maybe we tweak this amendment a bit.
Maybe we say that we check back in in the next quarter if we risk cutting too many managers.
How can that— how can we work within this to adjust that so we have some flexibility to prevent untenable spans of control?
I want to share, right after I won, I had someone come up to me who's a union member.
And they said they are so glad that I am on this council because I am not just a friend of labor, I am labor.
And because it's really nice to have friends, but the thing is, some, some friends are fake friends.
I'm the only rank-and-file union member on this body.
I take it really seriously that I have the responsibility to speak up, and I'm used I'm used— I'm leaned on very much by this body.
Anytime there's a union contract where there's a struggle to get it across the line, we pull some councilors together.
I'm always pulled into that room to help wrap up that contract.
So if you trust me then, please listen to me that I'm saying we should listen to our city workers and we should slow down because our city workers are watching and workers all across Portland are watching because our struggle is intertwined and union members know that.
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
First off, ditto to everything that Councilor Koyama Lane just said, with one little caveat that our council president is a rank-and-file member of Musicians Local 99, I believe.
But other than that, I agree completely.
I want to speak to one specific thing, which is there's managers and there's managers.
And I don't mean that as a good or bad thing.
Keith Wilson
I mean it as a matter of fact.
Sameer Kanal
I'm saying management often has multiple layers.
You ask a Manager 1 what their team needs, they might give you a different answer than the director of a bureau.
And they might speak to that a little bit differently because a Manager 1 generally knows what the analysts and the coordinators and everything else are doing.
Um, upper-level management prevented me from filling a position that was a coordinator position for 3 years.
That not only was there funding available for an EMS, but also we had legal advice saying we should fill.
And that legal advice was provided in public.
I'm not waiving anything here by saying that.
And we had to contract out some of that work as a result.
And that is not because of any big picture policy or anything like that.
It's because there is actually a difference when you talk to the people Who again see what is being done directly versus see the person who sees the person who sees the person who sees what's being done directly.
And this is why I'll go back to what we talked about during the auditor work session, which is we really, really need a way for employees to anonymously give feedback that goes directly to the elected officials of the city.
Because I, I can put out a map of the coffee shops that I've met city employees at who did not want to meet with me.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
At a city building.
And it is a little more in D4 than I'd like.
I'd prefer to meet in D2 coffee shops.
Shout out to all the, you know, whatever.
Two Stroke Coffee shouted me out yesterday, so I want to give them a shout out back.
Go there if you're in St. Johns.
But there is a lot of this happening, and these are not just the folks who are caught up in the core realignment conversation, although some of them are.
It's, I think, a question of just how are we making the decisions we're making here today?
Angelita Morillo
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
So I just, I wanted to make sure I mentioned that.
In terms of the idea, I really appreciate the reference to one of the budget notes.
I'll also note that there was another budget note last year, which I believe was '08.
Yeah, Canal '08 last year, where we started looking at the management positions and said, what can we do there?
That's a little outside the scope here, but it, I think, highlights the fact that it just isn't happening.
Robert Taylor
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Whenever we do it through a note, it just doesn't happen.
The only way is to make the statement through a— and this is the same thing with resolutions and ordinances.
It's here now, notes and amendments.
It's do the thing that creates a process that starts to think.
We've been talking about it for a long time.
I've been talking about it long enough.
I'm personally ready for a vote here, so I won't go back in the queue, but I think it's time we put up or shut up.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, I will note it is 3 o'clock and we've been on this item for just about an hour.
And we have 5 more colleagues in the queue before we can get to a vote.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
I think that the team that was here probably needs to come back to the table.
So, um, I just want to make sure that we've got some clear numbers understood here.
There's 2 lines of effort that I, as I can view them, that are That are hitting us with respect to employees and their layoffs.
One line of effort is a budget reduction, and one line of effort is a realignment.
The numbers that, Tracy, you said was 116 total, but 46 of those are part of the realignment.
Am I hearing that correctly?
There are some 70 or so that were purely in the budget world of reduction.
They were not realignment That's correct.
Tracy Warren
And what I was speaking to are people impacts versus position impacts.
If we were to talk about position impacts, that's different.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay.
Tracy Warren
That's a greater number.
Eric Zimmerman
People meaning like a real person in a real job right now?
Dan Ryan
That's correct.
Tracy Warren
People who are leaving the door.
Eric Zimmerman
Got it.
Thank you.
Um, that, that's helpful.
With about 7,400 employees overall, That's correct.
Which, quick math puts it at 0.6% are in the realignment category.
I, I bring this up because, Mayor, I wish that in your answer you had answered maybe a little bit more specifically, right?
I, I very much consider these 2 different lines of effort.
There's realignment, which was charter-driven, new form of government-driven, uh, an expiring of the relic of the of the bureau as the kingdom and moving into a whole city.
But then there's our budget constraint.
In your explanation, you kind of combined those into one, and I think that has muddied the water in so many of the coffee shops that folks are meeting in and so many of the conversations.
So I'm pulling those apart because I think those are distinctly different.
And in that, you know, my focus this year has been Moving into a very bad budget season was with respect to the budget numbers, very much doing what— wherever I can to protect what I consider the front line.
So for me, the front line is not the first person sitting in an office somewhere coordinating.
For me, that's the people who mow the grass, that's the people who clean the bathrooms, that's the people who respond to a 911 call.
When I talked about front line, Right.
That, that is really what I'm talking about.
There's other stuff that falls more in the category of— I'll put it in support services— that is more difficult from this chair to articulate what it means.
And that's really the realignment side of it.
Um, and that, that part, um, I want to talk— I want to just get a sense of some process here, right?
I, I am an— I'm a commander of a 634-person organization.
Change is not something I'm not used to.
I've gone through a lot of changes where a big part of our organization said that the little part had to change, and we felt like there was something misaligned there.
That part's normal.
What I've found somewhat strange is that throughout the budget work sessions, we've had bureau directors or deputy directors come up and not have command of the information, meaning that they didn't know why a certain employee was or wasn't—.
Unidentified speaker
Right.
Eric Zimmerman
On or off the block, so to speak.
I think that has also muddied the water.
So, but that does happen in, in large groups.
So my question is that at a level, maybe to the point that Councilor Novick is referencing, if I was a mid-level manager and I found out that a significant portion of my business was being changed in this, Was there the ability for me to say, hold on, I have one employee who does that job that keeps this entire system alive.
I'd like to make the case for that not to be part of the reduction package or the realignment.
Was that a possibility for mid to upper bureau folks to do, or was it entirely at the executive level?
City Ops level.
I'm just trying to get a sense of the process there.
Tracy Warren
Absolutely.
Eric Zimmerman
I'm used to being the person to say that's actually not their job, this is their job, let me just clarify it, and you change the narrative.
I just want to get a sense of the process.
Tracy Warren
Absolutely.
For the record, Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator for City Operations.
So yes, you know, the process that we went through, because Frankly, we were not provided any resources to do this work, so we didn't add to our teams to make this happen, which meant myself and the directors were doing this in addition to everything else.
So what we did is we assigned people to be what we were calling shared service managers to represent the core bureau.
And then we asked each of the DCAs to identify someone for their service area.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Tracy Warren
As a business operations lead who would work on behalf of their service area.
The goal of those business operations leads was to work within their service area to help us identify what folks were doing, where there might be risk.
And in many cases, not all, but in many cases, you know, business operations leads worked with the shared service manager to go, I think we have this one wrong, but I think it might be this over here instead.
And so they did a lot of that work.
We specifically did not meet with every manager or every employee.
And I think that I have said that in prior conversations because frankly, we didn't have the capacity to do that.
So we did do things like subgroups where a smaller group of employees were representative of a specific function that was being discussed and how we were going to work towards a design.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thanks.
Um, you know, wherever this goes, I have read your amendment— excuse me, your budget note, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
I think it largely looks like what I would call a status quo, meaning that— and I don't— that's not a dig.
That's a— if the administration goes down the line, they're like, we made a mistake, where they bring a budget modification forward and say— I understand that.
I get it.
I think that organizationally, we have a lack of leadership in the mid-levels of the bureaus and a lack of leadership at the bureau level.
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Eric Zimmerman
In terms of the cultural and lines of business, right?
My test for a good, bad manager is if a manager brings HR in to give you bad news, probably have a bad manager at your fingertips.
And so, right, having the ability— that goes along with knowing what the people on your team do, what their job is, how you rely on them as a manager.
And I think there's some of that.
Jonas Biery
Yeah.
Eric Zimmerman
That is here, and it's really showing itself.
When I was an AFSCME member at Multnomah County, um, I learned some dangerous lessons, which is I was a property appraiser, and they had a terrible tendency of making the best property appraiser the next supervisor or manager.
And just because you can count value doesn't make you good at managing a system or people.
Something tells me that there's a lot of that at play here, um, in listening to kind of how this went and based on How I've heard things go.
So that's troubling for me.
I do think that the realignment being 0.6% of our overall employee group is very tough on an individual level, but tiny in an organizational perspective.
And with the wholesale change in the government from 2022 to now, I actually expected, and I've told many people this, I expected that it probably was going to be much, much higher.
Raymond C. Lee
Yeah.
Eric Zimmerman
So I'm, I'm struggling with this.
Uh, I'd like— I know there are a few people in the queue here.
I, I do appreciate you answering the questions, DCA Warren, um, to help me understand what that process was for raising a flag if there was a concern on a certain line of business or a group of employees.
Um, but I am very much separating that out from the other reductions in our workforce and the layoffs that are coming from, uh, the budget constraint and not the realignment efforts.
So thanks, Mr. President.
That's all I have.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Uh, folks, hang, hang out for a bit.
We got some more questions in the queue.
Raymond C. Lee
Just one second, Council President.
I, I would like to say, you know, as we have our managers within this organization, I think one thing I've seen as I've been here Not quite 5 months yet, but getting there is— Councilor Zimmerman, you're right from the standpoint of saying someone was great at making a widget, so we made them the supervisor of that widget.
I've seen that, and I've seen that throughout my career in organizations.
I think one of the things that we are lacking as an organization is once we recognize that As leaders within the organization, what are the services and the professional development we are wrapping around people to help them become better managers?
There is no training and development program in our city of 7,000 employees to prepare them to be future leaders in this organization.
That creates a tremendous amount of, of Issues in our organization not having that basic professional development to get people prepared to be able to manage and get them prepared to be able to help grow their own employees that are working for them in the organization.
I know we have people that are working managers.
I know we have people who are just supervising, and I know there's a ton of work that is happening throughout the organization.
To try to help support the services that we're providing to the community.
Is there room for growth as an organization from a personnel to a structure to a culture of the organization?
Absolutely, yes.
And we have to build upon that, but that takes time.
Even time from the standpoint, if we're looking at reevaluating how the realignment work happens.
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Raymond C. Lee
If we do this, we're just going back and doing the same issue again.
With not having the adequate oversight of a process like this, you create issues.
You know, for the team members that are sitting up here, just their day jobs alone is a tremendous amount of work.
And you throw on a realignment project On top of the day-to-day operations of just running an $8.5, $8.6 billion operation, this, this is what you have.
And I just don't want us to see us create the same issues again and again and just be insane about how we go about trying to correct the issues that we're seeing in the organization if we're not going to be strategic about it.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Raymond C. Lee
If we're not going to be outcome-driven about it, I really don't know what we're doing.
So I would just say at the very end of this, and I turn it back over to the council president, I want us to be very thoughtful about how we go about this work moving forward, the impacts of it, the outcomes that we're looking for, and let's be strategic about our approach in all of this.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, City Administrator.
Colleagues, I'm limiting debate to those who are in the queue.
There are still 6 more colleagues in the queue.
