Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Jamie Dunphy
Hot diggity.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm calling to order this work session of the Portland City Council.
That's kind of a weak little gavel.
I'm gonna try it again.
Yeah!
Yeah, there we go.
Thanks for everybody watching at home.
Colleagues, As you know, we are headed towards the first reading of the adopted budget a week from today.
At that hearing, we will have the opportunity to make further, though limited, amendments to the budget, and we can introduce budget notes.
Today, we're going to go round robin, 12 minutes for each councilor to talk about the work to date on notes and further amendments.
I know it's not much time, but this is intended to give us an opportunity to introduce ideas and take the temperature of our colleagues.
When I first presented this budget calendar and this process back in March, I said that I wanted to provide so much time for deliberation that we would feel like we had too much.
Whether anything can feel like there's enough time in a year this difficult with the improved but still largely inadequate budget detail that we got available to council, it's hard to say.
But certainly I have heard from some of you colleagues that you would like to have had more time.
However, we did triple the amount of all council work session time from last year, and we scheduled and spent as much time in the approved hearings this year as we did last year in both the approved and adopted together.
Next Wednesday, we have 4 hours for the adopted hearing scheduled from 11— sorry, from 9:30 AM to 1:30 PM.
At the request of several colleagues, we will also be canceling the Committee of the Whole on Thursday morning and holding a 9:30 to 12:30 session that day as an as-needed continuation of the adopted hearing.
This change requires that we file a special meeting, which requires the signature of 7 councilors.
So I will be circulating this document for you to sign off on it if you are open to that.
Looking ahead, the deadline for filing notes and amendments with CBO for feasibility review is 10:00 AM this Friday.
You are requested to file all budget notes, all new amendment concepts, and any amendments filed for the approved that you are bringing back for the adopted with CBO by this date.
CBO will file all such pre-filed notes and amendments with the clerk at 10:00 AM on Monday, June 8th.
Contrary to last time, the CBO will seek your final approval on new amendment concepts before filing your items with the clerk.
So that is shifting from an opt-out approach we did last time to an opt-in approach.
Please make sure you're available to give CBO your final approval and your items will— or your items will not make it into that filing.
Thank you.
At 10:00 AM on Monday, we will know how much work is before us for the adopted, and my team will begin creating an order of business.
During the approved budget hearing, my team took what I would call an aggressively generous approach to the order.
As promised, we made hearing councilors' top priorities our top priority, grouped items together thematically to save time, and used the ratings poll to make decisions on the margins.
Next week, if the proposed business exceeds the available time, I'm going to be a bit more blunt.
If proposals do not have a path to 7 votes, whether they come from the right or left or center of this body, they are in the practice of making politics but not policymaking.
Politics has its place.
Its place was in May.
I do not anticipate bending over backwards to make time for it in June.
Today, I'd like to go by district alphabetically by councilors within the district so that we, Just going, as I said, we're gonna go round robin to talk about budget notes or additional budget amendments.
And I'll call on folks, but I'm gonna start just for fun.
I'm gonna start with Districts 4, 3, 2, and 1.
And I'm going to start with Vice President Clark.
If you have any budget notes or amendments that you'd like to discuss.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Councilor President.
I don't, but I'm anxiously awaiting reviewing everybody else's and crushing them.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Council President.
I do— I hope not to be crushed, but in the spirit of transparency, you all bear witness if I do.
Um, so I am working on an amendment, uh, that is new with Councilors Avalos and Murillo, um, which seeks to sort of address a lot of the pieces that failed last time, a lot of the positions that we want to restore.
So I'll just run through it at a high level.
I can distribute the more detailed language that we're going to get to the budget office to help us get this scored.
But the basic idea is it's a package that will keep whole, not cut, 103 different positions across the City of Portland using currently accruing Portland Clean Energy Fund interest accruing to the FY25-26 budget year.
And it also relies upon $4.8 million of the restricted fund contingencies that were going to be previously funding positions prior to the core realignment that are— that in the mayor's proposed just go to contingency.
And so the way— what it will do what it will fund is as follows.
It pauses the realignment.
It uses $8 million for realignment pause.
So, and that's for the 46 FTEs.
$3.2 Million of that comes from the PSF interest, and it then relies upon $4.8 million of the contingency balances across the bureaus affected there.
The second part is it restores 2 of the ALS teams.
So 2 of the fire rescue trucks.
It's $1.65 million.
I think actually it's, it's all of it.
It's, it's the entire cut.
It gets— it restores those.
Um, it restores 26 FTEs in the, uh, using $3.45 million, uh, of the public safe— public support, the PS3s in the Portland Police Bureau.
Steve Novick
How many did you say?
Mitch Green
26.
Um, Victim Services units, it restores 2 FTEs.
In Parks and Recs, it restores 22 FTEs across maintenance and programming using $6.12 million.
Restores cuts to one of the Relay janitorial services contract at an order of $261,000.
That's for the Portland building and I think this building as well.
It establishes the immigration FTE office that Councilor Avalos attempted to establish, but it creates the funding to do so without taking it from the mayor's office.
That's the innovation here in that one.
And then finally, it restores 6 of the identified cuts in 311 at an order of $888,000.
So in total, this racks up a draw on the PSF interest balance for FY25-26 At a total of $16.5 million, and then relies upon $4.8 million of the newly established contingency balances in the home bureaus that were a result of the realignment.
Pause.
So that's a lot.
I'll pause there.
I'll see if there's any questions.
I probably already burned up my time, Council President, but, um, uh, Councilors, uh, Morillo and Avalos are my co-sponsors on this.
Jamie Dunphy
I don't know if it makes sense for them I'm happy to give them time to discuss as well, and we'll jump to the queue.
Candace Avalos
I will speak, uh, can I speak on it when I just do my 12 minutes, if that's all right?
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
I'm happy to speak to it now.
Um, I don't have much more to add.
I would just say, uh, colleagues, you know, we're obviously making very difficult decisions during this budget cycle, and to me, this is sort of a last Hail Mary attempt to save some of these services.
Um, we had a labor rally last night, and we had most of our city unions come and attend, and I know other folks are in support who weren't able to be there.
But the reality is that if we are going to be doing this realignment process, we really need to make sure that we get it right.
And I think something that really stood out to me from what Rob Martineau said when he attended as a representative of AFSCME was that we are establishing a government for the next 100 years or longer, God willing, and we have to actually make sure that we are doing our due diligence.
So this is going to give us the time to actually talk to all of the city employees, make sure that we're doing this the right way, make sure that we're not accidentally letting go of people that we're going to have to hire back later.
Because when we're talking about creating efficiencies, we have to understand that efficiency doesn't mean that you are laying people off and then it turns out that you need to hire them back later.
That costs money, that costs time, and there's a very good chance that we are going to lose the institutional knowledge that these employees have.
So I think that if we really want to be a council that is dedicated to good process, we need to approach this with a scalpel and not a hammer.
And I think that preserving these services is going to be really critical because once we lose the public trust because these services stop working in the ways that they should, that's going to be incredibly difficult to earn back later.
So I hope that this is a helpful compromise.
We have tried to structure this in a way that preserves the services that we have and that we know we think will be beneficial and that people across the board on this council will like.
And so I look forward to getting to discuss that with you.
Thank you.
Mitch Green
And Council President, if I have any time left, I have a budget—.
Jamie Dunphy
You're only at 5 and a half minutes, so you're good.
Olivia Clark
Great.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
I do have intention to clean up the budget note that passed as sort of a strange artifact of like Green 1 failed, but Green 4 passed.
Green 4 references things that would have happened if Green 1 had passed.
So I'm going to want to clean that up, preserve the intent of having the city administrator look at opportunities for management span of control adjustments.
But as it stands now, it's awkward.
At this time, I don't think I have any other further intentions for budget amendments at this time.
And I'll just— just wanted to note, I You know, a large priority for me is making sure that we, um, we're preserving this public safety component that I saw in a lot of different amendments.
Councilor Clark, you'll see a lot of inspiration from yours in here.
So, uh, just uses a different funding source largely.
And, um, that's kind of what, uh, what we're hoping to pull off in this.
And we would invite any co-sponsors on this from this dais to join us in this.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, go ahead and jump in the queue if you want to discuss this.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Councilor President.
Councilor Green, can you talk a little bit more about those 103 position restorations?
Or how many of those are actually real people that are filled right now, and how many are vacant?
Mitch Green
I'm actually going to kick this over to Councilor Morillo because I think her staff member has the specific numbers.
Sorry to put you on the spot.
Angelita Morillo
That's okay.
Let me get that number and get back to you.
Okay.
Oh, sorry, I'm hearing that all of them are currently filled positions.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Um, thank you, Mr. President.
Um, Councilor Green, how much PCF interest money were we already relying on in this year's budget?
Mitch Green
Uh, we approved a budget that used $26 million, I think, was the number that accrued during the '24-'25 budget year.
Steve Novick
So you're talking about relying on $42.5 million of PSF interest, right?
Mitch Green
You could say that, yeah.
Steve Novick
And how much PSF interest do we expect that we'd have next year after that's done?
Mitch Green
I mean, I'm not the forecaster here, but I can say that we can probably If the current balance is somewhat around $21 million in that fund, we should probably expect it to close out somewhere close to where it was this year.
But I know where you're going with this.
You're suggesting that it's imprudent to draw down what would be available for future years.
And I can speak to that argument if you want to have that debate.
Steve Novick
Yes, I am saying that.
I checked with CFO Biery and he said that right now he thinks we're looking at a A $75 million deficit next year.
And I mean, I think that we're looking at a tremendous cliff.
And what we've been doing is relying on last year's PSF interest.
Now you're talking about also relying on this year's PSF interest, and then next year we won't be able to rely on the following year's PSF interest.
So why isn't what you're proposing just a matter of giving us a huge cliff to fall off next year?
Mitch Green
Excellent question.
So earlier in this process, I suggested amendments that would've found the savings for some part of the things I wanted to restore by quote unquote chopping from the top.
Councilors didn't have appetite for that.
I did have a conversation with the city administrator who recognized that we need to have that span of control study and he wants to be a thought partner in that.
I think the message has been sent.
Adopted a budget note to that end.
We also had a conversation with our labor partners who all agreed that they recognize that there are some cuts that need to happen.
And so I'm thinking if we can use this balance that exists today to show Portlanders that we are not decimating our public safety apparatus, that we recognize that that is an urgent core need that they feel, using money that we have right now, that buys us the time to have this more deliberate and frankly more careful approach where we have a shared set of cuts across the organization.
That's the faith that I have in the city administrator.
That's the faith that I have in our labor partners.
But I don't think that we need to get in the habit of saying, well, we've used PSEF 3 years in a row, we're just going to assume that it becomes part of the mayor's proposed— because I don't know what the mayor's proposed budget priorities are going to be, but I know what mine are right now.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Steve Novick
Has the PSEF committee signed off on your idea?
Mitch Green
We emailed the PSEF committee last night and we have not received a response yet.
But they— we've shared this with stakeholders who we always talk to when it comes to PSEF.
Steve Novick
So are you saying that next year we'll have $20 million— you hope that we have $20 million of chop from the top in order to make up for all the PSEF money we won't have?
Mitch Green
That's not what I said.
I said that between the management identification, the span of control adjustments, and also the conversation with our labor partners that we were all part of last Wednesday, I heard a commitment to work together to identify the positions that we need to cut and the places that we need to have consolidation.
And that, yeah, that's going to have to total up.
But, you know, there's also an opportunity to raise new revenue, which I haven't yet talked about.
Steve Novick
So can you tell us the $4.8 million of contingency balance, how much of that is general fund?
Mitch Green
None of it.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Steve Novick
And have you talked with the bureaus and with CFO Biery about, you know, the wisdom of cutting that far into contingencies?
Mitch Green
I believe that my staff had a brief conversation with CFO Biery on Monday, and I don't think we've had an opportunity to talk directly on this yet, but we've talked with the CBO pretty extensively about it.
Steve Novick
So you're saying basically that we— you want us to spend $16 million extra in PSF interest this year, hoping that next year we can somehow make enough cuts that we're not going to need PSF interest next year?
Mitch Green
What I'm saying is I'm listening to my labor leaders who say they want to be part of a conversation to identify these cuts.
And I'm saying that for me, when I make my risk analysis as a councilor, I think it's more hazardous to cut 26 public safety specialists 2 advanced life support trucks or 3 trucks than it is to hold on to PCF interests that may or may not be as important as those things a year from now.
Candace Avalos
That's what I'm saying.
Steve Novick
And but you have— I mean, as I recall, your Chop from the Top initiative, how much money did that raise?
Like $3.5 million or something?
Yeah.
So you're— it sounds to me like you're imagining the next year somehow you have a Chop from the Top and from the Middle initiative that raises $20 million.
Mitch Green
What I'm saying is between the span of control cuts that I'm hoping the city administrator can help us lead on and also the partnership with our labor unions to identify opportunities to realize savings through attrition, through consolidation, that we can, we can close that gap.
It won't be dollar for dollar, but we have other parts of the budget that we can prioritize as well.
Steve Novick
So under your proposal, would there be no layoffs at all this year?
Mitch Green
Under my proposal, there are 103 positions that have previously been identified as layoffs that would not happen.
Steve Novick
So no layoffs at all this year, and we hope that we don't have to lay anybody off next year?
Mitch Green
I don't think that there's no layoffs this year, but I can say that there's 103 positions that we are— we are buying a time— buying a year to have a more deliberate conversation so we don't break our city.
Steve Novick
So some of us have been having conversations with labor and with the administration about going through the core realigned positions and trying to identify some positions that are— that it's particularly risky to let them go and trying to come up with, can we do an amendment that addresses things that are particularly risky?
Is it your position that all of the positions are equally risky, that we shouldn't be doing that more detailed analysis?
Mitch Green
I support that analysis, but I want to say that I'm not interested in picking winners and losers.
I think that we've got a commitment to have this conversation over a period of time to work with our DCA of Operations, the City Administrator, and labor to figure out how best to move forward with realignment.
And so, no, I'm not going to say whether or not I think, you know, that they all have the same level of risk to the City of Portland.
Thank you.
But the fact that we can't know for sure at this juncture, I think, is highly suspect.
Steve Novick
But some of us have been having those conversations about specific positions.
And at some point, you're saying we will have to— I mean, if I hear you correctly, either we're going to come up with some bunch of magic money next year, or at some point there are going to have to be layoffs and we'll have to decide about specific positions.
Is that right?
Mitch Green
I mean, of course I said that from the start, but there's going to have to be Rob Martineau said himself in that labor meeting, which you were in, that we recognize there needs to be cuts.
I think Carrie Coe said the same thing.
We recognize there need to be cuts.
I heard the same thing you heard.
What I'm saying is it's better to have that conversation with labor from the ground up and the administration over a course of a year than to try to do it inside of 10 days.
That's what I'm saying.
And as far as magic money, I mean, if we keep promising hundreds of millions of dollars to the Moda Center, and there's no source identified there.
And so I don't know.
This is a rounding error compared to that.
Steve Novick
Well, actually, $16 million is more than a rounding error compared to $75 million.
You know, you're talking to one of the people who is very skeptical of putting Moda Center money in.
But I just— I mean, it really seems to me that you're saying we should spend So that's what I had to say.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
There is very often at this council this all-or-nothing approach, and I can assure you that for someone who is going to get to keep their job for an additional year, that's going to be incredibly helpful and necessary for them and may in fact also prevent some of our own city employees from ending up on our streets.
To act like having an additional year of time at your job and to get paid is not a massive benefit, I think, is a disservice to what it means to people to have employment at this time.
I think Councilor Green covered it well, but I'm just gonna reemphasize the same point.
These, uh, the PSF interest is one-time dollars.
This will be used as a one-time thing, and labor is very aware that there will probably be cuts later on.
What labor has come to us and asked us is, we have not been— I'm paraphrasing what I've heard from them— we have not been consulted enough.
We would like to be a part of this process that is going to be happening from the ground up, from the city employees who are informing us about where those cuts and efficiencies can be made.
Because right now, we pretty much had an outside consultant do the majority of this.
It was not something that was really inclusive of the people who have the most knowledge, who are on the front lines about what can be cut without breaking the system.
Councilor Smith.
And that is, I think, what's really critical about this.
We have one opportunity to get this realignment done really well, and we can take the additional time to do that.
We don't want to consult with labor unions for 10 days before we make these massive cuts.
I know some folks have had a few conversations, you know, over the course of a few months.
So have we.
But it has not been a completely involved process, and that's what we're getting at here.
So I hope that this actually buys us time to do our due diligence, and I know that this is a council that really does care about labor, so anyone who's willing to join this amendment is welcome to.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
A lot of what Councilor Novick was asking about covered some of the questions that I had, but Councilor Green, one of the things that we've talked about as a body and that frankly we heard asked as a question in that summit about— is that what we called it, a summit about core realignment— was the idea that more spending up front sometimes leads to more layoffs.
Later.
And I'm wondering if, as you have looked at these funding sources and the true numbers around what we might save with some of these things, are you worried that we will be looking at more layoffs next year?
And, and I don't mean, to Councilor Murillo's point, somebody has their job for an extra year but will be laid off next year.
I mean, are you worried that we will have to dig deeper in terms of layoffs for city employees?
And with that reduction in services for Portlanders, if we pause everything as opposed to just stopping some of that core realignment work, which is I think part of the conversation that we had at that summit, do we pause everything or do we Yeah, I'm just— I'm wondering if you have thought about that piece of it and what, what you're doing to try to mitigate that, or if that's not something that you're focused on or worried about at all.
Mitch Green
I mean, I think it's a reasonable question.
I always worry about what are the unintended consequences and risks of every decision.
I think where I'm at right now is because this money is going to be used to pay for the emergency ordinance, doesn't come from cutting somewhere else in the contemporaneous period, that it's not directly going to lead to a higher level of layoffs than all else constant.
What I worry about in the context of that conversation we had is that if we rush through the process, and I know that there's maybe an idea that we can trim and scalpel to identify like some areas to restore and hold harmless and others to get rid of, that that will still result in a less optimal and a less efficient set of outcomes that will then require us to spend a lot of money to try to bring capabilities back that we have lost, and that we won't know we've lost it until it's too late and things start breaking.
And that then comes at the expense of things we want to fund in the future.
I also don't know what our BLT revenue forecast will be.
We know it's a highly volatile source of income, and so sort of predicting to the FTE level is pretty hazardous, especially when you hold that part constant.
And we also don't know what the plans are for this fund balance now.
We don't know that the mayor is going to put this into the next budget.
There could be other opportunities for that PSF balance that has nothing to do with funding general fund obligations.
These are all unknowns.
What we do know is it's there now.
And we have a series of positions that Obviously, there's all the rest of the core services realignment aspect.
And I've been convinced that there's, frankly, too much risk of moving forward with that.
And I don't see how a sort of selective pause can work.
I have seen an email from Carrie on that, but I think you get in a situation where now you've got to talk to the other folks who are laid off and say, you know, we're going to pause, but we're going to keep paying you.
Loretta Smith
I think that's a good point.
Mitch Green
Sorry, you're losing your healthcare on June 30th instead of August because we thought that you're less risky than these other ones.
That's how it feels to me.
And so that's, that's a huge risk that I'm not willing to, um, to, to, um, to sort of like roll the dice on, so to speak.
And so I have thought through it.
I'm not concerned that using the funding source in this amendment presents an immediate risk that it's just going to create more layoffs in the future.
I think that's a good point.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
I think I, I am still concerned about that.
Um, I appreciate you sending this out.
I think if it were something scaled back, that might be interesting, but at, at this level, I've got some concerns.
I'll look forward to reading over— you sent things out earlier today.
I'll look forward to reading them over in more detail, but, um, I'm a little skeptical about this setting us up for some even deeper cuts to services Portlanders rely on in the future.
Thanks for working on it though.
Thanks, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pearl.
Councilor Novick, I'll come back to you and we go to Councilor Smith first.
Loretta Smith
Council President, could you go to him?
I'm waiting for some documentation to come.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick then.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
Councilor Green, you've said that you recognize in the future there are going to be layoffs.
You've been here for what, 17, 18 months?
You have said that you think that we should lay off about $3 million worth of managers.
But beyond that, are there any layoffs which, based on your 18 months of experience here, Yeah, I think that's an unfair question.
Mitch Green
I think I've said it from the beginning that I want labor to lead that question, that process.
We—.
You created a summit and we had that conversation and we heard very clearly from those folks that they are willing to engage this process with the city administrator and the mayor and their councilors.
They want the time and the respect to do so.
I'm curious to see what they come up with in that conversation.
Loretta Smith
Council President, I think that's a fair question.
Steve Novick
So you are putting it on labor to come up with the layoffs that they think that we should make?
Mitch Green
No, I'm inviting labor to sit at the table with us and help us figure this out.
I'm not putting it on labor.
Steve Novick
Okay, but again, as of now, other than the cuts that you have proposed to management, you have no cut— you have no layoffs that you personally would be comfortable with?
Mitch Green
Not at the time, no.
Steve Novick
But you're confident that by a year from now you will have a bunch of them you're comfortable with?
Mitch Green
I am confident that we confirmed an excellent city administrator, and I'm confident that we have some of the best labor unions in this country.
And I think that if we work together and we create the space for them to work together, they can deliver us a budget that meets our needs.
Steve Novick
I agree that we should work with labor.
I have a lot of faith in labor organizations too.
Um, I would just be very surprised if anybody's able to come up with a palatable list of $20 million worth of people to lay off that everyone would be happy with next year.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
I just want to make it very clear that this isn't an ask that originated from councilors You guys created a labor summit, which is a fancy word for a meeting, where we had a meeting with labor people.
It actually needs to be far more extensive.
It actually could be a real summit if we want to talk about whatever the heck a summit is supposed to actually be.
But city employees are the ones who are coming to us when they are allowed to talk to us, by the way, and they are telling us that they want to be more involved in this process.
So—.
They are willing and capable of identifying efficiencies that we don't comprehend because we are not on the front lines.
We don't actually— these people have worked here, some of them for 30, 40 years.
They know things that we don't know.
And I think that it's pretty arrogant for us to pretend that we don't need their input right now.
So I just really have to say, like, this is coming because city staff are asking to consult with us as the managers of the budget, and we should take that feedback.
We should get as much information as we can about these decisions.
And if we have the opportunity to use one-time funding to buy us time to do this the right way, then we should take that time.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Okay, colleagues, we are at 20— we're at 27 minutes right now, but this is a big beefy conversation, and that's totally okay.
Also, Councilor, uh, Clerk, Seeded her time by telling us how she's going to slam all of our— so, um, Councilor Ryan and then Smith, and then I'm going to move us to the next speaker.
Oh, and then Kanal, and then I'll move us to the next speaker.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Green, you sent out some amendments this morning, but it wasn't about what you're speaking about at this moment.
Mitch Green
No, I need to get those sent.
Dan Ryan
My staff's working on getting them sent out.
I'm flying with no details here, so that's why we're asking so many questions.
This is a program.
And it was a bold statement that you made, which I I respect that.
So I hear this, the slowdown of the core realignment, as this is not perfect and this fluid process needs improvement.
I think that's been discussed with all of us, and I actually thought that CA Lee was very forthright in understanding that sentiment and that they were constantly in a— trying to improve that process.
Would you agree with that, that that took place when we were having discussions?
Or did I just only hear that?
Mitch Green
I agree that CA Lee has offered commitments to be deliberate.
He's also told me, I'm 5 months on the job.
And so in response to my sort of, I know we need to cut into the management ranks, he said, I recognize that and I agree with you.
Please gimme the space to do that.
I think that he heard pretty loud and clear the conversations that we had with labor partners, and that's why I do place so much faith in him.
To help us lead in this moment.
And I just think we're going to have a better outcome, Councilor, if we give ourselves more time to do this, 9 months, a year, than if we try to just barrel forward with what we have here, which is my primary motivation.
Dan Ryan
And then some would say they have been working on it for quite a bit of time.
And so there's that.
I do think it's been more of a scalpel than it has been a hammer.
It's a hard thing to do.
But we all knew this day was coming.
I remember those conversations in sessions when we were talking about approving contracts and such.
As of now, there's no forecast that says we'll have a positive revenue forecast that would come from our solid bread-and-butter revenue streams like business license tax.
We haven't heard anything that would indicate that that's going to be on the big increase, right?
Have you heard anything that would indicate that?
Mitch Green
I see more for lease signs going up than I see them I mean, we've got our city economist here, but we're way ahead of his forecasting schedule.
It's a very volatile income source.
I do note that last week, I think the Oregonian reported that in Oregon, corporate profits are at an all-time high.
And so our business license tax is a function of net income and profits.
I would expect that to be a tailwind.
Dan Ryan
That said, though, you said that— what is the revenue stream that will avoid more layoffs.
If it's not business-like, like say they just stay flat, that would do it.
So what is this revenue stream that you— that I think you have in your head that would suddenly come about that would allow us to not lay off more employees?