So I'm asking no one else to please get in.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Council President, I believe others haven't spoken yet.
Would you like to give them the opportunity first?
I'm happy to go if you prefer to go in this order.
Jamie Dunphy
I've sort of lost track of who has spoken on this.
Okay.
So why don't you just go ahead?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Sorry.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That either works for me.
City Administrator Lee, Councilor Novick asked a question I have a question, and I don't feel like I got a totally clear response.
Are you willing to work with the council president and union leaders from unions that represent our city staff to have everybody sit down before our budget is finalized to discuss any changes that need to be made to Yeah, I'll be committed to that.
Okay, and we just need to find a date that works for everybody?
Raymond C. Lee
Correct.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
I just needed a little bit more of a clear answer there.
Colleagues, we have bargained or have approved the bargaining of a lot of contracts since we joined this council, and we've had a lot of conversations about knowing that with tight budgets We were going to have to make some hard decisions about whether to limit increases in compensation for city employees who certainly deserve to be the best paid folks in their industries because of the good work that they do, knowing that that would draw down funds and probably lead to additional layoffs, or whether to hold back.
Some in order to avoid layoffs.
And we had conversations about asking people to do a little more with a little less and compensating them for it.
We have had countless conversations about realignment and about realignment being both an exercise in getting how our city operates right and an exercise in addressing the need for cuts I don't like using the word reductions.
It sugarcoats things.
Cuts in difficult budgets.
And we allowed those 2 things to move in conjunction.
That wasn't just one or 2 councilors.
Those were conversations that we all had.
We seem as a city to be somewhat terrible at our employee relations, and that has to change.
The The fact that I have heard repeatedly since taking— since stepping into this role, since being elected, from our city employees that they don't feel like they get heads up about things is a problem.
And I want us to find a solution to it.
But I'm unclear today on whether or not we're still committed to realignment as a goal.
And I'm unclear clear on whether our concern, or the concern that led to this being brought before us, is that we are terrible at our relationship with our employees.
And I want to look at every single union leader in this room and say, I will continue to say that, and I will continue to push management to do better.
And if we can't change it without action from this body, I will figure out what I can do to force us to work with you better and give you heads-ups about things and treat you as a partner.
But I'm unclear as to whether that's the problem, or whether the concern being raised is that we really missed the mark on a few positions in realignment, which I think we have, or whether the concern being raised is in fact that there are layoffs And it is quite literally our city employees and the unions that they are a part of's job to fight to prevent those layoffs.
But it is also what we asked for in realignment, or whether the concern is that there are layoffs at all and folks don't like that and want to prevent it.
I can't tell what the problem is because the These things are all getting conflated in what I'm hearing up here from my colleagues.
So I want to be clear that I think we made our bed on layoffs.
We asked for that in core realignment.
We asked for that in asking to put more money on the table for contract negotiations and saying we knew that that was because there would be layoffs and we wanted the people who were still here to provide key services at our city to be paid well.
I want to be clear that I am here to fight for the places where we have messed up Encore Realignment to make sure we get it right.
I want to be clear that I am here to fight for making sure that our employees are at the table always.
I will take the city administrator at his word that he's willing to prioritize time for that in the next few weeks because he's not broken his word to me yet.
I hope this isn't the first.
But I also can't say we didn't know this was coming because we asked for this.
So I'm a little clear— unclear on what it is that we need to solve for.
Other than making sure we have those conversations, we get it right.
There isn't contracting out.
There isn't union busting.
I have already had conversations about making sure that where workers who currently have the privilege of belonging to a union are not that management does not fight against you if you.
Ask to form a union in the places that you are moving to.
Let's make sure we get this right, but we have to move to do that.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
My priority is to be a good fiscal steward and to pass a budget that respectfully serves Portlanders.
That begins and ends with a high-performing public servant.
Which are all of you, and we want to set each and every one of you up for success.
I deeply care about the union members who are with us today.
Thank you for taking your personal time to be here this afternoon.
And as a collective, this council has proven to be pro-labor since we convened in 2025.
We're all proud of that.
I agree with all your comments, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, we knew this day was coming.
We also knew that this would be painful no matter what.
Rating fund reserves puts us in a financial vulnerability, as Jonas talked about, and kicks this can down the road.
Make most— make no mistake, we'll be here again, whether now or again in a year.
As I experienced my 6th budget with our revenues being flat at best and our expenses have risen, again, here we are.
I want to get this functional realignment right.
We all do.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
I want us to include the voices of all levels of our city staff.
I want the feedback loop to include employees as partners.
This is continuous improvement work.
This is the streamlining of our operations that voters approved when they passed the charter in 2022.
I, I want to end with 2 questions that I think would be helpful.
One is, uh, to the sponsors.
Can you tell me what success What outcomes are you looking for that you're not currently experiencing?
Angelita Morillo
I think that success looks like the administration— I understand that there's limited bandwidth, but the amount of managers who have told me they were not contacted to have any discussion about what the core impacts are, the amount of employees who have pointed out that if they get rid of a certain redundancy or extra position, they're going to be impacted, The amount of times that people have just said, there's 3 analysts here, I guess we'll get rid of, uh, we'll get rid of one and call it a day, without knowing what that analyst does.
And sometimes finding out that that analyst has a special expertise that only they have.
That is the kind of stuff that I think is going to be system-breaking and collapsing long-term.
Olivia Clark
Councilor Smith.
Angelita Morillo
And unfortunately, this was just not done with the right— this wasn't done with a fine-tooth comb.
The 20% cuts across the board, we never got a justification for that.
I don't know if you guys remember, there was no justification for why 20% was chosen.
It was just given to us like, we have to do this.
And mind you, the reason we are here in this position today is because the mayor's shelter plan was so expansive with one-time funding.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
That we suddenly had to do realignments that were not prescribed before.
This was not because of any study that was done that showed that this was necessary or that we should move forward this way or that this would actually result in efficiencies.
That was the packaging and the way that it was marketed, not the actual impact.
So I want to be very clear about that.
Loretta Smith
Councilmember Herbold.
Angelita Morillo
And I don't know, I think also we've done a lot of irreparable harm to city staff morale.
I would like to see that back up.
I would like to see the mayor and the administration actually work on the Morillo 11 budget note in a way that is reasonable so that we can have accurate communications across council, city employees, and workers.
I would like city employees to be able to talk to us again without fear because there's been so much back and forth.
One email one day says don't talk to the mayor, the next day says talk to the mayor.
Tracy Warren
Councilor Loretta Smith.
Angelita Morillo
Them.
Another email says, actually, you can talk to them.
Just kidding.
We're not actually trying to make you afraid.
Well, nobody knows what the— I can't cuss because we're on our livestream, but no one knows what is going on and if they're allowed to or not.
So, sorry, I went to have a snack to calm down, but I'm not that calm anymore, you know?
I don't know.
So that's what I have to say.
I don't know if my co-sponsors have anything else to say.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think that's it.
Mitch Green
The only thing I'd add to that is success to me would look like a really full understanding of what not only the impact of these workers are and our capabilities as an organization are, and a little bit more evidence that there's some ground truthing happening, but also for us to have a real clear picture of what the impact of this is going to do to our overhead cost model.
And what we're billing back to other parts of the organization that charge rates for service, for instance.
There's a lot of that happening.
There's about $13 million that's being added in this budget to the overhead cost pool that was not in there before.
And that's a result of pulling people out of bureaus, pulling them up into the sort of broad umbrella and saying, you're now providing services citywide.
That adds pressure to ratepayers.
That adds pressure— I think that's a good thing.
To this sort of broad set of other cost pools that I don't think is very transparent.
So for me, success would look like a pause to allow us to look at that and make sure we're doing right by our taxpayers and the people paying the water bills.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks.
Steve Novick
Mr. President, so as to what success would look like, one is I would like some more reassurance, as Councilor Heredia was just saying, that we are not laying off people who are mission critical And things will fall apart without them.
That was my motivation in starting down this road, was hearing about a couple of positions that seemed to me to fall into that definition.
I think that even in the space of a couple of weeks, we should be able to get some— since there's 46 employees involved, we should be able to get sort of a list of, okay, here's what they do, here is what the— who is— here is going to replace them.
In some cases, it'll be, yes, it makes sense.
Other cases, It won't.
So that's just like I was saying yesterday, that what I'd like to do first with the management span of control thing is have a session talking about the 57 people who manage fewer than 4 people and sort of go through them and say, okay, what's the justification?
I think that we could do something similar with this limited number of people.
The other thing I think success would look like is to see if we can do something to make the process feel less inhumane to the people it's affecting.
President Coe talked about people being told first they're going to— and Councilor Morillo said people being told they're not going to be laid off till July 15th, and they said it's June 30th, which means they lose a month of healthcare.
I think that we don't have— I don't know that we have the financial capacity to pause all of this for a year other than in PBOT.
I mean, we're— in terms of the general fund, we're dipping into these reserves that barely exist.
I was also told that other than PBOT, the rate bureaus also have some financial constraints that would make a year, you know, really problematic.
So that's what I would hope to do, to get more reassurance that we aren't laying off specific people who are mission critical, and to see if there's some things we do to make the process more humane.
Angelita Morillo
I also just wanted to add that Morillo, Green, Novick 1, there's a budget note that accompanies this.
It's under the same title, and it explicitly outlines that we want So we haven't had a chance to talk about budget notes today, but we have that outline for what a successful process looks like.
Dan Ryan
I think I got us into work session mode, which actually I think is an important place to be in this conversation.
And perhaps we've missed out on having this type of dialogue.
And so the council hasn't given such vision to all of you until, as a collective body, we have a vision for what a successful process looks like.
I do think we were not focusing on outcome word.
It's a hard word.
And thank you, City Administrator Lee, for saying that.
What is mission critical?
I think we could have each person say what that is, and it might be different with each one.
But that's the kind of dialogue we need to have on this council.
Because again, we're going to be here again.
This is hard.
I did want to give Deputy City Administrator Warren a chance to Make another statement about course corrections.
Councilor Zimmerman got to this.
There's going to be mistakes in this.
That's inevitable.
I think everyone in this room could actually understand that because we're all humans and we all make mistakes.
But the example that was given about the tree specialist in HR, that was pretty concrete and head-scratchy.
So can you explain, like, in that scenario, what—.
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
Pivot you did as management, as administrators in this process?
Because that was a pretty— I have to believe it was all true, of course.
That was a pretty explicit, concrete example.
Jamie Dunphy
I'm gonna ask you to go relatively briefly because we are— while Councilor Ryan got some feedback from colleagues, and that's certainly okay, we're at 9 minutes.
We are at 3:30 overall.
We're an hour and a half into this one item, and we have a lot to get through still today, folks.
So, DCA, please.
Tracy Warren
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Ryan.
You know, I'll speak in generals because I don't feel comfortable speaking about a specific employee without them having asked me to do that.
But in general, when things have been brought to our attention where they've said, you know, this role actually doesn't do HR work, it does this other thing, what we've done is the director for that area or, or that group The DCA, the shared service manager, the business operations leads were responsible for working together to identify what the duties were of that position and then make a decision, right?
Does this mostly fit into HR?
Does this mostly fit into technology?
One of the things that is complicated with you know, core, well, I'll just say internal service type positions, is that they frequently do a mix of things.
They don't only do HR, they don't only do IT, they may do a combination of those things.
And so, you know, we had some thresholds for that, like that would create the majority of the position did this work, and so it fell into this bucket.
But it was not perfect.
And then I would just add that we had to make decisions around where could we mitigate risk.
So for example, you know, when we're trying to make a cut target in any scenario, right?
Let's set core service realignment aside.
We are looking at, is there a legal compliance risk here?
Is this going to create more money for the city?
Like, are we being short-sighted here, right?