You mentioned that you had an idea.
Mitch Green
Out of respect for my—.
Jamie Dunphy
Out of respect—.
Dan Ryan
It's important I think that you state that idea, Councilor, because we're having a very serious conversation.
These are people's jobs.
And so I don't want to mislead anybody.
So I just want to hear, like, what is that?
What is it?
Mitch Green
I'm going to tell you right now that I'm not going to share that concept with you at this time, but that I do know that we've got— I think that we've got tailwinds on our BLT as it stands.
Dan Ryan
All right, that didn't say anything.
So you don't want to expose what this other idea is?
Mitch Green
I'm working with a colleague on an idea, and I have not received buy-in to share that at this time.
Dan Ryan
Okay, we're all, we're all waiting.
Thanks.
Mitch Green
You'll hear it here first.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Um, this is a very interesting conversation because I am really concerned right now, and I need some level setting from the administration In terms of how many jobs are actually going to be lost with our current adopted budget from last week that we budgeted for, because I'm hearing 46 people and then I'm hearing 100, and I don't like what I'm hearing because we're going to have the same problem next year.
We're going to either have to cut or do something, and there are a lot of people on the front lines who, who are going to lose their job.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
In less than 30 days, and I'm really concerned about this.
I thought we would be able to get this under control, but we had some layoffs in with the PS3s, with the fire and rescue, that I was not happy with, that we couldn't get past.
And so I'm wondering if it would be a prudent thing to do is to hold off on on the realignment.
So question, um, thank you so much, Ruth, for coming up.
How many jobs are being lost with the adopted budget that we had last week?
Ruth Levine
So as of right now, our estimate— and, you know, things change a little bit between bumping, and obviously people, um, may leave the city— but, um, For other reasons.
But as of right now, our estimate is that 99 is the number for all of the reductions citywide as of last week, as of the approved budget.
Of those, 46 are related to realignment.
Loretta Smith
46 are realignment.
The other is because of layoffs.
And so I don't know how you can say to me which one is a layoff and which one is a realignment.
Because there's no difference.
Ruth Levine
So the— sorry, the ones that are related to realignment are positions that are being reduced that were identified as part of what we called the core services realignment process.
Not that they're realigning from Bureau A to Bureau B in the budget.
They're reductions.
They're reductions of positions all across the city.
And then, and it—.
Loretta Smith
To be able to meet the gap that we had, the $169 million gap, right?
Ruth Levine
Right.
So realignment was a portion of that.
And I'm saying of the total 99 positions citywide that would— are filled and are being reduced as of right now, 46 of those were a result of the process that we called core services realignment.
Loretta Smith
And I wasn't here earlier Could you still stay there?
I wasn't here earlier, Councilor Green.
Um, you don't have a detailed copy of your proposal, but how much are you— can you give me a ballpark of what you're— what you're— how much money you're talking about?
Because I found another account.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I, I am working on sharing it.
I'm suffering from some, uh, tech challenges here because I'm also responding to everyone.
But, um, it's a total of $16.5 million from the PCF Interest Fund.
Loretta Smith
Okay, is that, is that what you need to get the realignment to keep everybody, to keep their jobs?
Mitch Green
That's what this whole thing does.
That's the whole package.
It's a total of 103 positions.
Loretta Smith
Okay, so, uh, Director Levine, can you tell me— I'm looking at the grants fund under external materials and services.
There's $138,543,760 $164 million in that account.
Can we take that money out of that account and pay for this?
Ruth Levine
From the grants fund?
Loretta Smith
From the grants fund, and under external materials and services.
It has $100 and— actually, it has $141 million in there.
Ruth Levine
My, um, guess is I'd have to go pull out more detail, but that much of that is restricted for— that we receive as grant revenue for specific And so we couldn't reallocate it to other uses.
We'd have to dive in more into, you know, what all is in there.
Loretta Smith
Because I imagine some of that can be used for general fund.
Ruth Levine
It really just depends on what revenue, what grants we're receiving.
Many of them come with more restrictions.
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah, Councilor, just add to that.
Jamie Dunphy
Sorry, for the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer, sitting in for City Administrator.
Typically, when the city receives those grants, they do come with strings attached.
Eric Zimmerman
And so even if it's general fund, it may be general fund that has to be used for specific outcomes that I would guess are likely not necessarily aligned with the reductions we're talking about.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
It doesn't have to be aligned with the reductions we're talking about because we took money out of the golf fund to pay for elections.
So we know we can match general fund to general fund.
So I'm also looking at the facility services operating fund.
There's $53 million in the contingency amount, and that's general fund.
Ruth Levine
It's not all general fund.
So the facilities fund—.
Loretta Smith
There's $16 million at least in that $53, right?
Ruth Levine
Right.
The facilities fund is a separate fund, so it's not in the general fund, and it consists of contingencies for specific facilities.
And so, for example, if PP&D— PP&D pays into that for part of the 1900 building, right?
Right.
And so that That is specifically for their facilities.
Loretta Smith
In contingency, it's not their reserves?
Ruth Levine
No, but it's in contingency for if the elevator breaks in the 1900 building, they would use those funds to fix it.
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Ruth Levine
And so they're restricted because they're for a specific purpose and they come from restricted funds.
Loretta Smith
I've been looking at this for the last 2 years.
It's been here.
There's not been an emergency.
We have an emergency right now.
We have folks who are going to be losing their jobs.
In less than 30 days.
And I know I can go through all these funds that I'm having that I'm talking to you about today, and you'll give me a great answer and, um, of why we can't do it.
But I'm telling you, we can.
And I know for a fact, I tried to have a meeting with 26 bureau heads before this process came, and some of, of our bureau heads called C.A.
Lee and said, Councilor Smith is asking for a meeting.
What do I do?
So he called me and he asked me, what you doing?
And I told him what I was trying to do.
And I said, I need to know what's in all these restricted funds.
What is this money in here for?
There is some general fund money places that we don't know.
There are counselors and probably money in there from Vera Katz that she put aside that we don't even know.
And y'all don't even have a running list Councilor Smith.
I have the documents of when these dollars were put in.
So for you to tell me off the top of your head that we can't use it, I'm not buying it.
Because guess what?
The same amount of money was in there last year.
It was $138 million in the grants fund.
Now there's $141 million.
So no, we can take $16 million from somewhere to help people save their jobs until we figure out what's going on and people feel comfortable.
People are not comfortable right now.
People are going to lose their health insurance.
And so I'm saying I am open to taking some of this money from contingency.
It's not reserves.
Contingency from the city fleet operating, $35 million, and from the grants fund.
And after I told C.A.
Lee what I was trying to do, he said, I'm trying to do the same things.
I said, I need to find out if there's general funds in these restricted funds.
He found $9 million.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
I'm looking at some of the funds that he told us about.
I don't know— there's millions of funds in here, but I'm looking at some right now that I think we need to take a look at because I don't think that, that we had a comprehensive enough overview of what realignment really meant and what it's going to really mean to this community.
Because if we're going to end up back here at the same place next year, which we are, we may have some debt service that's going to come back in anywhere between $20 and $30 million next year, but we're going to be in the same situation.
If we try to pay for what we're paying for right now, we're going to have another $169 million.
So we got to have a real conversation right now and cut everything that we need to cut at the time that we need to cut it instead of playing these games every year.
Oh, we have $169 million.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
Yes.
Because I am tired of asking the— answering the question, what are y'all doing?
Y'all mismanaging money over there at the city?
They don't know the difference between housing money and transportation or restricted money and general fund money.
All they see is a headline that says, uh, City of Portland has a big gap.
And why is that gap there?
I told y'all before.
I am so irritated right now.
We used ARPA money to pay for ongoing programs and we did not cut those programs when the ARPA money went away.
So we still have the same problem if we're going to try to get this budget passed again next year.
So we need to start talking fast to me because I have totally changed my mind about what's going on here because I'm not trusting the process.
I feel like labor should have had a seat at the table when we were talking about this.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
Directors should have had a seat at the table.
We should not have had someone from the administration to tell us who was going to be let go.
The directors are best suited to do that.
Labor is best suited.
And that's why you're having— and it's not you.
I am talking to the mayor right now, and I am talking to our folks because it has gotten to the point where there's nowhere to hide on this.
Councilor Loretta Smith, Councilor Smith.
We got to be clear about what we have.
And to think that we're going to be able to save this budget after the budget— we need to work on this and say we, we need to hold serve and we need to find some of this money.
And if it has to come out of this $35 million in contingency in the, in the city fleet operating fund, or you give me a good reason why we should not, that's all, that's all I want to know.
I have not committed to anything, but I am concerned and I am upset right now because it is, it's a, it's a bunch of shenanigans and foolishness going on.
And you cannot expect me to go through this same kind of heartbreaking trauma of letting people go who are going to lose their good benefits.
They have spouses who need surgeries.
They have kids who need to go and get their immunizations and everything.
It's just, it's all a whole new world.
We can sit up here if we want to and act like it's okay to cut 100 jobs, but that's too much.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
And how they were cut is an issue for me.
And I think that's why labor is upset right now.
That's why they're, they're ringing the bell on this, because it was how it was done.
It's not what was done.
And my mom always say that it's not what you do, it's how you do.
And how we did this wasn't right.
So we better get together and we better huddle up and figure out what to do.
I don't know nothing about that labor summit that y'all had, but I should have been there.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Murillo, and then we'll move to the next amendment.
Angelita Morillo
Um, I'll pass.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Councilor Green, any further?
Okay.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Uh, thanks.
In terms of, uh, things that I'm still looking at, the decision to To close the City Team Shelter on Grand and for the city to pay for a shelter in the Pearl District for more money and almost the same amount of beds is one that's given me a little bit of heartburn.
So I just want to make you aware of that, that I'm looking at directing that we keep the City Team 1 open, which we currently are operating.
So that's essentially a It would result in a little bit of a surplus back to the general fund.
Another amendment, I'm looking to see what support exists, but given what was discussed in the previous, is about a partial 311 restoration.
And I'm awaiting the administration's preference, but given the turnover in civic life, one thing that remains very concerning to me is that the culture within Civic Life seems to continue to be at odds with the neighborhood associations.
And I think that's even supported, frankly, in the— and I very much appreciate the interim director's letter about things that are on hold when it comes to ONI changes and putting contracts out, but—.
Yes.
I am looking for an administration's preference for where else the neighborhood program and its staff can live outside of Civic Life, because I think there might be a cultural bureaucratic issue within Civic Life.
And given that there's no permanent leader there anymore, I'd either want to remove that program from it, or I'm going to bring an amendment to dissolve the bureau and put all offices somewhere else.
And so I would like to see the administration's preference, if there is one, with respect to that.
And ultimately, I think, you know, these are tough conversations, but I remain focused on budget amendments, an overall budget that is focused on public safety, livability, and housing development.
Those are my 3 kind of watch words as we go through this.
And I think I've been a fierce advocate for anything that helps our neighborhoods clean up or deal with the problems that are coming to their feet.
So anything that gets in the way of forward progress is something that I probably am going to be— you've all seen me do that.
I'm going to defend PMO.
I'm going to defend Portland Solutions in trying to keep our shelter numbers up and making sure that if there is a route towards some of those public safety restorations, that we find it.
I'm also just going to say I'm governing for the 675,000 people who call Portland home, and that can be very hard when the closest people to us day in and day out sometimes are Um, some of these realignments and some of these, these, these cuts.
I, I get that.
But I just want to comment since there was such a long discussion on, on your proposal, Councilor Green.
More than the details of it, the thing that gives me the greatest pause, and I, I asked this to, when I was briefed months ago, to, um, various bureau directors.
I am— I, I said, because one of them had the same number of reductions that they proposed with respect to their realignment reductions was the same number of vacancies that they had.
And I said, that doesn't seem like a very proper realignment.
That seems like you avoided hard conversations.
And so to pause a realignment only based on the FTE that are currently filled tells me that Okay.
It's realignment was okay unless it was a filled position.
So that's giving me some pause in the way that you've laid out your piece.
But I think we're going to obviously have more conversation with it because there's more than just 46 positions that are being realigned.
It's just 46 that are filled.
And so I'm trying to understand, like, what if we govern from the highest level of the organization and not at the detailed level?
I'm just— I'm wrestling with that.
So I was mostly just listening to that last several half hour.
But anyway, that's where I'm looking at.
My amendments are quite minor, frankly, that are coming forward.
Thanks, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Colleagues, any discussion of Councilor Zimmerman's?
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Oh, Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
No, it's— I have a comment, but it's not about Councilor Zimmerman's It's so that I'm clear.
I think we need to bring our PS3s back.
We need to have public safety brought back.
I think we need to make all of our public safety agencies whole.
We need to bring back the rescue services at the fire department.
I was on Hayden Island on Friday and looking at the burnt houseboats.
Yes.
That were down there.
Again, that is not my district, but the, uh, rescue units for East and North— for East and North Portland, they were defunded.
And so think about this.
This fire happened at 4:00 AM in the morning.
If we fund the current proposal in the way that we have it today, there would be no one to go and go down to Hayden Island at 4 o'clock in the morning because we won't have 24-hour coverage.
So think about that.
Those folks are more at risk on that water in those water homeboats down there.
It's crazy.
So I'm concerned about that, and I'm concerned about— I'm concerned about the people, the 46 But you brought up something, Councilor Zimmerman.
So what you're saying is there were more than 46— I thought there were more than 46 actually, um, realigned, but they're in, um, empty FTEs.
Now how many is that?
So that's concerning too.
Is that another 150?
Eric Zimmerman
I can't remember the exact number, but it is significant, right?
We had something like 22 in Public Works HR people just alone, right?
So—.
Loretta Smith
That are unfilled?
Eric Zimmerman
No, I'm just saying in general, when you got the briefing about the types of realignments, there were significant numbers across many places.
But I think it was briefed to us by our DCA offices that it was 46 are filled.
Loretta Smith
And so if we're going to continue with realignment, wondering if the plan is I don't see Tracy Warren here.
If the plan is to take those unfilled FTEs off the books next year to decrease the gap, again, we're going to go through another alignment.
And so now we're going to have to deal with the unfilled FTEs.
So it's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on around here.
And we need to figure this thing out.
Clearly so that we have an understanding.
Because I'm going to tell you, when we get back here this time next year, it's going to be the same thing.
It is going to be the same thing.
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah, it's quite challenging.
And the realignment numbers, the layoff numbers due to budget cuts, I think it's important that we think of those as very different, right?
Budget cuts, constrained budget versus realignment, those are different pots, so to speak, in terms— or those are different reasons why is a better way to put that.
And then—.
Loretta Smith
But the people don't know that.
They think just because they're being laid off because it was realigned, because we did realignment and they had a big gap that they had to fill.
And so that's— that is the question that people have been— this last few days have been really challenging for me to listen to all this extra conversation that I didn't have.
Tracy Warren
Councilor Smith.
Candace Avalos
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Prior to this, I want to make sure that we have enough people to cover the services that we're offering, those core services.
And I want to make sure that these frontline folks, that they get a chance to keep their jobs.
They're, they're the most vulnerable in our ecosystem.
So, Mr. President, that's what I was trying to, trying to find out, what, what that told number is about the FTEs, that the absent or the vacant FTEs, uh, what that number looks like.
I don't know if Tracy can get that to us later, but, um, that's, that's an important number.
Eric Zimmerman
And yeah, Councilor, I believe DCA Warren is on, is available online.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
I'm not sure if the answer is handy, but, but, um, Tracy, if you're online and have an answer, that'd be great.
Tracy Warren
Absolutely.
Hello, councilors.
For the record, Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator for City Operations.
I apologize for being online.
I would normally be in person, but I'm not feeling well.
Um, happy to provide some more details.
I will say that the numbers that I have do not reflect the changes that were made, um, in amendments.
My understanding is there's roughly around 20 positions overall that have been amended through the, uh, adopted budget, or they approved, um, of the 46 for the core service realignment.
There was a total of 91 positions reduced, and of those, uh, 46 were filled.
And so that's just for position reductions.
We have several positions that are slated for moves as part of the realignment, which means they are moving from their currently assigned bureau into an embedded service team or into a core service team.
And that number is larger.
I think it's roughly— we have about 200 or so in scope.
Okay.
Um, between procurement, HR, and IT.
So the 46 is just those reductions, uh, that are layoffs.
Loretta Smith
I'm going to ask you this question, um, DCA Warren.
If we were to pause realignment during this budget cycle Um, well, it—.
Tracy Warren
I have not seen the language that is, um, under discussion, so I don't know how it differs from the prior, uh, language around pausing.
Um, but it, it could be problematic.
Um, one, we are working through a process to realign.
The other folks in order to meet the service needs that we've identified that we would have in this new service model.
So if we're pausing it all together, my assumption would be that we would not be moving into this new, uh, realigned state.
We would not be providing services under the future model, which means everybody would continue to do work as they've been doing.
Um, and then I would ask the council to consider that if that is the choice you all are making because you are unhappy with the realignment activities that have occurred, knowing that we do not have capacity, we will continue to not have capacity.
And so if you are not adding resources to help with change management, to help support a different process, I don't see how time is going to be effective.
Loretta Smith
Well, I'm trying to figure out how we're adding more services when we're cutting folks, how we're adding more services to, um, the city of Portland if we're cutting folks.
Tracy Warren
Yeah, we're not adding services, we're realigning the way in which we provide those services.
So for example, Um, where you had services that were very bureau-specific, like they had a dedicated person in the bureau.
Instead, we will have teams that are dedicated to the service area that will provide across the service area.
So, um, the reductions are being made in areas where we saw there was lower risk associated with the reductions.
So for example, we have several positions who have maybe mixed responsibilities.
We saw that maybe out of all of those 3, we'll just say 3 positions, out of those 3 positions, we really needed to cover 1 position that could support all of the critical needs and then the other pieces that were additional duties Right, but those folks who used to do the work, um, who was going to do that extra work that we may have had 3 people doing the work for?
Loretta Smith
And I guess, Tracy, um, the, the other thing is, um, I don't get the sense that the directors and the bureau heads were consulted on who they thought.
I think that was a top-down kind of thing, and I need to feel more comfortable with that.
Tracy Warren
Yeah, we did have several conversations with the DCAs and the directors where they were able to provide input into where they saw the risk.
Um, to the point where we did change direction and go, okay, we won't reduce this position, instead we will reduce this one.
So we had a lot of engagement with, uh, DCAs and bureau directors.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Keith Wilson
Council President, if I might add an anecdote to that.
Sure.
And so this is just something for the councilors, and I've been sharing this with each and every one of you for 12 months.
When we came into office, we looked at the core realignment as a way of unlocking efficiencies as well.
We know that PBOT had an MOU for their own purchasing department, and we know that Parks had an MOU for their own purchasing department.
We hired Sylvester Donaldson as our Chief Procurement Officer.
Thank you.
Who sits in City Operations to take control of our entire purchasing system so we didn't have 27 different purchasing programs with a host of different items that we were purchasing.
So we have one set of tools and Sylvester was going to manage it.
Those MOUs are going away.
That's the efficiencies, and that's part of the alignment we're bringing forward.
We're able to reduce staff, unfortunately, But we're improving and unlocking the abilities for having one person centralize it over the 27 different bureaus.
And that's an anecdote that I shared just on those 2 MOUs that were outside and part of the siloed system that we didn't have control over.
So we're trying to gain control of the entire city, and the realignment is allowing us that tool to do it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Mayor.
Councilor Murillo, and then we're going to move to the next councilor.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
I just kind of quickly wanted to answer some of the things that Councilor Zimmerman brought up about saving the filled positions versus the vacant ones.
And I think the rationale for that there was really that the positions that are already vacant, many have been vacant for a few years.
So that's not capacity that we're losing.
That's capacity that we have already been straining against and have struggled to work around.
And frankly, I think I think the vacant positions also need to be looked into as far as like what are the ones that we really do need back, because I think there have been places in the city where we don't have them.
But that capacity is already not present.
So that is why the filled positions were selected from an efficiency standpoint.
And then also just from a human standpoint, like to be frank with you, I, yes, I would rather preserve a position where a person is there so that they can keep working.
And also because I think that—.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Angelita Morillo
We've all discussed this.
I don't think that there are positions that are unneeded at this point.
We are a very slim operation here.
And so just wanted to share some of that rationale.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Okay.
Councilor Koyama Lane, coming to you for any new budget notes or amendments.
Olivia Clark
Great.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
First, colleagues, I want to say that I am— I feel proud of us for getting to this place in the budget process.
I know we're not quite done.
But we're almost there.
We're close.
And a big thank you to Council President and your whole team for the work that you've put into this process.
Loretta Smith
Good work.
Thank you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I plan to bring 3 budget notes and 2 amendments that I'll briefly walk you through.
I'll share the problem that it's trying to solve, approach that I'm proposing, and how it's tied to the budget.
So the first one is around contracting.
The first budget note directs the mayor's next proposed budget to include some clear reporting on FY26 27 FTE costs and operations around our hiring of outside contractors.
It requires bureaus to identify opportunities for cost savings by reducing reliance on external contractors and seeing if it makes sense to bring work back in-house, if that— seeing if that makes sense financially and operationally.
Currently, we don't have clear information on the number of outside contractors that the city has hired and don't know if these temporary contractors are doing work that could be converted to in-house city jobs, and this information could help us make decisions in our next budget.
So this budget note requests a report on contracting staff across all city service areas, including FTE duties, costs, and length of service.
And it also asks for details on professional services contracting, such as facilitation, strategic planning, and consultation.
And the hope is that by getting transparent data and concrete recommendations, we can better shape the next budget.
Thank you.
To support efficient, sustainable staffing and possibly a smarter use of external contracting dollars.
At the very least, I think it's important to have that information.
The second one is about the utility rate study.
So water and sewer rates and all related fees are adopted every year.
Right now, we don't have a— currently have a clear, consistent way for council to track how those rates are being studied, redesigned, or modernized.
Angelita Morillo
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
And we need to maintain and invest in our aging infrastructure, and also affordability for our constituents is a big concern.
So Water and Environmental Services are conducting a comprehensive public utility rate study starting next fiscal year, and this budget notes— budget note directs CBO and City Administrator and the DCA for Public Works to report to us quarterly on the comprehensive utility rate study.
Which is already budgeted and is happening in the next fiscal year.
And those updates can include process status, community engagement, transparency efforts, and progress towards building a more equitable rate system.
And yeah, those— the utility rate studies outcomes will directly shape future water and sewer rates that households and businesses pay.
And regular reporting will make sure that we understand how things like modernization efforts, All right.
My last budget note is around budget process.
And I also, I want to take some time to appreciate our former and current council presidents, CBO, city admin, who I know have put in a lot of time and work to support us through making the budget process better and better.
I have seen improvements, and I know that we'll continue to iterate and improve and appreciate that what I hear from many is that there's always room to make this process better and better.
And at the same time, we've heard feedback from community and have some of our own feedback also around the budget process.
I've heard things like an ask for shifting of timelines to make sure that community members have some more time to review our budget amendments before providing testimony, or that it would be helpful to see within the mayor's proposed budget specifically where feedback from community has shaped the budget.
Which I know it has because, Mr. Mayor, you chose to protect the Mount Tabor Sun program.
I know that that was directly from working with community.
Not everyone knows that.
Could be helpful to see how, how those, those, that feedback ends up in your budget.
So this amendment directs the City Budget Office, City Administrator, and city leaders to provide an administration side Okay.
After-action report after this budget is over on this process.
So it would include perspectives of what went well, what we could improve, recommendations for next year's cycle.
There's a reference to priority-based budgeting and exploring how we can make budget decisions and allocate funds based on outcomes, not just individual line items or program offers.
I'd like it to be easier for the community to understand the link between dollars we're spending and real results.
And reviewing the budget process will work best working on this with a variety of viewpoints.
So if anyone's interested in collaborating on this budget note, please let me know.
All right, I have to introduce an amendment that's a technical amendment to change the funding source for the Montavilla Park Picnic Shelter.
So the original amendment drew $755,000 from the parks levy contingency, and I'm going to I'm going to try to briefly explain how this project exists in an odd bureaucratic limbo or bureaucratic purgatory.
The shelter was torn down in 2021, and building a new shelter would be considered a new asset.
Because the shelter is a new asset, it does not qualify for the parks levy capital funding, which is for maintenance of existing assets.
And now this project does not qualify for SDC funding, which Huge thank you to Ruth and Sonya for working on this and helping tackle this quirk to make sure that the shelter has a path to get rebuilt.
And because of that quirk, the shelter would also not qualify for SDC capital funding for new assets either, unless we make some changes.
Huge thank you to Ruth and Sonya for working on this and helping tackle this quirk to make sure that the shelter has a path to get rebuilt.
And we expect to adopt new SDC methodology next year.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Ruth Levine
So we'll be looking at this again in the fall.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
And when we make those revisions, we'll be able to fund the project with SDC funding.