Is there some other factor that's going to be detrimental?
Things like you all have mentioned, like a single point of failure, right?
Like, this is the only person who knows this thing and we don't have a way to backfill or train someone else, right?
Those are the things we're considering when we're thinking about Cuts to positions, because the goal is not to have any of those things happen.
Dan Ryan
I just want to end with thanking the sponsors for bringing this.
This is the best conversation we've had on something that's really big, big for this council.
And I want to make the comment that when I heard 20% across the board, that goes against what we were talking about with targeted.
But that's hard to do if we haven't identified the crosswalk of the mission-critical lens.
So I just think that overarching comments I heard is something that I hope as this evolves, because again, this isn't going away, that we fine-tune that so there's more clarity on the vision on where we're going.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Vice President Clark and then Councilor Green.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President, and thanks to my colleagues.
I agree, Councilor Ryan, that this is It's one of the most important conversations that we've had here on the, on the dais.
Um, and it's exemplary of the growing pains that we're having as a city.
Um, from the day that I arrived here, um, as a councilor, I've heard about the anxiety that exists, uh, among, um, workers at the city.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
The 7,400.
Olivia Clark
Anxiety around what the charter change would mean, and core alignment is a part of that.
So it's really come to a head at this point, how we implement charter change, and the core alignment is a part of that.
Now, I've been following this process from the beginning.
I compliment the people at this table, particularly DCA Warren, for involving us in that process.
When I saw the first iteration, you will recall my reaction to that was that, oh, this is way too many.
How can we possibly do this?
And you went back to the drawing board and you came back with different numbers after doing more work.
And I really appreciated that.
A lot of work.
And I know that CA Lee understands change management, and that this is exactly what we're going through, and it is an iterative process.
This is not going to be perfect.
There's risk on either side here, uh, risk for the city with this amendment and risk for, uh, the loss of the people that we're talking about and the, and the functions that they fulfill.
Um, I do have a question, but let me just say that I worked for a state agency at one point in my career that went through a tremendous reorganization.
And one of the things I learned, that if you know that you're going to upset folks with your end result, you don't— excuse my French— but you don't piss 'em off with the process.
And I, unfortunately, I think we have done that.
And because we did not have enough resources, and I understand that now just listening to you today, that we did not have enough resources to talk to every single This is much more complex, a complex balancing act than I had ever really imagined.
But I do have a question.
I don't understand, DCA Warren, you said there were 46 folks in the core services realignment leaving, 32 represented, 11 managers, and 3 non-represented.
I don't understand how that corresponds to the 46 that you're talking about.
With the 46 that are in this proposed budget amendment.
Is there a correlation here, or they're not the same 46, I take it?
Tracy Warren
My understanding, and I would ask the sponsor and councilors to speak to it, but my read of it is that it is the 46 positions, and I think they specify where the areas are.
Um, and it's specific to, uh, backfilling for the period of time using the contingency, um, dollars.
Um, and my understanding, it's for non-management, non-supervisory roles, so it restores everything else.
Olivia Clark
That's a difference.
It says non-management supervisor, and you're saying that the 46 Our 32 represented 11 managers.
Tracy Warren
And 3 non-reps. That's correct.
Olivia Clark
It's different.
I don't need a response to that.
Um, I'll, I'll just leave it at that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Mr. President.
This has been a long conversation.
I think as we move into a vote, I just want to remind my colleagues that, and the public, that Labor remembers, and that they're going to remember the vote that we take, not the intention, the good feelings that we put out, not the expression of solidarity verbally, but they're going to remember the vote we take and whether we stood with them in this moment or not.
And so I know the vote that I'm going to take today.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Uh, Councilor Smith, I'll go and let you have the last word.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
DCA Tracy Warren.
I have a question.
I heard something from one of my colleagues that said that the one-time-only money had caused us to be in this— for programs that we put into one-time-only money, whether that be for the public service areas or other areas in the city.
Is that going to be the same this coming year for the '27-'28?
Are we going to have the same problem And we'll have to realign more if we're going to stay at this current operating.
Tracy Warren
Well, so this may be more of a budget response to give, but I'll give you my take on it, which is that what is currently proposed in the amendment is to provide a one-time backfill for the 46 positions that are mentioned.
That would mean that you'd have to come up with the money from somewhere else.
That could either be another one-time backfill that you all choose, or that could be a trade-off for other services.
Loretta Smith
And if someone from the budget department can tell me, where would that money come from?
Jonas Biery
Uh, yeah, thank you, Councilor.
For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer.
I believe in the amendment it comes from general fund contingency.
So it's that same— well, contingencies in other, whatever the affected fund is.
In the case of the general fund, it's the same bucket that we would see.
Loretta Smith
And we're talking about this amendment.
So my question was a broader, more 30,000-foot level.
What I heard, I think it was Councilor Morillo said that the reason we are in this situation is because we are paying for one-time-only programs.
That were not paid for before.
If we keep this current way that we're paying for the budget, the operating budget, next year, are we going to still have to cut another 20% to meet the, to meet the one-time only needs?
Jonas Biery
Um, I don't— um, there will continue to be one-time needs, uh, as, as was shown in the work session.
I, I don't I don't think that that— I'll put it this way.
In the mayor's proposed and the amendments that have been passed so far, we know what that— the items that are one-time versus not.
To the extent that this amendment should pass or that we get to the end in the suite of amendments, if it increases the things that we're looking to fill with contingency or not resolving with ongoing funding, we will continue to have a one-time gap.
Raymond C. Lee
Okay.
Jonas Biery
That does not— sorry, just that does not necessarily translate to having to come back and do another 20%.
That comes— if there is a one-time gap again, that means coming back and having a dialogue about where those trade-offs are made during fiscal '26-'27.
Loretta Smith
Right, but we have a $169 million gap right now.
And if we put this in, is that gonna increase the gap for '27-'28?
That's what I'm trying to find out.
Jonas Biery
Yeah, good.
Thank you, Councilor, for that clarification.
There is a risk that that would be true.
Loretta Smith
Okay, and I'm just trying to figure out where we get the money from.
Do we have to go back in again and cut again, cut actual jobs again, potentially?
Jonas Biery
Yep, correct, Councilor.
That's a potential outcome.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Uh, Councilor Novick, I've already— I've limited debate, so we are now moving to a vote, colleagues.
Keelan, can we please call the vote on Moved by Morillo, seconded by Green.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Kanal?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Dan Ryan
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Angelita Morillo
We're going to continue to find realignments and cutting other people's jobs every single time the mayor uses one-time funding that falls through through for this shelter plan.
And so we have an opportunity to pause this.
I am literally begging my colleagues to pause this.
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Raymond C. Lee
No.
Olivia Clark
No.
Eric Zimmerman
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Very disappointed in my colleagues.
This is an enthusiastic yes.
Keelan McClymont
Smith.
Loretta Smith
No.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, we are going to return to Canal 1, and then we are going to get a small break.
Uh, Councilor Canal.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, um, I'm gonna formally move Canal 1, noting that as soon as we get into this, I will have an amendment to propose to it.
Uh, but I'm going to move Canal 1 as I would like to move to amend this as written and then make that and ask for a second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal moves Canal 1.
Councilor Koyama Lane seconds.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, so colleagues, I've circulated and I believe it's posted online, an amendment to Canal 1.
This is why there was a recess earlier.
And what it would do, and it's in track changes here, is to change the funding source.
And I'm going to ask Deputy City Administrator Donnie Oliveira and/or Ruth to come up, but I think— DC Oliveira, I'll let you decide who else we might need.
And the way that this works is it would change the funding source from— and before you get going, I'm going to ask for a second on the amendment as well.
Raymond C. Lee
Second.
Sameer Kanal
Didn't you get a second?
I got a second for the move of Penal 1.
Jamie Dunphy
Gotcha.
Is there a second?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second the amendment in order for us to understand where the new funding source is.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
So the amendment brings— changes the funding source away from the business license tax reserve to the construction excise tax commercial funds that are at the Portland Housing Bureau.
And it adds that the the funding explicitly, the funding does not come from the Social Housing/Involving Loan Fund, and that there's, you know, contingent on PHP pro forma and underwriting review, which is a necessary step.
And I'm going to ask, uh, DC Oliveira first, thank you for helping with this, and second, can you please explain it better than I probably would?
Donnie Oliveira
Sure, thank you, Councilor.
Uh, good afternoon, Councilors.
Donnie Oliveira, for the record.
I'm the Deputy City Administrator for Community and Economic Development.
Uh, so I'm going to do a couple things just to set the table here.
First and foremost, These resources are not in any way a part of the $56 million that council adopted in April and then further confirmed in the spring TAO.
So this is not related to any of those dollars.
Second, the resources that we would be— or that the council just proposed would be— are budgeted in FY26-27 in contingency, not budgeted in operating, but in contingency for what would've been a future New development, new construction NOFA in likely 2028.
All right, so essentially these dollars are being pulled from the future for— from resources that we had agreed in conversation, and that when we talked about that $106 million early in February, that was something we'd like to build for, for the future.
So why did, uh, the staff get together to come up with this solution?
One, clearly it's become a priority for this council to resource these 2 projects.
I can speak on behalf of the Housing Bureau to say that we're Big fans of the organizations, Williams and Russell and SEI.
We're familiar with the 2 projects, and getting resources to them makes a lot of sense.
But you also notice in the language that are added, we worked with Councilor Kanal on echoing something Councilor Murillo had mentioned earlier, is we still need to ensure that these projects are eligible for any resources from the city.
But we think in particular that the resources coming from the commercial CET are appropriate given the information we have today on the 2 projects.
Thank you.
And I really want to qualify it.
We believe these resources are eligible, but we haven't done any of the work with pro formas.
We haven't done any of the underwriting.
So until we do that— but that would have been true for any, any resources, councilors.
So just— but those would be important steps to ensure those resources are available.
Sameer Kanal
Can I just clarify?
So if they're— regardless of the funding source, you'd be doing that anyway?
All we're doing is putting it explicitly into the text.
Correct.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Sameer Kanal
Sorry, I didn't interrupt you.
Donnie Oliveira
And so in short, what you're— the decision you're making would be to pull resources from a future NOFA for a new development and applying it essentially for the bureau to work in '26-'27 going through their typical process.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
So colleagues, I offer this amendment with the hopes that this alleviates some of the concern And retains the structural integrity of the head of our CFO, uh, Biery, about the, um, about the, the fund that we would otherwise be taking it from, uh, which is the, the BLT, um, stabilization reserve.
And ask that if this is an acceptable thing to— because the, the remainder of the money would still accrue there, we'd be just talking about pushing back a NOFA by probably a year or 2, uh, in the event that That this were to pass, one of the several that, that is in progress at the Housing Bureau in order to do this, and ask that if colleagues who may be unwilling to, or at least reticent about using the business license tax reserve, but still want to help support these 2 projects, to consider this secondary way of approaching that as a way of still funding those projects without either taking money from the BLT license Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
DCA Oliveira, you said that the process this will go through is the process they would go through with any funding.
Is that the case with the funding that was originally proposed for these projects as well?
Yes, that is correct.
Donnie Oliveira
The original amendment, just to be clear, the BLT source?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No, I'm sorry.
The proposal when we originally allocated housing funds and these were named at one point.
Donnie Oliveira
In the $56 million?
Angelita Morillo
Correct.
Donnie Oliveira
Yes, we would've—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Same process.
Donnie Oliveira
Same process.
When the city releases funds, we typically need to understand the pro forma of the project, understand to ensure they're meeting pretty standard government requirements for funding.
Everything from wages and some cases green features, sustainability features, and whether specific federal dollars or other dollars, there are higher-level bars to clear.