So for now, the City Budget Office recommends that we use Parks General Fund for FY26-27 and then can replenish that balance in FY27-28 when we have revised the SDC methodology to make sure that this project doesn't get lost in the metaphorical couch cushions.
And then the last amendment that I've been working on is around Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just wanted to say that I'm very grateful for the City of Portland and the City of Portland Police Department for their efforts in Station 19, the rescue there.
I know that there are other folks that are focusing on the rescues, and so this is a backup amendment.
If we get to the place where we have not funded it yet, I will look to see how we can use some of our council budgets.
I've given the city administrator a heads up that I would look to reduce his chief of staff position, and every office besides the offices in D1 would contribute.
So we'll see if we get there.
And I will say, I Have been someone that has felt like the city administrator needs to be fully staffed to do his work.
And didn't— I didn't— I don't know if I quite realized he currently has 3 positions, and then we are adding in 3 more.
So I do support him in getting extra support, but I asked him which of those new 3 adds would he choose to cut first, and he had said that chief of staff position.
So that's why I'm contemplating that one.
Thank you.
And that's it for me.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Colleagues, discussion to Councilor Koyama Lane's proposed budget notes and amendments?
Dan Ryan
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Really appreciate you bringing forward a budget note on the rate-setting process.
You know, that's something I care a lot about.
We've talked about it in the committee, so I'm going to be supportive of that.
Supportive of pretty much all of yours, but I missed one detail.
You said something about asking offices not in D1 to contribute to something, but I kind of zoned out for a minute.
Can you restate that one that you're talking about and what that does?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, it's this.
Yes, thanks for the question.
I'm talking about the rescue at Station 19.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
And that's a backup?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
That is a backup, yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Councilor President.
Councilor Koyama Lane, the On the Station 19, are you thinking about drawing funds from D2, D3, D4 offices?
Correct.
Can you tell me how much?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Well, if we were to remove the addition of the City Administrator Chief of Staff position, each office would need to contribute, contribute 90— about $98,000.
And if we would make a reduction to both the City Administrator's Chief of Staff and the analyst that's being added to the DCA of operations, that would mean each office would need to contribute $78,000, specifically $78,541.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
That came up quick.
It did.
Thank you for daylighting your amendment.
I'm calling on Lane.
You haven't said this, have I seen the details of this?
Candace Avalos
Mm-hmm.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, good.
Dan Ryan
That means I'm free to ask open-ended questions.
So the theme of your first one that I heard was bring work back inside.
That's kind of the overarching theme and asking for a budget note that studies all outside contracts.
Now, first, is that just looking at the general fund specifically, or are you talking about the entire city in restricted accounts and such?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
That's citywide.
Dan Ryan
No, okay, citywide, I got that part, but is it the general fund?
Like how we're spending money in the general fund since that's where the heartache is on all these cuts?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
All contracts citywide, yes.
Dan Ryan
So it goes beyond general fund?
Yeah.
Okay.
And I assume outside contractors means all outside contractors, so that would include the nonprofit sector?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Dan Ryan
Okay, thanks.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Can I clarify one thing, Councilor Rang?
I'm not sure if the ultimate decision is that we shouldn't have contractors, but do believe that this information would be a good start to just understand and be able to answer some of the questions that I do get around this.
Steve Novick
That's fair.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
Just, uh, 2 questions.
One, um, a rescue unit costs $550,000 to restore, and if we were to cut $98,000 hypothetically per office, uh, for 9 offices, that's a little less than $900,000.
It's $882,000.
So Is the reason for that additional money the wastage issue where money gets sent to all the other accounts?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, so overhead dollars, when reduced, which is what council budgets are, we get to use about half of it.
The rest gets sent to a bunch of other accounts around— or funds around the city.
So I'm not sure about that pairing of the funding source and the expenditure.
I'll be talking about rescues again when it's my turn, but I do appreciate the focus on that rescue as well as the other 2 as well.
Olivia Clark
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, thank you for bringing that up.
And that's something that I'm looking at, thinking about the overhead piece.
And if the rescue is funded another way, it might be possible that some of this Thank you, colleagues.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith and then Councilor Zimmerman.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
I just want to say I don't think council offices should backfill staff cuts from the mayor's budget.
I'm looking at the technology services fund and there's $42 million in that fund.
We have to be very surgical.
You can't make all these, um, complete all these gaps with our small budgets.
There's $42 million in there, and then there's $33 million of external materials and services that's just been passed over.
We have to not be lazy about Councilor Smith.
We have to be smart about how we're taking cuts and don't do the easy thing.
I don't know, somebody must have told— a memo must have went out that said if you cut from the council offices, you'll get reelected.
That's not true.
You got to be smart about what you're doing, and we cannot shortchange our looking at the budget.
It's an $8.6 billion budget.
If you're going to put something forward, look through that $8.6 billion budget, Councilor Smith.
I think that we need to quit looking at the low-hanging fruit.
Our offices are low-hanging fruit.
We have the lowest budgets in the entire city.
So to think that you're going to pay for everything that you want to pay for from our budget, it's not responsible and it's unreasonable.
I want to get those things back as well.
And again, if we talk about some of these pots of money that have these big, huge external materials and services budget.
We need to start there.
In order to do change management, our city administrator is going to need all his people.
You can't take stuff out of his office before he gets a chance to even make a difference in what's going on over here.
So I would encourage you and urge you, and I have a couple more, um, Places that you can look at money to take from.
If it's just one of those things, it's performative.
You want to say I'm going to take from council budgets, uh, Councilor Elana Pirtle-Guiney, she's already taken from budgets.
Councilor Novick, he's taken from budgets.
I mean, what, you going to get us down to the nub so we can't do anything, so that we cannot go out in the community and, and meet people where they're at, that we can't pay for our offices?
I pay for an office.
It cost me $75,000 to have my second office.
I did what you all said we were supposed to do with our office money, and I'm doing it.
And I heard you say that we would be eliminated, but that's not cool and that's not right.
Everybody needs to have the same budget.
If you want to use your own personal budget to pay for those things, go ahead.
I urge you to do that.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
But I also urge you to be a little bit more strategic and look through that entire budget, not the thing that you can put on social media and say, this is what I said.
But it's not reasonable.
I understand the ask and I support you with the ask, but I would like you to look a little bit deeper.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Zimmerman, then Councilor Murillo, and we will move to the next councilor.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
I think that the overhead conversation and the conversion of dollar to dollar does make this part kind of tricky.
Um, I have never worked in a government where we funded different equal electeds differently, so I'm not actually sure how upstanding that would be.
And I say that with the fact that half of us, our term ends at the end of this year, and we're talking about a budget that will be the beginning fund balance, if you will, for a new set of electeds, to kneecap some of those, 6 of the 9, frankly, in the proposal, because 3 would be allocated the normal amount.
I actually don't know how legally defensible that is.
And so I also just think it's a bad precedent.
Now, in this group of 12, Most of this conversation, just level set a little bit, most of this conversation is because it sounds like we've largely agreed that District 1 opening of an East District, East Portland office makes some logistics sense, some community engagement sense, but that was a determination that those 3 members made.
At the beginning of that conversation last year, members in D3, I know that you guys at different times had thought about would we open, wouldn't we not open?
Yes.
You all made a decision.
I'm actually not even sure.
I don't think— did you open— you opened a— you got a nice cheap one, right?
And that was good.
My point here isn't so much about speaking for like how you're approaching it.
It's speaking that setting a precedent, and I agree with Councilor Smith of like sometimes we go at the closest thing that we know and we go at that, but there's a whole lot more in terms of strategic decision-making you can make, but also We've done one thing already that went by with— I think was not a good practice.
It will probably not have a huge impact, but it was a bad practice.
We removed all the money for transition, and having spent a lot of time at Multnomah County, I know how much they rely on budgeting in transition because it is a significant thing, and the public of that district deserves that their new elected is able to hit the ground running.
Transition dollars help do that.
Thank you.
To now also take a hit at council budgets and say some districts will be funded at a higher level or lower level based on where they are geographically, I just, I think we would be dipping into an area that I wouldn't be supportive of.
But I do believe that all of the things, and I appreciate that you said they're kind of backups on a few of your items, 'cause I think that's a great way to think about it.
I have a few of those.
As well.
And it's like, can we get there in another way?
But I'm not going to take any votes right now in support of funding different of the 12 different levels.
Similarly, I'm not going to be voting to reduce the mayor's budget.
And we said that last time on a debate on one of the positions.
I think that his elected office, your elected offices, my elected office should all be treated How, how we spend is a determination by those electeds at that time, and there's no guarantee we'll all be here.
But I have never worked in a government that said certain offices would get different levels of funding, and I don't want to start here either.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Murillo, and then also Councilor Murray, you're the next to share your amendments, so 2 in 1.
Angelita Morillo
That's nice.
I'm actually making it easy on all of you this year, and it's just the one that Councilor Green, Avalos, and I co-introduced, so I don't have anything further to add after that.
Great.
Councilor Koyama Lane, I really like most of your budget notes, and so I want to start there.
I think I will be voting for most of them.
I wanted some clarity just to make sure I heard you correctly.
So the To fund some of the rescues, you wanted to cut, I know, some city administrator positions and then potentially one of the council ops positions.
Was that— or could you remind me what it was?
Sorry.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, I've looked at different options.
So, uh, just using our office funds, Districts 2, 3, and 4— Councilor Novick, you can help give the number— it's $142,000.
Steve Novick
$142,146.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
If you remove the city administrator's chief of staff, then between those 3 districts, it's $98,797.
And if you reduce the city administrator's chief of staff and the analyst 3 add in the DCA of city operations, then each of those office— council offices would chip in $78,541.
Thank you.
These really are backups.
I have made a promise to fire that I'm going to try my best to make sure that we fund some or all of these rescues.
And so I have these as backups, but hope that we don't get to them.
Angelita Morillo
Gotcha.
Okay, thank you.
That's really helpful clarity.
I think you said all of that clearly at the beginning, and then in the course of conversation just forgot some of that.
Colleagues, I'll just say I would very much Me and Councilor Smith can agree on something today, and I will very much caution against us cutting our office budgets for a few reasons.
I think that we've talked about this before, but I just want to reemphasize it, that while we do have a solid budget for our offices, our offices are also different than they are in other comparable cities, because in other comparable cities or forms of government, they have a really robust centralized task force to help them in a way that we don't.
Frankly, we haven't beefed up council ops.
They do fantastic work, but they haven't been beefed up enough to actually help us in the ways that you see in other forms of government.
So like when I worked at the state legislature, if you were creating a bill, you would have an entire research team to help you with that budget.
They could give you independent advice.
You could have an entire legal team giving you more independent advice.
Here, it's a little bit different.
So our staff are kind of jack of all trades.
I mean, I know that my staff are basically budget analysts, they are constitutional law researchers, they are policy researchers, they do everything.
They do community organizing outreach.
They have to be everything at all times in order to create and pass the policies that we do.
And so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison of how our governments function.
And so I would just caution against that.
I appreciate that this is a backup, and I just want to reiterate that part of our effectiveness is in our ability to have capacity.
And this form of government requires, I think, an extensive— people expect extensive outreach from us.
I mean, I get hundreds of emails every week at minimum.
People want us to be really in the community.
They want— they expect a lot of engagement in ways that they don't expect from their county commissioners.
Or even if you look at the news cycle for our local news, they barely cover what's happening at the state legislature.
What they do cover is us every single day, multiple times a day.
So the level of outreach and scrutiny is just different.
And so that's all I will say there.
But thank you so much.
And I will be supporting all the other budget notes and thinking very hard about this because it is a tough question.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Smith, did you have a last—.
Loretta Smith
The last note.
Our city workers are made up of different labor unions, and our staff have voted to have a staff that is labor.
We have to save money for that because we don't know what that's going to cost us.
So we have to really be thinking about that as well.
And so I just want to level set expectations.
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
All right, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'll talk about one conceptual amendment I plan to offer and one that's more specific.
Conceptually, I'm looking to find a way to preserve positions affected in core realignment that have been identified in discussions with labor and the administration as really risky to cut.
And so you can— and also, I think that for people who are being laid off, we should at least try to find a way to extend their health insurance for a couple of months.
So I am trying to cobble together a proposal that will do those things, but I don't have the details yet.
One thing I will say is— well, I'll get to this in a minute.
I, like Councilor Koyama Lane, have a proposal to save Rescue 19 by cutting council office budgets.
I would propose cutting council office budgets excluding District 1 by $142,146 apiece.
That would still leave us hundreds of thousands of dollars more than Multnomah County commissioners, hundreds of thousands of dollars more than Seattle city councilors.