But yes, we typically ensure that the project meets the standards of the funding source.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
And these projects are for homeownership for a range of, um, folks who have a range of income levels.
Are there any complications with using these dollars for projects that are for homeownership?
At least one of them is.
One of them is a mixed project for a range of income levels.
Donnie Oliveira
Councilor, without having the specifics of the projects, and we haven't had them to date, it is very difficult to make any assumptions or guarantees What we know about the project today, that they are homeownership-centered, great.
And the dollars that we're going to be pulling from, which is the CET commercial, do allow for that kind of usage.
There is AMI targets in those funds.
So we just have to work with the projects to ensure they're able to meet that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And if they're— I don't know what the targets are in these funds.
I know the targets are different for different units in the project.
I think one of the projects has some 60% AMI units and some 80 or 100% AMI units.
Is there enough flexibility with the funding types to make sure that whatever these are targeted for could be used for those units and move things around, that it would work?
Or are you concerned that there might be a possibility that you have to come back to us and say, actually, councilors, we couldn't use those funds for these units?
I think that's a great question.
Donnie Oliveira
I would like to make no assumptions about where the project's targets are.
I'd like to have staff meet with the project team as soon as possible to get to that understanding, but we do that regardless of the process we're in today.
It would just be for any funding we would, we would dole out.
To answer your question, let's get the project team with this, with the, um, with our staff.
But what we understand today about the projects, at least some of the units would definitely be eligible.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Donnie Oliveira
How many?
TBD.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Donnie Oliveira
And we do that, and we do this frequently, right?
Not all projects meet AMI targets for some funding sources, so we'll braid resources that are eligible given the funding makeup versus the AMI makeup of a building.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And if we pass this, you have the flexibility to braid funding sources or not?
Because this looks like we're pulling from one funding source.
Donnie Oliveira
We'd like to get more details on the project.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think I'm trying to understand if what we're voting for today is funding for projects or if what we're voting for today is asking you to see if we can fund these projects.
Donnie Oliveira
With the information we have today, we think the funding that we've identified is going to— the projects are eligible for the funding we've identified.
Loretta Smith
Point of order.
Point of order.
I can't do this.
You pulled me to the side and told me I could not use these because these projects had more than 60th percentile.
So don't come here and try to say something different.
Angelita Morillo
This is not—.
Jamie Dunphy
What's your point of order?
Loretta Smith
My point of order is I need the— I need the city attorney to tell the truth about these funds.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, this is not a point of order, but you are in queue.
I will make sure you have the opportunity to speak.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Council President, I think I'll pause for now.
It sounds like there are a lot of other people with things to say and ask.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal, for being flexible on this and thinking about the outcome, elevating the outcome of the thing rather than the method of delivery or the funding source.
I appreciate that.
It's leadership.
Earlier it was said that there's been a lack of compromise at this dais over the last 2 days, and I just want to lay on the table that I think we've been able to I actually had a fundamentally— a fundamental aversion to awarding grants to specific named projects.
So on a fundamental basis, I don't like doing it irrespective of the funding source.
So the compromise for me is to say I'm going to get over that in this moment and just end this conversation that we've been stuck in for months and just award these monies, which we've heard from the DCA of Community Economic Development Service Area.
Robert Taylor
Thank you.
Mitch Green
As high of a confidence in eligibility as any other funding source.
So I'm prepared to support this, and I hope that we can just get this done and move forward with our agenda.
Jonas Biery
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you so much.
Um, I just want to say, first of all, thank you to you, Councilor Knoll, because you were willing to offer up the funding and the amendment, uh, and not even take credit for trying to figure out something to make it work Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Smith, you said that this is a work in progress.
Angelita Morillo
You said that this is work for everybody here, and I think that's really gracious, and you don't often see that in our elected positions where taking credit for things is sometimes part of our job.
So I want to say thank you for that.
I also want to say that to me, this is an extremely elegant solution to a problem that we've been discussing for months, because what I asked for for weeks when I reached out, or I had my team reach out to these organizations, was for the pro forma.
We got a lot of details that are already publicly posted on the websites of these organizations, but they never gave us the pro forma or any of the actual details, because you can say anything on a website.
And it's important for us not to award dollars before we look at the pro forma for what is actually needed, because we have limited dollars, so we have to decide what we do with those limited dollars.
Councilor Smith, I'm sorry, The fact that this is going to get us the pro forma is great.
I would like to see them before we allocate those dollars, and I would like to see it because we need to ensure that we're not recreating situations, um, where we are potentially funding things that don't make monetary sense for the outcomes for the communities that we are trying to serve.
Councilor Smith, But the fact that this is going to go through, you know, the fact that these dollars were identified, I think is really critical, and I'm very grateful for that.
I will make an exception in this case to end the discussion, fund these organizations, and move forward.
But I want to point out that this is exactly why we need to be able as a council body to look at the pro formas and the other— if we want to become a grant-making body, we just need to have all of the information at our That is just part of responsible governance, because there are countless organizations in the community doing countless great work, and we need to be able to justify why we're choosing some and not others.
And it can't just be based on relationships.
It has to be based on outcomes for the community.
So I will be supporting this today.
Thank you very much.
No earmarks going forward, but I will happily support this today.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
So I would like— thank you, Mr. President.
Me and my staff have been challenged with this ever since February 18th.
We were told by DCA Oliveira that we couldn't use these funds because they were for already projected projects.
Jonas Biery
Yes.
Loretta Smith
Push me, push me, push me away from them.
Talked to the city attorney, talked to the city administrator.
We couldn't use them because they were scheduled to go to other projects and went as far as to say that they had to actually pay for a project that they had to pay the last payment on.
On a couple of projects.
And I thought, how are you paying using these dollars when we haven't even— we didn't even know they were there?
So how can you pay for them or pay the last piece of them?
And which— what have you been paying up to this point?
What pot of money have you been using to pay for those projects that you've already paid almost 2/3 of it?
So it was very confusing.
But the original question that, um, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney asked was, where did the money come from originally?
Originally, this money was only going to take from the general fund money, and that money was gobbled up with the $8.8 million that we're setting aside to buy down the, um, the units that was put in the TAO.
So it originally came with none of these restrictions.
And so my fear is, um, colleagues, That if we put this in this money, the way we did it is to take the $2.5 million from the revolving fund.
We can give a grant.
We don't have to go through all of that.
We— the, the money is going to be used on 2 projects who have a varied AMI, which starts at 60% all the way up to 120%.
And all of these numbers were put on the data that they had if you look them up.
Angelita Morillo
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
So if we're going to put them in this situation, Councilor Kanal, and they would have to go through a scoring thing— Broadway, Broadway did not have to go through that.
Hacienda is not having to go through that.
And so for me, I just want to know what is the real answer.
I went and talked to our city attorney.
And so City Attorney Taylor, tell me Am I on the right track, or did I misunderstand something here?
No, no, no, you, you don't have the floor.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, you asked me a question too, though, so, uh, thank you, Councilor.
Robert Taylor
Uh, uh, the— we have evaluated many different sources of, uh, funding, um, for your office.
Uh, some of those were the Some were renter services office funding.
Some were housing bond-related funding.
Depending on the funds, they all have different sources of, or different limitations on the uses.
This is a new source of funding that's been identified, to my knowledge.
Steve Novick
Yeah.
Robert Taylor
It's the construction excise tax.
It does have a limitation in the code.
Loretta Smith
This money here.
Robert Taylor
That Councilor Kanal is proposing to use here.
And that's in City Code 6.08.130.
Mitch Green
Right.
Robert Taylor
And so these were for the— the limitation is for the production and preservation of affordable housing units.
At or below 60% median family income?
Loretta Smith
Exactly.
Robert Taylor
And I, and I understand Mr. Oliveira to, in his testimony, to say that if you could use the million dollars to go towards units that are 60%, even if other units are above that.
And that's why he is suggesting that we need to get more information from the project developer.
Loretta Smith
For this particular amendment.
So let me get you up to date.
If you were here on Monday, I asked the president to give me a date and time certain for my ordinance.
And in my ordinance that's supposed to be heard on May 27th, it does not pull from this fund.
It pulls from the revolving fund, which does not have these restrictions on it.
And that's why I'm going to that fund.
So for me, um, to have all— we, we did, we did run the traps on these.
That's the reason why we did not use this particular fund.
If all of their units are not 60 percentile, they range from 60 to 120%.
And so we knew that, and that's why we moved the money around.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
But the original ordinance that had these folks in there, we were pulling from the general fund money that was unbudgeted.
But since there was a TAL that was approved, and again, the $8.8 million, which turned— which was $3.5 million and it jumped to $8.8 million, they gobbled up all the general fund money.
So there was none left in the TAL.
Olivia Clark
Okay.
Loretta Smith
So that is why I put an ordinance in that we're expecting to hear next week.
Now folks want to give them this money, what you're going to do is you're going to, you're going to move the goalposts again and they're going to go through a lot of changes to use this particular money out of this fund, Councilor Kanal.
And that's why I'm asking you all not to take it out of this fund.
If you're going to do it out of the BLT, do it out of the BLT.
It's general fund.
Councilor But this fund is going to cause them some, some additional heartbreak.
Angelita Morillo
Point of clarification, Robert Taylor, didn't you just say that they don't all need to be 60% AMI?
Loretta Smith
They will not get to use the entire million dollars if they only pay for the 60%.
They have a mixed-use project that has some 60, some 80, some 120%.
Angelita Morillo
Yes, I'm asking you, City Attorney, a point of clarification.
I believe you just said that all the units do not need to be 60% AMI in order to get these dollars.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Is that accurate?
Angelita Morillo
I see Donnie nodding.
Thank you, Donnie.
And we know it's mixed use.
We are aware.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, we're at 7 minutes on this.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith, it's still your floor.
Loretta Smith
You allowed Councilor Murillo to ask a question.
Jamie Dunphy
It was a point of clarification.
Okay, all yours.
Loretta Smith
So I would like to keep the ordinance that's in, but if you all feel that it's important to do it today, put it forward, put it for a vote.
But I have an ordinance scheduled to be on next week to take it out of the revolving fund, which would not give them the same issues that they're going to have with this money.
That's all I'm asking.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
So first, let me correct a couple things.
Um, there is no scoring that would be required under this.
There would need to be a, uh, pro forma and underwriting review, but not scoring where it's competitive with other processes and where they— there is a That would happen if this was a NOFA.
That wouldn't happen through this process.
It also wouldn't happen if we don't pass the amendment and do it out of the BLT Reserve Fund.
It also wouldn't happen if it came out of your ordinance.
It also wouldn't happen for any of the other proposals.
That is 100% identical throughout that process.
Um, DC Oliveira, have you had a— can I— I'm sorry, I'm gonna put you on the spot a few times here, and I appreciate you, uh, answering questions and also taking the time to, to work on this.
Um, have you had a chance— if we were to have done the money in the spring technical adjustment ordinance that was proposed, or in the previous, uh, conversations around how to use the housing money, would it have involved a pro forma and underwriting review then?
Donnie Oliveira
Yes, thank you for the question, Councilor Donnie Oliveira.
For the record, um, including the money that's in the revolving loan fund that council adopted, those resources which include CET funding require us to do pro formas and underwriting to meet the goal.
So even if you pull resources from the revolving loan fund, those dollars still come with strings, so to speak, of requirements, AMIs, et cetera, et cetera.
So yes, the answer is we would still want to do that work regardless of the funding process.
Sameer Kanal
So there's no distinction there?
Any of these 5 different ways we could have done it, and that's 5, literally the original proposal as part of the housing, the technical adjustment ordinance, the proposed forthcoming ordinance from Councilor Smith, the original version of Canal 1, and the proposed amendment to Canal 1.
All of them would require underwriting and, uh, and, uh, perform an underwriting review.
Donnie Oliveira
I'm going to stop short of saying yes to that one because those are a lot of different things, but the most recent things that we've been contemplating, the things today, uh, Councilor Smith's potential ordinance, the new amendment, those things, yes.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, so all the, the main difference that I'm hearing then is that these dollars are required currently under city code to go towards the 60% AMI units.
And there has been a concern raised about that potentially blocking its use.
Now I want to take a step back here and say 2 things.
One is, When we were talking about these projects, and I recognize that this is happening, you know, on the fly here, and there's been some late information here.
I didn't have the information about the CET funds.
My understanding is you did talk about them in the past.
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah, Councilor, they were part of— and we did the work session back in February when Michael Bunnockor walked through those details.
Raymond C. Lee
Yeah.
Donnie Oliveira
We walked through the CET, their eligibility, what they could go for.
And ultimately, when Council adopted the $56 million, CET was a critical component of those allocations.
So CET has been in the zeitgeist.
Sameer Kanal
Just to clarify, what I meant by that was when we had talked about building the amendment at first, we hadn't had the conversation.
My understanding is that this was funding that had been made specifically aware to Councilor Smith on it.
But the other thing I wanted to talk about is, and this is gonna sound like it's unrelated, but it's not.
There is an ordinance that we adopted as a council back, I want to say it was a few months ago, and it was about the renaming of a street in the Portland State area.
And we are obligated by city code to wait until a person has been passed away for more than 5 years to rename A street after them.
But we actually put into that ordinance that we are temporarily waiving that requirement in order to rename this street after Rose Hill.
Now, at the time she was— that this was started, she was still alive.
She passed away subsequently through this process, but was not at over 5 years.
We put up an ordinance that did that.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
In the— I want to be very clear, in the exceedingly unlikely, from what I understand from this event, that that is a concern, I will personally put up an ordinance to waive the requirement for the use of these funds.
This simply allocates the funds, but the use of them would be— I will happily do that if that's what's necessary to be able to use these funds in that way.
But I did want to clarify, and I'm glad you came back in.
Thank you for coming back in right at the right time.
Raymond C. Lee
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
I just want to clarify something that you said, Councilor Smith.
And by the way, regardless of what happens with this ordinance or this amendment, I think we all have a good awareness of Williams and Russell and SEI and the good work that they do.
However, this specific asks for these particular projects, regardless of what happens and who votes what way, it is Councilor Smith who brought this And so regardless of how this goes, I don't want that to be forgotten.
But I did want to ask Councilor Smith, since you brought it up, she said if you want to do it on the BLT, that'd be better.
Does that mean that you would support taking the money out of the BLT?
Reserve the way, not pass this amendment, but pass the—.
Loretta Smith
No, no, no, it's— I, I was saying that this has gotten so ridiculous right now.
This has gotten so ridiculous about this, and it's become such a political football.
Sameer Kanal
That is true.
Loretta Smith
I was just amazed that it was taken out the original ordinance that the chairwoman of the Housing Committee did, and that was where it started.
But I want to give you some level setting.
And is my chief of staff in here?
Jamie Dunphy
Can I still—.
Jonas Biery
Oh yeah.
Loretta Smith
To answer your question, I want to tell you, because he worked on it, Elijah Crawford is my chief of staff.
And we worked on an ordinance, so we changed language.
And when you do a new ordinance, you can change the language and the use and how it's being used.
And it is my understanding that we changed the language in our ordinance, not this amendment, but the ordinance that's coming up.
So Elijah, could you explain it please?
Raymond C. Lee
Yeah, Elijah Crawford, for the record, Chief of Staff to Councilor Loretta Smith.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, we worked with Adrian and the City Attorney's Office on the ordinance for the language specifically around the limits.
And the funding source that we have outlined in our ordinance allows 60 to 100% AMI for the projects without any restrictions.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Elijah.
Yeah, I just, since I still have the floor, my— we also have been asking about this particular method with the same attorneys as well as City Attorney Taylor.
And we've been told, again, what I just offered is the unlikely event that that would be necessary, that we would be able to do it the way I just mentioned with an ordinance to allow for the certain spending.
But what I think is important to bring up here, and this is, I want to be clear, not a question, it's a comment— is that this has been made into a political football.
It doesn't have to be.
This is something that we, I think, all could get behind very easily because we all agree that these 2 projects should be funded.
The way that it becomes a political football is when the funding is being taken away from something that, that some or all of us also want to fund, right?
Right now we're talking about a theoretical NOFA That would be in 2028, most likely, if we do nothing with this money, or would be pushed back probably a year or 2.
If so, we don't know what that would be.
Nobody's applied for it yet.
It's not been opened up yet, right?
That is what we're talking about not funding in order to fund these 2 projects with this funding source.
The other 2 alternatives that have been have been found unpalatable by at least a couple councilors.
And that the first is the BLT stabilization reserve, which is concerning because of credit ratings and risks and the level of contingency.
We've already talked about it.
I'm not going to reiterate that.
And the other funding source is taking money out of the social housing acquisition and revolving loan fund, which has also been found to be objectionable to at least a couple councilors.
Mitch Green
I think that's a good point.
Sameer Kanal
I would say several, because of how it would be debilitating to the ability to do the work of acquiring social housing and issuing these loans.
So this is a third option for funding that will most likely not have a concern attached to it based on the AMI.
And if there is a concern attached to it as part of the review, would be very easily waived through a subsequent ordinance.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
I'm not seeing anybody sit here and defend this idea of a theoretical 2028 NOFA being moved to 2029 as the end of all things, right?
So I want to just get that out here and say the only way this becomes a political football is if people are trying to defund one of these other 2 things.
And I don't see anybody sitting here saying I really don't want there to be a reserve.
Only thing about the reserve is maybe we could use it, not it's bad to have.
I think the only reason we're talking about this is because we're trying to On the other hand, we are talking about social housing in a way that has maybe shown that we're not really talking exclusively about these projects, but about wanting to defund that fund.
And I think that's sad because I think I would like it if Williams and Russell and SEI saw a 12-0 vote on this in the end.
I think that they deserve it.
I think in particular, SEI is great too.
I know that you've worked for them and with them in the past.
Loretta Smith
Don't do that.
Sameer Kanal
But, um, but, but Williams and Russell's— I'm, I'm sorry, am I wrong?
Loretta Smith
Don't do that.
Candace Avalos
Don't do this.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, uh, I was speaking highly about SEI there, but, but we talked specifically about Williams and Russell in the context of this additional factor, which is the, um, the work that we did with relation to, uh, the settlement last year, and which you led on, uh, by the way, and, and I'm not trying to take any of that credit away.
What I am saying though is, given that we are in a position to decide, not only are we doing— finding a way to give funding to these projects, but we're deciding between effectively 3 options for where the funding is coming from, one of which is objectionable to some of us, one of which is objectionable to some others of us, and one of which is not necessarily objectionable but might have a slight additional hurdle maybe in a possible future scenario.
Seems pretty obvious that going down that path might actually get us to above a 7-5 vote, which by the way is hard enough to come by today, uh, 7-5, uh, at all, but it would be great to get more.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I am limiting debate to those in the queue.
I would like to move us towards a vote and then a quick restroom break before we move to other items.
Councilor Zimmerman, Councilor Smith will have the last word.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you, Mr. President.
Councilor Kanal, you called this potentially a political football.
After that last explanation, I'm trying to think what the, uh, the coach's playbook would look like because I feel like I'm going in drunk circles trying to listen to that in terms of what you were explaining.
So I'm going to go with the team captain that I've known for many, many years, and the only team captain who is— frankly, uh, she may not represent District 2 now, but she did for 8 years on the County Commission.
Who knows these organizations, knows these neighborhoods, is one of our senior Black elected officials in Oregon, in Portland.
And, you know, when the game gets a little crazy and plays start getting weird, you go with that team captain who sticks to the play that you've done 100 times, that you understand, that everybody's on board.
And in this case, I think we should reject this amendment because I do think that this has turned into some weird football, because I think we should call in our 7th man in a separate ordinance at a different day and put this play to sleep.
With the team captain and her very good co-captain, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Loretta Smith brought these projects to me months and months ago.
Their leadership on it has been steadfast months and months ago.
Robert Taylor
Councilor Smith.
Eric Zimmerman
They have not played games with this.
I have appreciated Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
She is so much more of a— she looks for options to get as many people there, but she also recognized that this project had to stay above board.
Councilor Smith recognizes that this project has to stay above board.
And I think that when you start telling the community who brings good projects forward that we want you to change it to meet this type of thing, do that type of thing.
We have created a funding mess in this organization, which is why we have so many projects that aren't doing well.
Let a good idea thrive.
Let a good play be called by your team captain who's led in that neighborhood forever.
And in that case, that's Loretta Smith in this one.
And I think that we should let this amendment pass us by, uh, and we should call in our 7th man at a later date for a different ordinance.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, thank you, Council President.
And I don't really care who gets the, uh, credit on this.
Go ahead, I'm gonna let you speak, Councilor.
Go ahead, go ahead.
Is that really—.
Candace Avalos
We really don't want to support this organization?
We have money in front of us.
No, no, tell me.
I'm genuinely asking.
Loretta Smith
Go ahead.
Jonas Biery
Colleagues, please.
Loretta Smith
But you just, you just go ahead and keep talking.
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Colleagues, Councilor Smith, can you please continue?
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
That's why I told you I didn't want to sit here, because of that right there.
So the issue is we can't keep moving the goalposts.
We have an ordinance in play.
You heard from my chief of staff.
The ordinance changes the language to a grant so that these folks can get a grant and it will be treated as general fund.
It is not going to be a loan, and we can get this passed.
I think that because both of these organizations are very good organizations, but there's an underlying issue that we're all forgetting.
The homeownership rate of African Americans in this city is very low.
It is the lowest of all the minorities in the city.
Let's not forget that.
Sameer Kanal
Alderman Sunderland.
Loretta Smith
And if we want to do something about the disparities in our BIPOC communities, we start with homeownership.
I'm all for rent assistance, and I'm all for, you know, Section 8 and subsidized housing and those kinds of things.
But guess what?
I don't want any opportunity to go by where I get a chance to put generational wealth And if we keep putting people towards rent, rent, rent without having opportunities for these same families who are at the 60th percentile, this money is going to buy down the rates so that they can afford to give these homeowners opportunities.
Angelita Morillo
Can the city attorney and the housing attorney Adrian Delgado confirm whether there are any restrictions on the CET funds that would make them more restrictive for this particular program?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Smith.
Angelita Morillo
We need an answer so that we can have a clear analysis.
This is a point of order, point of information.
We need this information right now.
Jamie Dunphy
Um, that is a valid point of order.
I will very quickly turn to Adrian and then back to you, Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Olivia Clark
Great.
Angelita Morillo
Hi, for the record, Adrian Delgado, City Attorney's Office.
Thank you for the question.
Um, this The CET funds are restricted for affordable housing preservation and construction at 60% AMI.
So if these units qualify, which is my understanding that there are 60% units, these funds could be used for this project.
And I think as Councilor Kanal pointed out or raised If the units needed to be higher than 60% to fund the project, council could choose to amend the code and increase the use of CET funds to go higher than 60%.
Loretta Smith
And that's why we're doing an ordinance next week, and that's what we're doing in the ordinance.
Angelita Morillo
So to be clear, Canal's funding source, the CET funds, is adequate just I'm going to check with Robert just real quick.
Loretta Smith
Councilor Morillo, I don't want to put our staff at odds just because we have a difference of opinion.
Angelita Morillo
This is not a matter of opinion, Councilor Smith.
I deeply, deeply believe that this is the right thing to do.