And I suspect that they get emails from their constituents too.
I think that's a good idea.
$600,000 more than Denver city councilors, and I suspect they get emails from their constituents too.
I do not think that there is any justification for us having council office budgets of $1.45 million apiece.
Under the old form of government, when there were only 4 councilors that represented the whole city and who— councilors ran bureaus and most of their staff were bureau liaisons, They got $1.6 million.
So overall, we were spending $6.4 million on council office budgets 2 years ago, and now we're spending $17.4 million.
And I don't think that that's what the voters had in mind when they voted to change the form of government.
So I think that, by the way, $142,000 is not all a cut.
In fact, it's only a $92,000 cut.
$50,000 Of it is an increase.
Okay.
Because last year we made a one-time cut to office budgets of $50,000, which is being restored in this year's proposed budget.
So it would really only be a $92,146 cut.
I also want to note that, as Councilor Green has said, and I'm sure that DCA Biery will confirm, at some point we are going to have to make real cuts.
And if we're at some point where we have to make real cuts, I suggest that we start now with an area where we are obviously overspending.
And I think the public is watching and the public expects us to show some discipline.
And I think the public would appreciate us showing some discipline when it comes to our own office budgets.
The last thing in response to Councilor Comer Lane, I want to note that I too think that the city administrators budget could afford to be cut.
I don't want to— I think that we can cover Rescue 19 with a reasonable cut to office budgets.
I think that I might be asking for some of the city administrator's budgets to address core realignment or other needs.
And let's see, darn, what the heck was I going to say?
So that— And I mean, I do think that there's a reason to treat District 1 differently because it is much harder for people to get from District 1 down to City Hall.
It's the— time and transit are easier in the other districts.
So I don't think that that's an unreasonable thing to do.
So that is— those are the 2 things that you can expect to see from me.
And again, I'll have more detail on the first one later.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Colleagues, discussion of Councilor Novick's amendments or budget notes?
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
If you want to do that, then set a rent for them that they can only use it that way.
But operationally, all 12 offices should be funded exactly the same way because they could make a different choice.
One of them could choose one space versus the next, and then they have a funded advantage over all others So no, if you want to set aside $250,000 for make-believe rent, do that.
But this idea that because council office budgets are at the discretion of the councilor, the idea that they can then have a, a higher percentage budget is, is a wrong step in the wrong direction.
I would encourage you not to cut anything, but if you're going to cut, I'm not going to cut anything.
All 12 take the cut.
I don't think having 3 stand aside is a thing.
If those 3 offices want to rent some vacant space in Multnomah County or in the City of Portland's building, by all means.
But this idea that they will have a different beginning fund balance, no.
And I think that Councilor Smith nailed this.
This is I think Councilor Murillo made excellent points, and I say that because it's not great to be up here defending this, but frankly, having worked in Multnomah County for 10 years, this is an inherently different job.
Councilor Novick, for you to lay out Denver, Seattle, and make all these numbers and blah blah blah tells me that this is rooted in something else, and I'm just kind of done debating it.
Thank you.
I will never vote to make 3 of you stand aside and stand differently than the remaining 9 of us.
I'm not going to do it.
If we all take a hit, okay.
But if we want to play games, Loretta Smith and I are ready to play games.
Let's play games.
But I don't think we want to.
I think Councilor Murillo nailed it, and she is correct on this.
She has been in that role.
She is now in this role.
I have been in that role of fielding these things.
I'm now in this role.
I'm not going to vote for this.
And this is the kind of— oh, the only thing you want to talk about, somebody who can't see an organization for the woods, or whatever the damn saying is.
They can only talk about administrators and counselors.
Talk to me about PBOT.
Talk to me about how many program specialists are doing this type of work.
Talk to me about a budget.
You guys, I said last time, they are laughing at us in the bureaus.
My staffer, he was like, gosh, I wonder who does a certain job at the City of Milwaukee.
It was one of the jobs we talked about a while ago.
And he goes, I'm gonna probably gonna have to call somebody or find a way to figure that out.
In 5 minutes getting on Google, he found Milwaukee City Budget.
He found the budget.
He found how many employees did that thing.
He found what paid for it.
Was it general fund?
Was it fees?
Was it special levy dollars?
Can't find that on our budget.
Yeah.
So we are making decisions, and I'm sorry for getting animated, but we are making decisions because the only numbers we truly know are the ones we are most familiar with.
And I reject that type of decision-making.
I want to be able to make decisions.
Maybe this is the budget note.
Frankly, y'all need to just adopt it.
We will not pass a budget next year for you, Mr. Mayor, if the budget process doesn't change.
Thank you.
I need to be able to make decisions like, what does a 4 FTE reduction mean relative to the size of that program?
But in the budget documents that are provided, that information is not available.
And so we have councilors who are scraping at the thing they know, which is the closest thing that they know, which means that we are not looking at the entire 8.6.
We are not looking at all programs across the organization.
We are inherently systemically broken from a decision-making relative, how does this fit into the community perspective?
And I really need your help, Mayor.
We made it one year.
I took that one on grace.
This year, I'm gonna take this one holding my nose.
But we, like, this is a serious, serious problem.
And it doesn't matter what the excuses are.
We cannot make decisions if we are gonna have to make these types of cuts again.
With as lacking of relative information to one thing over the next.
So we need help here.
But because when I hear 12 people and all their amendments have to do with is the closest thing you can grab— no, that's just, that is just bad decision-making at any organization, any corporate structure.
So I'll get off my soapbox.
I'm sorry, Councilor Novick, you just, you got under my skin on that one because it's like wash and repeat.
Here we are.
We'll wash and repeat for the thing we know that's closest.
So no, I won't ever be voting to make 3 of you stand differently than the other 9 of us.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Well, most of my comments just got, uh, said by Councilor Zimmerman, so thank you.
Um, I'll just add, uh, one additional thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, uh, in addition to the ditto to Councilor Murillo, the ditto to Councilor Thank you.
And then ditto to Councilor Zimmerman, which is there's a lot of analysis showing that when we cut council budgets, or I should say when we cut legislator budgets, it's primarily state legislator where the analysis has been done in journals, and I can send this around and I'll probably post it on social media since it's become a topic of conversation.
When you cut them, it's not the councilors who benefit.
It's not their staff who benefit.
It's not the people who send in emails who benefit.
It's not the executive branch who benefits.
It's not whatever else might get funded because it's such a small amount of money that we're talking about here that benefits.
It's lobbyists that benefit because there's no independent analysis being done here, and you just get the thing that the lobbyist gives you as a legislator and put it forward because you don't have the capacity to do anything else.
So it's, it's a question about— and I've said this before—.
This is—.
These investments are not extravagances.
They are investments in democracy.
You cannot have it be underfunded and still have independent thought, still have elections matter, still have a functional representative government.
That is not to say that there are not adjustments, tweaks here or there that could be made better.
I actually like the idea of a rent fund or something like that.
That's a good one.
We should talk about that after the budget, for example.
But I also would encourage everyone to look up the Seattle City Council central staff.
Yes.
I would encourage everyone to look that up for Denver's.
It's very helpful as well to just level set on that.
And I do hope we invest dramatically in our council operations team and make it something that can help us where our staff are not necessarily the best thing to have 12 individuals do it, but the things that are best to have a council do it as a whole.
And I also think that, by the way, everything that was just said applies to the auditor and mayor's offices as well.
Thank you.
As well, and ensuring that they have enough staff to do their jobs are investments in democracy too.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, I just want to note it is— we are a little bit more than halfway through our time, and we're just a little under halfway through councilors.
I'm going to get to Councilors Murillo, Novick, and then Pirtle-Guiney, and then we're going to take a quick break.
So Murillo, Novick, Pirtle-Guiney.
Angelita Morillo
I think the dead horse has been beaten, so I will stop.
But what a beautiful unholy alliance between Sameer, Eric, and I tonight.
Wow.
We're very holy.
Yeah.
Um, but I think, uh, I— something I, I think about often, like, at some point I would love to see an analysis too between the different number of emails and contacts that our offices get.
Because I remember a few months ago, Councilor Novick, actually, as we were talking about security concerns, um, you were like, we don't need any security at all, I don't get any.
And then I was like, You should look at my inbox.
And I think that different offices receive different types of attention, contacts from the public, and just general, you know, it can be very different for each of us independently.
And so I think that we need the ability to move differently where we can.
And it's not like we are hoarding these dollars to later line our own pockets or something.
It's not like corruption.
We funded the Bob Stacy elevator together to make sure that that gets done in our district.
We funded to save parks bathrooms in our district.
We funded porta-potties at the Right to Dream encampments, things that will actually help with public safety and health so that people aren't going to the bathroom outside.
So I just want to be clear that it's not like these extra dollars are going to our paychecks or something.
They go back directly to our districts for things that are needed.
And again, I just want to emphasize, I want to see an analysis at some point because I know that poor Meredith is out there answering 10,000 emails.
Mm-hmm.
And I kind of think it's my fault because I have a little bit higher of a social media presence But I just suspect that some of the outreach that has to happen for different offices really varies office by office, and that needs to be accounted for.
So I'll stop there.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
First of all, I would like to note that Councilor Morillo, although you do get security threats, you were willing to cut your security budget.
And I'm just asking you to apply the same generosity to cutting your staff budget.
I also just have to say that if we were spending twice as much on our police as the city of Denver was, I think that there's at least 6 people in this room that would say that makes it obvious that we're spending too much on police.
But the fact that we're spending twice as much on council office budgets as councilors in Denver does, that's just to be dismissed.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I just am going to jump in on this, uh, horse, as Murillo referred to it, that's being beaten pretty badly, because I think it's important that we're getting all of the perspectives out there.
Um, I need every single one of my staff members, and if we had funds for unlimited staff, I know that there are amazing things we could all do organizing our communities and getting folks involved.
So I don't look at a cut to our staff or to the city administrator's staff lightly, but I do think they need to be on the table right now.
Not because we're too lazy to look anywhere else, not because the work that any of those individuals do or the individuals that the city administrator is looking to add would do aren't important, but because we're asking for Portlanders to accept cuts to frontline services.
And sometimes we have to say, if we can't cut any deeper in those places, if we can't ask for Portlanders to accept less service or city employees to do even more with even fewer coworkers sharing the burden, what else can we do and how can we step up and help some?
And I think it's incumbent upon us, given where our budget is right now, Not necessarily to make that decision, but to consider amendments that ask for that, both from us and from the higher-level folks within the administration as well, because we are in that type of dire budget time.
And it's not a lot of money, um, in the grand scheme of the budget, but it can help with some really important things.
So I hope as we have the conversation about these amendments that we keep that context in mind as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Ryan, last word.
Dan Ryan
Um, I'll jump in.
Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable not knowing exactly where this is going, but we've been talking a lot about comparing, and so since we're comparing, I thought I'd look at some facts as they appear in the voters pamphlet in 2022.
And the city's budget office estimated the cost of implementing the measure to redo the government, which is what we're a part of, of course, is between $900K and $8.7 million.
According to the budget document of late, we're spending $19.5, which is $6.7 million more than we did in the last government.
So those are just some facts.
We totally went above and beyond.
Thank you.
What was advertised in the charter that people voted on in 2022.
Am I saying that we got here and we noticed things and we wanted to adjust that?
I'm not dismissing that.
But for us to not be honest with the voters that this is in fact what's happened since we've been in office, I think it's important to, to level set that.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Colleagues, I'm going to give us a 15-minute break.
We still have 6 more colleagues to get through.
I will go last in case we run out of time.
Please be back at 4 o'clock.
Next, coming back to you.
And we are back, folks.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks everybody.
Um, I'll— let me start by saying, uh, I'm glad we were able to work together on Committee of the Whole rescheduling for next week.
I know we have plenty of work to do in that committee, but I'm happy to ensure we have more time for budget enough this year.
Um, just quick clarification here, uh, we voted on 1, 2, 3, and 5 of my 6 amendments.
4 was an alternate, we didn't formally propose it.
I'm not refiling the remaining one, which was related to the city administrator's budget and, uh, the deputy director at OGR to try and save a position because a couple things changed with it.
So I'm proposing a lesser one of that, lesser in the sense of smaller dollar amounts and fewer positions affected, and I'll get to that in a second.
Foundational principles remain the same.
First, public safety being prioritized first and foremost, a holistic prevention-focused public safety system.
Second, trying to ensure our organizational chart remains a pyramid, not a pillar, and that we're not only not cutting more of the rank and file than of management, but actually undoing some of the past few years restructuring, which has made our organizational chart narrower.
And finally, and most importantly, protecting the will of the voters.
I'm working on one, possibly two budget notes.
The one that I'm sure I'll be proposing is an updated version of the one that this council passed last year to direct PPB to prioritize overtime spending on things like street racing and human trafficking and not on wasteful protest responses at the ICE building.
This passed last year.
I think it has a path, Council President, to passing this year as well.
Secondly, and I'm not sure if a note is the right way to do this, I'll be reaching out to understand it a little bit better, but I'm considering proposing a note that would prevent the use of any allocation from creating a net reduction in city-run public restrooms.
So whether it's the Portland Loo or replacement with porta-potties in a temporary state, ensuring that we're not reducing our sanitation capacity at the city is really important to me.
And this is just based a little bit off the morning's discussion, so I'm firing from the hip here on the city administrator's report.
I have one amendment that I want to explain in detail and then a couple other things that I wanted to just kind of lay out as concepts.
When Dunphy 4 passed, it freed up some money that was not immediately allocated to any particular purpose.
I would like to use $142,500 of that To restore one of the 3 positions being zeroed out at BOEC.
Bureau of Emergency Communications has 2 telecommunicators and 1 supervisor position being eliminated.
This would restore one of the 2 telecommunicators.
And again, this is money that Dunphy 4 freed up that did not immediately get put towards a particular purpose.
I also have several amendment ideas that I'm making sure the math checks out on before I pair the 2 sides of the ledger together.
In addition to that BOEC telecommunicator, my intention is to to try to restore all 3 of the fire rescue units, which are currently being reduced from 24/7 to 12 hours a day in East and Southeast Portland.
All of the remaining filled positions at PPB in both the admin groups and in victim services.
3 Of the 4 positions being cut at PBEM and 311, each is losing 2 positions.
I'm interested in restoring them.
I don't see that the funding source will be able to fund all 4, so I think we'll be looking at 3 across those 4.
One position at the Office of Government Relations, the International Program staff member.
And this is the one that I mentioned is a smaller version of what was Canal 6.
I'm hoping to replace the Chief of Staff position add in the City Administrator's Office with the funding to upclass an existing position, which was created last year as a Chief of Staff position.
Thank you.
But not fully funded.
And the savings from that would be sufficient to create the funding to restore the international program staff member.
And it actually saves a little bit more than that, but I'm not exactly sure how much right now.
Also looking to restore both of the 2 positions that we discussed at Parks that were not restored in May.
That's the eastern half activities lead, eastern part of the city, and the community engagement staffer.
I can also identify 2 of the funding sources that I'll be looking at.
There's a partial reduction to the North Portland TAS site expansion.
Right now, Reedway is being closed and all of the pods are being moved into the North Portland TAS site.
This will involve a near doubling of the size of that site.
I have no problem with the idea of being efficient with resources.
I do have concerns about Yes.
—Individual sites being very large, especially given the ongoing conversation around urban alchemy.
We did not manage to pass anything that would address that yet.
I'm hoping that colleagues might be interested in continuing that conversation either through the budget or through the Committee of the Whole or both.
And I'm— or I guess the Housing Committee might also be an option.
So I'm interested in that.
And then there remains a conversation to be had, I think, about the PCF money that is in PMO right now.
We— I think 11 of us voted in favor of one of the— one of the 2 amendments that moved that money out.
I see grounds here that can be ripe for some sort of compromise on this because I think the one that just took the money straight out failed 6-6.
I think the one that took out 80% of the money and backfilled it entirely with general fund dollars, failed either 6-6 or 5-7.
I can't remember which.
And there was no overlap.
So I do think there's grounds for that there.
And so while I don't have an amendment that I'm immediately floating on that, I am asking at this time if sometime in the next day or 2, colleagues who might be interested in trying to solve that problem can come together and reach out to me and we can see what we can do there.
Because I think there is an interest in solving that.
Thank you.
Without necessarily a 100% reduction in the PCF dollars that are going to PMO, but with something that relates to color of money.
So that's what I'm laying out at this moment.
I do think that there are— I haven't yet found a funding source, but I am gonna also try to save those 2 admin positions at FIRE.
But that one is further away at this moment just because I thought I had a funding source and I was, There's a restriction I was not aware of.
So as we keep looking for things to do and ways to save it, if there's a way to get $285,000 for the 2 positions at the Fire Bureau that are in the administrative side being zeroed out, I am hoping to do that.
I'll stop here and see if there are any questions.
Thanks.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
I will be bringing a couple of amendments— not amendments, but budget notes, just in terms of process, very similar to Councilor Zimmerman in regards to—.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith, sorry, we're debating to—.
Loretta Smith
Oh, his?
Jamie Dunphy
His first, yeah.
Loretta Smith
Okay, go ahead.
Jamie Dunphy
We'll come to you.
Loretta Smith
Come back later.
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
I entered the queue because I am interested in bringing it back with respect to that piece of colored money thing, curious to see what you're, you're cooking up there.
Um, I'm supportive of seeing if we can come to a solution on that.
I, I don't know what exactly you're going to do, but I'm signaling publicly my willingness to, to be open to that.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, any further?
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Councilor Knolla, as always, much of where you wanna land the investment, I'm totally supportive of.
It's usually the source that you wanna pull it from.
Like just with Station 22, I voted yes on 3 amendments.
You voted yes on 2 years past.
Congratulations.
The good news is we restored Station 22.
I'm cautious that we're dipping too far below our suggested reserve accounts and our contingencies, and I'm worried about the impact of that in upcoming years.
So when I was listening, there was a lot of what you said.
Of course I want to restore funding, especially in fire and police.
I'm thrilled that some members of this council are speaking to PS3s today, and that's been rather heartwarming, actually.
I do think on the bigger picture with Urban Alchemy, this council with the county needs to have a conversation.
Yes.
About what does success look like if we continue to think that low-barrier shelters are the answer all the time.
They're messy, they're challenging, and I just think we have to make sure we frame that conversation about what low-barrier shelters success looks like.
I'm always an advocate for that.
We need more people to go into recovery services, and we need more people into workforce, or they're never going to get out of chronic homelessness.
Thank you.
And the facts are that Urban Alchemy has had better results getting their participants into recovery and into workforce than the other ones that we've contracted out with.
So it's like, it's a messy— it's messy work.
None of us have been on the front lines doing it.
And every time I've leaned into it, it's just so incredibly messy.
Recovery is messy.
There's an— it's not a linear path.
People have relapses.
So what was Urban Alchemy's standard when they discovered that someone had a relapse?
How did they handle that?
Every employer in the country struggles with that because there's a lot of people in that situation.
So I just hope that as we do this investigation oversight, we look at the bigger picture.
And I just thought I should say that since it's getting a lot of airtime.
Thank you.
And I'm open.
I'm just not one to say that I want to have answers before investigation.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
May I?
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, thank you for that.
Um, and I, I think there's— and I, it sucks that we're talking about just one provider because I think it's been pointed out, uh, that there, there are problems with other providers too, or at least allegations of problems.
I, I, I will say that I, I spoke to, uh, to some folks from Urban Alchemy last week.
I, I'm open to, uh, continuing conversations with anybody on, on any issue, and I think this Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I think this is a really good one where we should speak directly to folks.
My concern is that any large-scale shelter where we're talking about going from 150 units up to 300, just about, it's a little short of that, starts to create some challenges with not only security but with some of the internal issues.
And I know that if we were to ask, you know, would we prefer a provider where there are no reports of sexual assault, no reports of theft, no reports of robbery, or would we prefer a provider with a higher placement rate into job programs, into long-term housing, etc.?
I think all 12 of us would agree that the or shouldn't be there, that we want somebody that can do both.
And so I think what we're looking at is how do we put our contracts and our city staffers that coordinate this in a position to succeed by not creating some of the circumstances that can, that have a higher correlation with higher rates of problems.
And so I fully acknowledge that some of our providers, including Urban Alchemy, has one of the highest rates of success in terms of getting folks—.
The highest.
Yeah.
So I'm not, this is not a concern there.
I'm just looking at how do we not expand a site that is so, to the point where it's too large to have I agree.
Dan Ryan
I think while I have my time here, I think what we need is that for the mayor and his team to provide for us what is the cost savings of closing down Reedway and expanding the site out in Far North.
I haven't heard that, and I haven't seen any numbers that justify closing Reedway will actually save us X amount of money.
I just need to see that.
I'm very concerned that our partners, if we could call them that, at the county, In terms of working on this humanitarian crisis, why they went 2 years ago where shelters was their number one, number one goal, their number one priority, to abandoning that.
And it's those kind of fits and starts that are driving voters and taxpayers crazy.
It's hard for them to see how we're ever going to get results when we keep changing what our focus is.
Loretta Smith
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Councilor Kanal, thank you for your focus on supporting community and public safety.
And I just want to say on the record that if you are moving forward with anything to restore some or all of the rescues, that I would love to support in any way that I can and would love to be able to, especially if you have a funding source that is not council budgets, because I would love to try to do that.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Yes.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, so I wanna be clear that last time in May, I appreciate the comment, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Last year in the May budget conversations, I proposed an amendment which would take money from opioid settlement dollars from shelter and allocate them to fire to backfill the rescues.
And what we were told there was that that would defund Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery and would reduce the number of recovery beds.
I don't like that.
That is information I learned at the dais that it would be presenting that way.
So after— and part of the issue is, you know, where we get information, who's answering what questions.
So fundamentally, the problem that I've been trying to solve and that I am close to solving but not yet ready for primetime on it is how to do that, but also backfill the money for Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery so that they're whole, fire rescues are whole, and there's a different thing, which is what I'll be putting forward, which is actually taking the reduction.
So I just want to be clear that it is similar, and it's just that it adds a second step to ensure, not with a note but with an amendment, that Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery remain whole because that That was never an intention to reduce, and this will guarantee that they stay whole regardless of what happens with either the rescues or this other sources.
Thanks.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I would be very supportive.
Let me know how I can help, and if you would have me, I would even co-sponsor.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Okay, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, turning to you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Just starting with a bit of a principle, I'll continue to look at our budget amendments as we move forward through a long-term lens.
How, how can we make sure that we're not kicking the can down the road?
How can we make sure that we are investing in the things that will help our city in the long term?
And how do we make sure that the fiscal sustainability of things like our parks levy and our reserve funds are being maintained, even as we know that in hard times we need to dip into some of those reserves, not the levy.
We need that to last, um, to make sure that we can provide the services that Portlanders rely on.
Councilor Kanal, I was heartened to hear that you are also looking at those PSAP dollars in PMO.
I saw the same thing you did.
We had 6 people who said very clearly we don't want the CIP changed.
We had 6 people who said very clearly we don't want PMO to be completely defunded here— not defunding all of PMO, but the, the hole left from pulling out all of the PCF dollars without a replacement.
So I've also been looking at some possibilities there.
It would be great to partner with you.
Um, I will be bringing back a slightly changed version of my budget note, um, that goes with the core realignment work so that if we do continue to move forward with core realignment, we are ensuring that that does not lead to contracting out, that we are using Fall TOW as an opportunity to address any, um, additional changes that need to be made, and that we are giving some direction to the city administrator.
Thank you.
Where over the next few weeks, as this all shakes out, any additional changes are needed.
Um, following the work, um, with labor and the city administrator and mayor around realignment, I have been looking at some specific positions that labor has raised as very concerning.
And how we might be able to restore those.
Conceptual right now, but I will be looking to bring something forward that addresses those highest-level concerns that our labor partners have brought up.
I also, during our former budget work, had said that I would be happy to work with Councilor Avalos on funding for EMS for immigration.
We weren't able to come to an agreement there, but I do have some work that has been done that I may bring forward on ensuring that our current immigration staff person has the EMS necessary to bring together community members and ensure that we are actually providing the support to our community that's needed.
I also am glad to hear that many people are looking at ways that we can restore I think on a targeted basis, we certainly can't afford to restore and then retain moving forward all of the cuts in this budget, but looking for ways that we can restore on a targeted basis some of those additional cuts that we were talking about through the last iteration of our budget work, looking at the PS3s, the rescues, and a few other key positions there.
So I'll be bringing forward a couple of things in those areas.
Thank you.
And look forward to seeing the details of everybody else's as well.
Thanks, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, any discussion of Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's priorities?
Okay, well, well explained, Councilor.
Councilor Ryan?
Well, no, this is to see if you, uh, have any budget notes or amendments.
Then it's your turn.
Dan Ryan
I do not.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, at the moment.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
All right, it's my turn.
Jamie Dunphy
Yes, ma'am.
Yes, just got back to my desk, so good timing.