Respect you and what you're trying to do today, which means that we have to have accurate information.
Loretta Smith
This is not, this is not my amendment.
Robert Taylor
Let me—.
Loretta Smith
Political football has happened because he put an amendment in and he knew I had an ordinance.
Sameer Kanal
Let me, let me—.
Donnie Oliveira
Can I, may I be heard, please?
Robert Taylor
Um, just to try to bring some, some clarity to this, and Adrian can provide the details.
The, the budget amendment that Councilor Kanal has proposed Uh, would be lawful and can be structured in such a way to be lawful for the uses of the funds.
Councilor Smith's separate ordinance that is scheduled to be heard next week also is lawful and can be structured to be lawful for the use of funds.
So I, I think there are 2 paths available.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Robert Taylor
Uh, to this council, and it's a matter of choosing which path you would like to take.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Um, City Attorney Taylor, I would like to take the path that does not put these organizations through extra hoops once they are awarded the money, and I want them to be able to take advantage of the full amount, not just on the 60% of the 60th percentile.
Angelita Morillo
Point of information, are there extra hoops for these housing funds in terms of eligibility?
I thought we discussed earlier that there are not because it is not a competitive process.
Loretta Smith
These, these—.
Angelita Morillo
So what we're engaging in, it appears, is grievance politics to take out money from social housing funds.
Loretta Smith
Housing up to 120%.
Mrs. Morillo.
Robert Taylor
So as, as was mentioned before, so for the Kanal amendment, right now there in the code there's a 60% limit, and Councilor Kanal has said if we pass this budget amendment, authorize the funding, if necessary an ordinance could come before council to waive that limit so that the funds would be unrestricted by that limit.
Loretta Smith
Point of order.
Robert Taylor
No, and Councilor Smith, in the ordinance that we have worked on for you that would be coming to Council, as Elijah discussed, in that ordinance, the limitations are also changed on the uses of funds to make sure that they can be used in the way the projects would like to use them.
And so therefore, the path before you today with the Kanal Amendment Is lawful.
We can make it lawful to use those funds for this project if that's what council wants to do.
Likewise, the ordinance that we've worked on for you, uh, is lawful, can be made lawful to use the funds.
It's really just a choice for this council of which path you would like to take.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Smith, please.
Loretta Smith
And we will move to a vote after Councilor Smith's Okay, there is an ordinance that is scheduled to be put on the agenda next week.
Am I correct, Council President?
Jamie Dunphy
You are correct.
Loretta Smith
And we have worked on this, and we've been working on this, and for the life of me, I don't know why my colleague put an amendment in to undercut me.
Because he knew that I was working on it.
I have been working on it.
I have had a number of ordinances put in, taken away, tabled, and the whole 9 yards.
But you didn't think to come to me before you actually did it.
It wasn't until after the fact that community members called you on it and said, why are you doing this?
So for me, I want to wait Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Keelan, can we please call the roll on Canal 1?
Oh, uh, actually the amendment to Canal 1, right?
Sameer Kanal
So just a point of order—.
Jamie Dunphy
Point of information.
Sameer Kanal
So just to be clear, we have the amendment as it was written, which is the BLT piece, and then there's an amendment to the amendment which would change from BLT to C— to the construction excise— I'm going to try not to use acronyms— the construction excise tax.
So this, the vote that we have to take now is to change that, and then we vote on the underlying of whether to fund it in the budget or not.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, so this is a—.
Dan Ryan
Why not just propose your new one as a standard?
Sameer Kanal
Because I think it's important that people see where we're at on funding this, and you're going to get 2 cracks at it.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, can you please call the roll on the amendment to Canal 1?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Moved by Kanal, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Asking that if you are willing to vote for the underlying should this pass, please vote yes on the amendment too.
Um, I vote yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Pirtle-Guiney.
Dan Ryan
Absent.
Ryan.
No.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Koyama Lane.
Ms. Rashaun, please tell all the Fabian Bulldogs that I am voting for the projects that I told you I would vote for.
I vote aye.
Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
I'm just gonna be clear that today we have a funding source that is valid and identical to the one that Councilor Smith is proposing.
It functions in the exact same manner, and the only difference is that we are now engaging in grievance politics.
I will not be voting later to take money out of the Social Housing Fund or the Revolving Loan Fund when something has been offered Novick.
Or I'm sorry, I'll be voting yes because I don't want to take money out of social housing fund later.
It's getting to my sleepy hours, you know.
Jamie Dunphy
And colleagues, uh, we, we really do not take comments during vote taking.
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Novick.
Steve Novick
No.
Loretta Smith
No.
Mitch Green
Yes.
Eric Zimmerman
Nope.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Loretta Smith
No.
Keith Wilson
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes, 5 nays, and 1 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, I'm giving us a 15-minute— oh, oh, and the underlying, you're right, I apologize.
Donnie Oliveira
Okay.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Sorry, we are now in the queue to the underlying unamended original call, Canal 1.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, so just to be very brief about it, this vote is about whether or not we want to fund the, the funds in the way that we just decided, which is the BLT.
Um, offered another alternative that was not acceptable to a majority of my colleagues, and that's unfortunate.
But I am going to just take the opportunity to second what Councilor Morillo said, which is when, when eventually we come back and we take a vote on whether to defund social housing to fund these, remember 2 things.
One is who stood with these projects today, and the other is who actually made it a political football by pitting 2 things that we both like against each other in the first place.
Councilor So thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I find it deeply ironic to hear that people feel they're being undercut when literally that's how we got here.
And to hear, oh yeah, thanks, that's good to know, Councilor Zimmerman, that for months you were working on it because Councilor Smith was my co-sponsor and for months she was working behind my back to write a new ordinance.
So I think that's hideous politics.
This is the grievance politics we're talking about.
And you have an opportunity right now to fund this, and you're choosing not to because, one, you want to use social housing money, and two, you want to use the mayor.
Again, again, we're a council that is relying on the mayor to make our decisions.
That's despicable.
So I think it's unacceptable, this conversation that we've just had.
I think it's embarrassing that Councilor Smith is choosing to make this political when she has an easy win right in front of her.
And I don't care that she doesn't want to sit next to me because I also represent voices in my district.
I am the housing chair.
I have been working hard to fight for that social housing money.
We all passed it with a 12-0 vote.
Loretta Smith
No, we didn't.
Candace Avalos
Yes, we did.
I didn't vote for it.
Sameer Kanal
Yes, we did.
Candace Avalos
Look it up.
Loretta Smith
A resolution.
Candace Avalos
We voted for it.
Loretta Smith
A resolution, not the ordinance.
Candace Avalos
We voted for social housing.
Look it up.
And so I think it's ridiculous that we are now put in this position that half of council just simply doesn't want to do it because they want it their way.
After we got lectured earlier, compromise is not just your way.
Compromise is working together.
This is what we did.
Councilor Kanal just spent all that time going back and forth trying to get a compromise, and instead, this is the reaction.
That's embarrassing.
That is not the collegiality that I expect from my colleagues.
And I think, uh, as we continue this conversation, I'm going to demand that we have some basic respect for each other, because what I just saw was disrespect.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'd like to point out that it's actually kind of my fault that we're here because I was the one that suggested in the Housing Committee that we delete specific projects, including the ones that Councilor Smith had been fighting for, and otherwise her projects would have passed along.
That's why, although I confess I cannot— I'm not real sure I'm following what restrictions exist and what don't, I mean, I feel an obligation to follow Councilor Smith's lead today.
So, I mean, Councilor Smith might have been plotting to— I mean, I don't know when Councilor Smith started digging, started on her ordinance, but there was a preexisting ordinance that funded her thing that I was the one that torpedoed it.
Sameer Kanal
I literally just explained it.
Candace Avalos
Are you not listening?
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Council President Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Novick, it's admirable for you to admit that it's your fault that we're here.
Don't you think you have an obligation to help settle the question now so we don't keep doing this over and over, week by week?
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, please calm down.
I know everybody's tired.
It's 4:30.
We've got a lot left to do.
I'm trying to get us to a break and then get us to lunch.
Or get us to dinner.
Um, can we please move to a vote on Canal 1?
Loretta Smith
Council President, I just like to have— the reason why I wanted to do the ordinance is because you tabled— because you tabled it on February 18th, and my folks never got a chance to speak.
They never had a chance to I wanted to let them explain to you what their project was as a group because you keep saying that you don't know what SEI is.
Now, I will let you all talk if you—.
Candace Avalos
If—.
Loretta Smith
Can I speak without having the comments?
Um, I wanted them to have an opportunity to say why it was important to do this project.
I wanted to have an opportunity for them to actually speak.
They're not here right now.
The folks who support this project are not here.
And yes, they'll be, they'll be happy as pie to get this approved today and get this money.
It would be great.
Um, and I want to choose my words carefully.
Councilwoman Smith, This is an important project, and I want to get it done.
So if you all feel like you need to do something different to get this out of the way— I don't want to use the BLT because we're— we've already been told by our CFO that we're, we're on the line.
We're on the line with our credit rating.
So if we use the BLT—.
Angelita Morillo
Or pass the ordinance.
Loretta Smith
What's— what is to— how do we get that money back?
So thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
I'm going to go ahead and put myself in the queue here.
Councilor, we were originally partnered on the original slow the inflow ordinance.
When I received additional information from our financial office, that option had to pivot.
And you and I had a conversation on a Sunday And by Monday, I had asked— or Sunday night, I'd asked you to please hold information private as we did not fully understand the funds.
On Monday, you released a press release indicating that I had told you a dollar amount that I did not.
Later, you introduced a new amendment, a new ordinance that was not in coordination with Councilors Avalos or myself, who were your original co-sponsors.
You then pushed this forward towards an evening session in which we realized there was an additional Almost $60 million available, and I had every single one of— Councilor, I have that you are out of order, Councilor.
Councilor, you are out of order.
Loretta Smith
We only did $50 million.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, you are out of order.
You've been out of order the whole time.
Loretta Smith
I'm not done.
Jamie Dunphy
I had every single one of your colleagues come to me and say that we do not fully understand or appreciate what we are voting on or the amount— Not true.
They knew exactly what they were voting on.
Mitch Green
Councilor, you are out of order.
Jamie Dunphy
Every single one of your colleagues came to me and said they did not understand the scope or the amount of dollars that we were paying for.
And every single one of your colleagues came to me and said that they at different points wanted to change— I have the floor and it is my time.
Loretta Smith
Let's take the vote.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, you are out of order.
Loretta Smith
Let's take the vote.
Let's take the vote.
Jamie Dunphy
I then moved to table your amendment and postpone it indefinitely, and 8 of your colleagues voted with me.
It is not something I did to you.
It is something that you repeatedly changed the statistics.
Loretta Smith
You moved to table it.
You moved to table it and they supported it.
And you told them before that you were going to do it.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, you are out of order.
Loretta Smith
You were going to do.
Jamie Dunphy
You are out of order since you got— Councilor, you are out of order.
Loretta Smith
You're out of order.
Angelita Morillo
Make me stop.
Loretta Smith
Make me stop, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, is that an appeal of the rule of the chair?
Are you appealing the rule of the chair that you're out of order?
I'm asking.
Councilor, you are no longer recognized.
Thank you.
Can we please move to a vote?
Loretta Smith
Take the vote then, sir.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Uh, Canal 1, moved by Canal, seconded by Councilor Koyama Lane.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Absent.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Loretta Smith
Yes.
Steve Novick
No.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes, 5 nays, and 1 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, we're taking a 15-minute break.
Please be back here at 4:50.
Calling us back to order now, colleagues.
My original intention was to get us to dinner by five.
That is not going to happen.
We are going to move to try and get through Green Two.
I suspect that the outcomes of Green 2 will also imply the outcomes of Green 3 and Avalos 4.
But for now, Councilor Green, recognizing you.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, at this time I'd like to move Green 2 and its associated budget note Green 5.
Sameer Kanal
Second.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
A year ago when we were setting this budget, thank you, uh, we set a budget that gave Mayor Wilson money to end unsheltered homelessness in 1 year.
That's what we all sort of signed up to do.
It was a gambit.
It was a sort of, trust me, let me take a moonshot.
I can do this with an overnight-only shelter model.
I'm not saying I can't do it.
I can end unsheltered homelessness in one year.
If we're going to be an evidence-based board, we need to recognize that that was an abject failure.
Not only did we not end unsheltered homelessness in one year, but homelessness continued to grow.
It continued to grow over the— despite the millions, tens of millions of dollars that we plowed into a system that says You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
And also, you don't have a home.
It's going to be an overnight shelter.
You're out by 6:00 AM.
Figure it out.
That's the system that we set up, and that's the system that drove a significant budget deficit in our current service level gaps to be solved for in this budget.
And so Green 2, the intention of Green 2 is to do 3 primary things.
The first is to recognize that it's fiscally irresponsible to continue throwing good money after bad, throw money at a system that has, uh, no measurable impact in efficacy.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Mitch Green
It also calls the question on our choice of vendors and our reliance on Urban Alchemy.
Urban Alchemy.
Urban Alchemy is our primary alternative shelter contractor, and it's faced more than 80 complaints filed with Portland Ombudsman, including allegations of sexual harassment, drug use, drug dealing, theft, physical assault, and retaliation by staff.
And these are not isolated incidents.
Since 2020, at least 9 lawsuits have been filed against Urban Alchemy, most Everyone in power, elected official today, knew that this was a big risk.
We did not take that risk seriously.
We only reacted to it after there was some reporting on it.
And so, colleagues, I think it's reckless as a board to approve a 12-month budget to do the same thing without an assured plan that we're going to take a look and see if we can do something differently.
And so the amendment seeks to do this.
Thank you, Mayor.
It seeks to say, look, I also think it's reckless to pull the plug on shelter funding overnight to turn these things off by July 1st.
So let's leave in place 3 months of funding.
Let's leave in place 3 months of funding to keep some continuity and give some time for the city administrator through Portland Solutions to engage in an RFP process to try again to find a different vendor for this.
To also allow council to engage in a relationship, a sort of process with this, with the city executive side, to make sure that we're doing the actual oversight that we need to do on this shelter system and this provider.
I don't think it's sufficient to say, well, we've asked Urban Alchemy to fix this and don't worry, we're going to follow up.
That's not oversight.
That's not oversight.
Council, as the budget authority, has an obligation to do this too.
So it places in a set-aside most of the fiscal year's balance of funding for the shelter system, leaving the first 3 months as proposed by the mayor.
It also takes $3 million and places it in its own set-aside to stand up and support not only existing self-governed microvillages that already have really good outcomes, But then to create the space to expand more.
Green 5 is the budget note that describes how all this will work, what the interrelationships and interactions with council looks like, and the disposition of the $3 million set aside if this body approves this amendment, how that may be awarded for the sake of supporting democratically governed microvillages.
So we have a second, and at this time—.
Loretta Smith
Second.
Mitch Green
Um, I'll take any questions you have, or we can just open the floor for debate.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Green has moved Green 2.
Councilor Kanal has seconded.
Colleagues to the amendment?
And no— and Green 5, the note as well, correct?
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith?
Councilor Murillo?
Raymond C. Lee
Oh.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, apparently there's nobody here in the queue.
Colleagues, anybody, uh, further discussion to the amendment?
There we go.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
It's no surprise, Councilor Green, I will not support this.
A defunding of the shelter program by $29 million, creating a slush fund to get— be given out later on, uh, would be something that, you know, the mayor and I sit on the SOC, the Shelter See.
Raymond C. Lee
And Homeless Council, and we've been working on this for a long time.
Eric Zimmerman
I think that for the first time it might be the county running away from the joint office agreement and not the city if we were to do something like this.
So, um, the idea that we would go and think that the microvillage model is the savior to all is just not going to work.
And I, I'm really, um, I, I see no workable way for a $29 million contingency fund for the council to give out when it finds villages it likes to be a workable option, even if it was an extra $29 million, not a reduction of the current shelter.
So—.
Mitch Green
But may I clarify one point?
Dan Ryan
Sure.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Mitch Green
The $29 million set-aside is not to be given out to sort of It's a checkpoint for Portland Solutions to come back and say, hey, we did our oversight, we fixed our problems, here's some potential providers to do the same thing we currently do, can we please have the money?
So I just want to make it clear that I'm not creating a slush fund.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
I worked at Multnomah County when they did this to the sheriff's office on overtime, and it was essentially a done because of disagreement with who the sheriff was versus disagreement on the operations.
And every single time it happened, the Multnomah County Commission released all of the funding to the sheriff for their operations.
So, um, while it's a tactic, uh, and it has a, it has a point, it's not something that, that I'll be supportive of.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Green, I will come back to you.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Um, I've shared my thoughts on this with Councilor Green, but feel like it's important to state them on the record too.
Um, I have not been impressed with the results of the mayor's homeless services plan, and I have been honest with the mayor about that.
I am a big fan of self- governed microvillages as a part of our homeless services system.
But I am concerned about the destabilization for people who are living in shelters that the city provides of allocating only 3 months of money.
And even if we are saying we're going to do a process and we will allocate the rest, the fact that we have people who are trying to get stable, who are trying to turn their lives around who will not know if the places where they are living will still be available 3 months from now feels like a very big risk that I am not willing to take.
I think we need to have a very different response on the allegations we've heard about Urban Alchemy.
I know that we have been getting more materials over the last 2 days about what the administration is doing.
And if those materials are not sufficient to show that they're taking it seriously, I think we should continue to push there.
I think that we need to look at safe rest villages as a part of our system in a more meaningful way.
But just like self-governed villages are an important part of the system because they are the right solution for some people, they're not the right solution for everybody.
And we need our safe rest villages that are more highly staffed.
We need villages with looser and stricter rules so that we can make sure to serve everybody in our community who needs a little bit of support getting stable.
And that is why I cannot support this today.
But I do look forward, as I told you privately, Councilor Green, in continuing to push to improve our homeless services program.
Tracy Warren
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And in working to ensure that safe rest villages are seen for the value that they bring in our community and not shoved aside as a lesser part of the system.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
I'm going to be supportive of this primarily because I think the idea of a set-aside is a good one.
We don't have to look only at the county.
That's a good example.
We did this, um, I believe last year with the public safety set-aside, and we released it, all of it.
Uh, and that's a good thing.
I don't think that's a failure of the process.
I think that's actually a success of the process, especially when we're talking about can you do the checks that you need to do.
If we— uh, I know it's often asked what we want to do, or what we want to see, I should say, uh, for outcomes.
So I'll just I'll just pre-answer that.
If we end up where all the money gets released, that is going to be a good thing if it means that it satisfied the need to do oversight, to look into these things, these allegations at Urban Alchemy and elsewhere, but also to look at some of the other things.
Urban Alchemy, by the way, has a high placement rate.
They're, they're, uh, that's another thing that we need to look at.
There's not— nothing is perfectly, uh, good or bad.
But I, I do want to talk about This consistent narrative of we can't do it now.
When the hell else are we going to do it?
Raymond C. Lee
Right?
Sameer Kanal
We've been talking about this for a long time at this point.
And we're talking about we need to support labor, but we're not going to vote to restore their jobs.
We need to support a balance of our organizational chart, but we're not going to vote to change any of the funding from management to rank and file.
We're now at the point where we're not even talking about— these are big things, by the way— but now we're talking about sexual assault, drug use, drug dealing, theft, and retaliation by staff.
And we've got the words.
I don't know if we've got the votes.
About to find out.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Really appreciate you, Councilor Green.
As you all know, Councilor Green and I lead the Housing and Permitting Committee, and we talked a little bit about this.
And, you know, I've got an amendment coming up, Avalos 4, with a companion budget note, Avalos 9.
And I think what we're trying to accomplish here is force this council to finally use our oversight powers, to finally demand that we get the kind of transparency and information that we need.
To be making these big financial decisions that 2 years in a row now we're in a hole because of.
We're in a hole because we have continued to expand a program with no solid dollars and no measurable outcomes.
And I think that especially what we've been seeing in the news lately demands that we look more closely at our system.
And frankly, it's time.
It's been how many months now since we've been in office?
Angelita Morillo
2 Years.
Candace Avalos
When Mayor Wilson took office, Portlanders were promised that aggressive sweeps and overnight-only shelters would meaningfully reduce unsheltered homelessness, and it hasn't.
It's only increased.
That's what the data shows.
The data does not lie.
And so at the same time, we're having— we're continuing to have these concerns about transparency and safety and operational accountability within the shelter system.
Green 2 does not defund the shelters.
It creates a 3-month accountability process And says that if the city is going to continue spending enormous sums of money on this model, then the administration should be able to demonstrate to us transparency, measurable housing outcomes, and meaningful operational improvements.
When I asked for information with Councilor Kanal regarding Urban Alchemy last week or 2 weeks ago, whenever that was, the response that we got was largely, there's— we don't have the data, we don't have the information, it hasn't been calculated.
How do we not have the data?
This is why Portlanders are mad at us, because we are spending millions of dollars, and then when we ask simple questions about what are the outcomes, how are you tracking the outcomes, what's the transparency, and we get we don't have the data, we don't have the information— that's unacceptable, y'all.
We are spending money into a system that we cannot measure, and we are going to continue to face this budget crisis next year again if we don't solve this hole, right?
Councilor Loretta Smith.
I think this is a very reasonable expectation.
I think this amendment also invests in things that are really critical to our community right now, like democratic self-governed microvillages that research shows can produce stronger housing outcomes at a significantly lower cost.
So ultimately, as chair of the Housing Committee, I don't believe that it's responsible for council to simply continue rubber stamping expensive systems without demanding better results.
You know, obviously we'll see how this goes with these, with Green's 2 amendments, and then we'll go into I think my hope, though, is that by the end of these 3 amendments that we take some sort of action, because I think it's unacceptable to take zero action at this point.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Green.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Chair Avalos.
You know, we did discuss and, you know, we just wanted to make sure it's clear to the City of Portland that we are a united leadership team for the Housing and Permitting Committee.
And so we have different styles and different approaches with this, but we both recognize the urgency that this is the year that we need to start doing something different.
We cannot wait another year to think about doing something different than this failed shelter approach.
And so if you can't support mine because you think its funding approach is not quite your style, I really encourage you to support Councilor Avalos's approach.
I think it's Avalos 4, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
But I'll just leave you with this, colleagues.
My job, at least what I think my job is, I know what I was elected here to do, is to exercise— to pass laws, approve budgets, and to do oversight.
Those are the 3 functions of a city councilor.
So we're not executives.
I can't get into the shelter program and say, I don't like the way you're doing it, how about do it a little bit differently?
I can have an oversight hearing, and I can also— I think that's what we're doing.
Choose to do something more than just throw my hands up and just pass a budget and say, this is the best we've been offered by the mayor.
And so this is my attempt to say this is the year that we need to start doing something differently because we cannot continue to go throw good money after bad only to have no relief and no solution for the system that it's trying to— for the people we're trying to serve by this.
And so, you know, I've said my piece on this.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Mitch Green
I look forward to the ongoing conversation as we move through this problem, because the problem doesn't go away just because we fail to take action in the budget.
Portlanders who are watching will continue to wonder what we're going to do about an organization that we're giving— we still have $33 million left on their contract, who has significant allegations of a serious nature levied against them.
And are we just going to write them a check for $33 million?
I think that's a fair question.
I hope that they know that there's some councilors who are looking into this and, and don't, don't think that that's acceptable.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, I just wanted to add one other thing to it, and I appreciate everything that's been said.
Um, the villages, I think, are the key point to this, um, largely because I, I think given what we talked about with the set-aside, there's a very good chance that this ends up staying the way it is in a lot of ways because It could just be released at the end of the 3 months depending on the, the results of this process of accountability that we're looking at.
The villages, that's going to have a longstanding impact, and I think that's really important to consider here.
Um, you know, Councilor Green had, had, uh, in, in discussing this issue, you've brought up the, um, the outcomes being better.
I think there's been some research, um, on this Yes.
From PSU's Homelessness Action Research and Action Collective— Collaborative, sorry— that shows that resident satisfaction is higher when there's democratic voice for the folks who live in there.
We also know that the placement rates are higher.
And I think one thing we've talked about, and I appreciate the increased interest, we've talked about not just managing a problem but actually intervening upstream.
That was the whole slow the inflow conversation, inflow into homelessness, which is really outflow from housing, right?
And then there's the other side of it, which I think this talks about, which is the how you get out from being homeless.
What's that next step?
And placement rates are the clearest metric we have on that.
Villages have the highest placement rate of what we're talking about here.
Um, I think it would be incredibly foolish for us to not look at that and to, to move away from investment in a process and in a system that has that level of success.
And so I think it's a modest reallocation of $3 million from a pretty significant overall sum to that.
And that's the one thing we know will happen from this particular amendment.
So I urge my colleagues to support it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Keith Wilson
Thank you, Council President.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Herbold.
Keith Wilson
You know, first of all, I wanna just note Urban Alchemy certainly is a concern, and I hear all of you, and I understand that.
They must do better.
I think that that's what I'm hearing clearly, and my team is working on improving that.
There's room for improvement for sure.
But defunding our shelter system as a pointed response and saying do better, an organization is improved at all.
You have to go through the process of finding what the problem is, addressing the problem, doing the training, monitoring the training, and going through that loop and practice.
But let's be clear on what happens when you're on the street.
There's a code of silence.
There is no grievance process.
There's no complaint process.
It is just simply person hurting person.
They go to the emergency room.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Keith Wilson
They're never called.
There's no research.
There's no investigation.
It's just what happens when you live on the street.
I'm happy to say that we now have a safe bed for every person every night for anybody who wants to come inside.
And because of our shelter system, we have an available bed tonight for anybody when they're ready.
Our emergency rooms are no longer a proxy for our shelters.
And so, I mean, we talk about the urban alchemy.
Candace Avalos
I agree.
Keith Wilson
We We can and we will help them improve.
They have to, and I hear you loud and clear.
But defunding an already defunded shelter system additionally and asking people to then go on the street as we test a different concept at scale, which has never been done before— I'm all for villages.
I'm all for testing it.
Portland Housing Bureau is a perfect example.
These are not democratically run— pardon me, they are democratically run.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilmember Herbold.
Keith Wilson
Uh, type of housing where you are voted in or you are voted out.
But there's also a possibility for discrimination because of race and color, religion, sex, sexual orientation.
When we think about our population on the street and in our shelters, they suffer from mental illness, severe persistent mental illness.
Are we going to vote somebody who has schizophrenia Bipolar or something like that into a village.
We have to be very careful where we go.
I'm all for investigating.
I'm all for trying, but we've already taken so much out of our shelter system to make sure the continuum of care has enough to make sure that police and fire, CHAT, Portland Street Response, and our shelter system all work together.
But to all of a sudden say to our vendors, we're only going to fund you for 90 days, in an ad hoc fashion in the midst of an emergency, it's setting us up for failure.
We need to stay the course and continue to provide life-saving care for all Portlanders every night.
Mitch Green
Council President, may I respond?
'Cause there's a number of things in there that are just untrue to the amendment on the floor.
Jamie Dunphy
I'm happy to let you.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Mr. Mayor, I appreciate your Thank you.
I appreciate your statement and commitment to investigate Urban Alchemy and make sure that your team is working with them to help them do better.
But you keep saying defund the shelter system.
This amendment does not defund the shelter system.
This amendment reduces the funding, but defund is a coded language to get everyone to think about, hey, we're taking something away.
We saw that same language in 2020.
That's what's being used here.
So a $3 million set-aside within a shelter budget is not defunding.
Conditioning the release of funds after a robust conversation with council is not defunding.
And so I just want to make sure it's clear to the public and my colleagues that what my amendment does is actually pretty reasonable.
It says, let me try to figure out a way to build in a check where council has a budgetary authority again, so that way we know that we put some incentives in place.
Defunding this could be— if I wanted to defund this, I'd bring forward an amendment that would zero out your budget.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Mr. Mayor, that's not what I'm doing.
So I just want to be very clear that that's not what this amendment is doing.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Um, I think it is absolutely hilarious to call this a continuum of care when the allegations that we've received are of sexual harassment, sexual assault, violence at these Urban Alchemy camps.
And this is, again, I will remind the Not an issue that we were unaware of when, when the prior administration contracted with Urban Alchemy.
There were already news articles about how Urban Alchemy operated in San Francisco, that sexual abuse was rampant, that the people who lived in these encampments were harassed, abused, had their stuff stolen.
And so, of course, being on the streets is violent and scary.
Yes.
As a young woman who was homeless for about a year when I was in college, I had some opportunities to couch surf.
I also had some nights where I was on the street by myself.
And I can say that what I did to survive was actually hide that I was homeless and maintain a pristine image because I was very aware of the violence that I could experience long-term if people found out about my situation and the vulnerable position that I was in.
So when we are trying to do basic oversight for our contractors and hold them to any standard, which just says you should not be sexually harassed, raped, or have your stuff stolen at our shelters, we are being treated like pariahs for defunding them.
If your organization can't handle the basic task of not having people be abused, then you do not deserve a government contract, and we should find a better alternative, or they should feel that threat and rise to the occasion somehow.
And I'll be honest too, when we did tours of Urban Alchemy when we first got elected, the number of tours that we did, we showed up and they cleared those camps out.
There was not a single homeless person there that we could talk to that actually lived there.
It was like walking into a ghost town.
They prevented us from talking to the people that actually lived there.
They, they did what they always do for these elected official tours.
They cleared everyone out.
They cleaned everything up.
They told us everything was fine.
But I said, where are the people that live here?
I want to talk to them.
I want to know what their experiences are.
I want to know what's going on.
If we want to talk about lived experience and Making sure that we're talking to our people that we're supposed to be serving.
They hid them from us.
And the people that I do know who have lived in Urban Alchemy, they share their feedback secretly because they are so afraid of retaliation.
There is no proper process for them to actually be heard that does not end up with them getting kicked out or retaliated against.
So This to me is extremely basic levels of accountability for an organization.
And this is— this would be unacceptable for any other group of people, but we accept this for homeless people because they are a powerless group of people.
They have no money, they have no political influence, they can't lobby.
A few years ago when they relinquished their shelter beds to come testify, a councilor allowed developers and rich people to cut in line in the testimony line.
They can't even come talk to us.
They can't even come talk to us because they can't leave their stuff outside or security has to take it away.
They have no access to their elected officials unless we go out there and make it happen.
So when we hear these things and we say council needs to have some authority over the budget If this shelter can't figure out how to stop basic, core, fundamental rights of people not being sexually harassed and sexually abused and having their stuff stolen, then they shouldn't get a government contract.
And I think that we have a duty, colleagues, to treat the homeless population the way that we would treat anybody else and take this seriously.
Because if they said that this was happening to a group of I don't know, city employees or something, we would end that contract immediately.
We would be finding something else.
So it's just unacceptable, the different standards that we hold for homeless people in this city and what they are allowed to endure or not endure.
And what we are saying is a continuum of care, because I am not seeing a continuum of care for these people.
And I will be voting for this.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Colleagues, it is 5:25.
We are going to be back at 6:00.
So however long it takes us to get through this, our dinner break goes until 6:00.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
So there was a, a resolution that we adopted as a council to conduct, uh, oversight on the housing dollars.
Um, and I, I bring this up to, to first say thank you to the mayor for, for your comments.
I'm going to speak to a couple of those in a minute.
If we were to hypothetically put up a resolution to do, uh, investigate— or an oversight hearing, I should say, on Urban Alchemy, Given the comments that we just heard, would there be opposition from either the executive or administrative branches of our government to that?
Keith Wilson
I don't believe so, no.
But, Councilor, you have that prerogative.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I, you know, I really appreciate the other thing that you brought up about how if someone's on the street, they also don't have a grievance process.
And I think that's an important thing to mention in 2 different ways.
One is That it's completely factual.
Obviously, there are things that we don't know anything about that happen on the street, and it also highlights that we don't currently have a lot of control over that situation except in helping people get off the street.
I think that's been a core part of the philosophy there, and I also think it highlights that when we are helping folks get off the street and into our care, we have an additional burden, and we have this conversation.
It's not just about homelessness, about our public safety systems, about a ton of things.
When someone is in our custody, we have an additional level of responsibility towards them.
And maybe part of what we should be doing when someone is not is helping them get into a safe space.
We obviously have to make sure that that space is safe.
Now, I really believe this radical idea that we should be looking at the that even if you live in a shelter, even if you are mentally ill, which not all people who are houseless are mentally ill, even if you are addicted to drugs, which not everyone who is houseless is addicted to drugs, despite all those things, you probably— no, not probably— despite all those things, you should not be a victim of sexual assault.
I think that's this, this idea that's become incredibly radical in this chamber.
I don't think it is outside this building.
So that's one piece of it.
And I don't want to single out a single provider.
I do think that we have enough information about allegations about one provider that we should look into that one uniquely.
But I think that there's probably a good argument to be made that we should look at all of our providers.
But for me, the villages, I think, are a really important part of this.
That to me is the one thing that we can't really argue with because I don't see the logic behind theoretical concerns with it being a reason not to stop or not to fund them.
There are theoretical concerns everywhere.
A lot of things can happen in a lot of places, and that to me is not compelling.
But I think that we're actually advancing some of the things that all 13 of us electeds in this room today share by Putting some of the money into the democratically run villages.
And that to me is the most compelling argument here.
And I'm appreciative for the conversation that parallels this around how we do oversight too.
But I think this is one really important tool, the set-aside, to accompany that and to help empower it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I need to say that I am stunned and saddened at the words that You just said, Mr. Mayor, when we think about our population on the street and in our shelters, they suffer from mental illness, severe persistent mental illness.
Words matter.
Those words are not trauma-informed or completely accurate, and those types of blanket statements are harmful.
And you have one elected up here who is open about having experienced homelessness, and there might be more up here who have experienced homelessness.
But haven't talked about it.
And those words were pretty upsetting to hear come out of my mayor's mouth.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can— Keelan, can we please call a vote on Green 2 and 5?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
We'll call the vote on Green 2 first.
Moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Heard.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan.
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark.
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green.
Mitch Green
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Raymond C. Lee
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith.
Loretta Smith
No.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Green 5, moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.
Mitch Green
No.
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Raymond C. Lee
Aye.
Jamie Dunphy
The budget note.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan.
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith.
Loretta Smith
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, it is 5:30.
We still have 12 more amendments to get through, at least from the pre-filed.
It is, uh, I'm gonna send us on dinner and we are back at 6 o'clock.
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Hello, the break has been extended to 6:30 PM.
We will now end part 1 of the May 20th City Budget Committee meeting, fiscal year 2026-27 approval hearing, day 3, part 1.
Mitch Green
Please join us for part 2 in the video description or at portland.gov/council/agenda.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.