Candace Avalos
Uh, apologies, I've had some personal business.
Okay, um, thank you, Council President.
Uh, before I begin, I also want to thank you, President Dunphy, for your leadership throughout this budget process.
As someone who has consistently advocated for a stronger role for council in the budget process, I really appreciate the improvements that we've seen this year.
We obviously still have work to do.
It's only our second year in our new form of government standing up this process, but I do believe we're moving in the right direction.
And just based on what I've heard just today, but also I've heard in the last few months, I'm just really glad to hear that so many of my colleagues are fired up to demand that we receive our charter-given budget authority rights.
So I look forward to seeing how that materializes.
I think there is some— there are some policy choices that we could do in the coming months to strengthen our budget authority.
Now, as far as my notes, I'm going to be previewing 2 budget notes, and then I'll share my thoughts on services first.
Thank you also to Councilors Green and Murillo for being able to offer the context and respond to our colleagues' questions.
I appreciate you all doing that.
So far today.
So first budget note is healthcare.
It is the exact same one that I brought last year.
I am bringing it back because my concerns have not changed.
Healthcare costs continue to rise, federal tax on healthcare continue to grow, and I believe we have a responsibility to protect the workers who keep the city running.
This note asks that the administration come back with information on projected healthcare costs, available reserves, and options to address the issue.
Thank you.
To mitigate future benefit reductions.
And I think the goal is just simply transparency, planning, and protecting our workforce.
And also, we heard from the LMBC and from the police union a couple weeks ago when we were talking about healthcare that my budget note, that the same one from last year, really helped save employees' healthcare this year.
Without that note, we would have had more cuts to their healthcare.
So I think it's important that we pass this again, especially because, again, those Those costs keep rising.
And that's also, you know, just to interject into the conversation about council budgets, that's another cost that we need to make sure we're considering, not just COLA for our staff, but also the healthcare costs.
That is really eating up into our budgets more and more.
So I am not going to be voting to be cutting anyone's budget, even if you're excluding D1.
I think we need to protect that.
And I agree with the arguments that we need to stop looking at the low-hanging fruit.
This is an enormous budget.
There are a lot of efficiencies that need to come, and that is how we can realize those savings, not by shortchanging ourselves and future electeds by not giving them resources that they need that are different.
Every elected has a different need.
But that was just a quick side tangent.
But back to my amendment.
So that's the healthcare one.
The second one— I'm sorry, my note.
The second one is homelessness governance and accountability.
You know, I brought it the last time, I tweaked it a little bit, and the reason I'm reintroducing it is because Commissioner Singleton is bringing forward a similar proposal at the county because this work needs to happen together.
Over the last year, I've heard growing frustration from Portlanders about homelessness.
Obviously we all have.
And but earlier today, I participated in a regional polling briefing that Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just want to reinforce what many of us already know and just a flag for Housing Committee.
It's my intention to bring that briefing to a Housing Committee meeting in July because I think there's a lot of valuable information about how people's— what the public's perception is about the way that we are handling homelessness.
People want homelessness addressed.
They want to support investments in housing.
And, you know, people have repeatedly voted to fund solutions, but they are increasingly questioning questioning whether government is producing the outcomes that they were promised, and that should really concern all of us, especially as we need to have hard decisions about next year's budget.
We need to have hard decisions about where we're going to find more revenue, and we need to continue to show the public that we are meeting the moment and delivering on the outcomes that they expect, not just visibly but also in what they see in their day-to-day.
Uh, you know, my neighbors, we've been rallying around, um, a, a man that has ended up homeless and he's living on our street.
And I have all the resources of a counselor, and I have encountered so many darn barriers, so many duplicative things, services, so many ways that the bureaucracy is not— no longer helpful, no longer about accountability.
Now it's just hurtful, and we need to stop duplicating our services.
So this budget note directs Portland Solutions to— and the city administrator and relevant partners— to evaluate opportunities to improve coordination, reduce duplication, clarify responsibilities, and assess whether our homelessness response infrastructure is producing the outcomes Portlanders expect and deserve.
This is not about blame, it is about accountability, and it's about rebuilding trust.
And as chair of the Housing Committee— Housing and Permitting Committee— I intend to spend significant time this year focused on oversight, performance, and outcomes because Portlanders deserve these results.
And then lastly, colleagues, the question of public trust is exactly why I support the Services First package.
Um, you know, I came into this budget prepared to make difficult decisions.
What I wasn't prepared to do was continue balancing budgets by cutting the very services that Portlanders rely on.
Um, I've heard, uh, you know, I think ultimately Services First is a compromise.
This is an opportunity, um, that Councilor Green, Councilor Murillo, and I came together to build a package focused on protecting services, workers, and community priorities.
We've already talked at length, I think, about what this all does, but to reemphasize that it is saving jobs, it is restoring parks position, it's restoring PS3s, restoring fire rescue capacity, janitorial services, 311, and creating Portland's first Office of Immigration Affairs.
And so, you know, last year, council, including me, approved transferring PSF interest because we were told that those dollars would help protect core services, and instead we saw services cut.
We saw parks cut, we saw frontline positions cut, and we saw additional PSF dollars that were redirected away from climate and environmental justice priorities.
The mayor had money available and services were cut anyway.
That is the contradiction.
And I think that ultimately, um, we need to protect these services because, uh, we are protecting not just the services of delivery to Portlanders, but also the frontline workers who are, are, are many of our constituents as well.
Councilmember Smith, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
We need to protect the services that Portlanders are relying on.
And so I'm proud to support that and grateful to my colleagues for their partnership.
They have all said, and I'll just say one more time, this is our last chance.
This is our last chance because if we do not reverse these cuts, I fear we are going to have much, much bigger problems than the obvious problem we're already going to have next year, which is more budget woes.
But this is where we're losing valuable institutional knowledge.
We're spending time hiring people, training them up, only to release them shortly after.
We're— that is wasteful.
That is government waste, and Services First responds to that.
So those are my amendments— or I'm sorry, my budget notes.
Uh, happy to take questions on any of that.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, to Councilor Avalos's amendments, Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
This is legacy.
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, You are top— you are next.
So great.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I just have to respond to Councilor Avalos's comments and say I think normally actually one does start with low-hanging fruit when you're trying to do something.
And also I would say that I— people talk about I'm picking on this one thing out of a big budget, but I haven't seen many of my colleagues identifying like big things in the big budget I mean, last year— Councilor Smith is waving her document— but last year I joined in the cut to the $2 million police increase.
That was $2 million.
Wasn't a big dramatic thing.
We've heard people suggest Councilor Green's chop from the top proposal, which isn't really a programmatic thing.
It's sort of assuming we can reduce a certain number of managers.
That's a few million dollars.
We've heard about a few million dollars in cuts to the fire department.
Proposed for camp removal and cleanup.
But we've been here for 17 months, and I don't think— I haven't seen anybody come up with a grand idea to save lots of money by having some big program, and I doubt they're going to be able to do that by next year either.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thank you for your comments.
Um, yeah, I, I do think you are being a bit pedantic, and we're just going to have to disagree.
But I disagree also that we are not taking big swings, and I think you heard clearly from us many of our colleagues across this dais that we still do not have the tools, the resources, the information to make the kinds of big swings to make those— to inform those decisions.
And so that continues to undergird this conversation.
It cannot be ignored because that is the frustration that you're feeling.
I think this effort that we are doing is, you know, I think a compromise that builds on the fact that there was dollars And that's just— there's so many instances of that.
And again, we're not trying to point a lot of fingers.
We know that this city is trying to move the organization after 100 years.
But at the same time, we need to demand that we continue to assert our budget authority.
I think Services First is a good example of that.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Smith.
Colleagues, any further conversation, questions for Councilor Avalos?
Okay, thank you very much, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
I have one budget note.
It is the establishment of a minority municipal bond manager pool to direct the city administrator to Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you, Mayor.
Council directs the City Budget Office, in coordination with the Office of Management and Finance and the City Treasurer, to develop and implement a program establishing a pool of qualified minority-owned municipal bond managers.
And the purpose of this pool is to ensure that minority-owned firms have structured, transparent pathways to compete for bond management, underwriting, and the advisory work associated with the city's debt issuance.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Colleagues, discussion of Councilor Smith's proposal?
Interesting.
Seems not terribly controversial to folks.
Excellent.
I guess so.
On this dais, usually silence does seem— Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you for daylighting that, Councilor Smith.
I've heard you raise that in lines of questioning, I think, over the past few months.
So I'm excited to see that kind of come together as a formalized proposal, as a budget note.
I'll be looking forward to kind of seeing the language and and kind of contemplating what it means between now and— what is it, a week from now, the 10th?
But what is time?
But thanks for daylighting that.
I'm open.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Okay, colleagues, I am last in this queue.
I am going to be I'm proposing one budget note, and specifically I'm bringing a budget note forward to restore and strengthen a program that the city used to have called— around citywide budget mapping.
Budget maps are a geographic visualization of where and how our dollars are being spent across the city.
Portland used to produce these reports annually, but with the government transition, that stopped.
That work stopped.
I would like to bring it back and align it to our districts because I think that when it is designed well, it's a genuinely powerful accountability tool.
So my budget note asks the city administrator to work with CBO, the district coalition offices, and the East Portland Action Plan group to build a tool that accurately reflects what residents experience from city investments.
I want to avoid another static dashboard that looks informative but isn't actionable.
So I'm asking that we work with community— some community organizations to land on a focused data set.
Thank you.
And design that treats KPI integration as a requirement from the start so that this tool connects what we spend to the outcomes that residents actually care about.
I know it's important to all of us that we deliver more accountability to constituents showing how public dollars are spent.
I feel like this is especially important for East Portland, which is home to nearly a quarter of our population.
The city has invested over $1 billion in East Portland since Thank you.
So we've seen revenue bonds increase since 2011, but per capita investment has flatlined since 2021.
And so right now there's no consistent way for residents, or frankly for us, to see what that spending has actually produced on the ground.
Bringing back a better version of budget mapping will give us the data we need to track the impacts of spending to see those trends.
Like, did more sidewalks get built?
Are parks being maintained, being better maintained?
Did housing become more stable?
I want the city to create something that's useful because when it means it's going to be an iterative process.
So that the note— this note directs the work to start with a planning group to coordinate by September who will report a concept and minimum viable product by the end of the year and launch a pilot model by July of 2027 in time to integrate with the '28-'29 budget cycle.
That is It's ultimately about giving every district an honest accounting of what we're getting.
And so I'm happy to take any questions if anybody has any.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I have no questions.
I just applaud the idea.
We had budget mapping when I was here before.
People complained that the data wasn't good enough, we didn't do a good enough job, but that's not a reason not to do it.
We should just try to do it better.
So I think this is a great idea.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, sir.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
You and I had an opportunity to just briefly discuss this.
Very interesting idea, but I assume that the planning group or whoever puts this together also will have caveats in that, you know, District 4 has some of the oldest infrastructure.
In fact, we just learned that there's a sinkhole on Dosh Road that's very dangerous.
Just happened just now.
We have water mains breaking all over the D4.
So I'm hoping that the planning group will somehow be able to factor that in, that We have certain different kinds of needs in D4 than you have in D1.
I think that's going to be important to note that there may be certain kinds of infrastructure investments in D4 that you won't see comparably in D1 or D2, maybe.
I'm not sure.
Jamie Dunphy
Absolutely.
Specifically, we are asking to have aged infrastructure as a factor in this so that we can understand the cost differentials.
Thank you, Council Vice President Clark.
And Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
So first, I love the idea.
My comment is sort of a launch off of that a little bit.
You mentioned KPIs, and I think this is something we need to have a conversation about.
I have 3 quick things I wanted to mention.
One is KPIs, and I'm going to use one that I found particularly absurd, and I want to note that this predates everybody in the role.
Thank you.
In the roles related to this bureau.
But there are performance metrics in the budget that I don't think we've ever weighed in on as a council or necessarily aligned to anything.
And I'm going to use the Office of Equity as an example.
The Office of Equity and Human Rights, their performance metrics for the fiscal year are very specific to output, which is a conversation we've had as a council before.
Are we measuring output versus outcomes?
So it's number of technical advisement analysis services offered, number of city employees who receive trainings, things like that.
So it's very, very granular and it doesn't necessarily measure anything about are we more equitable than we have been.
And then we go to performance metrics on the calendar year, which is the exact opposite.
These are the 2 metrics that are in there.
It's page 150 of the proposed budget.
Average rate of Portlanders who believe that Portland is a city where everyone can succeed and thrive regardless of their identity, which we don't have data on.
That's a good one.
We only have 2024 data on it.
And the number there is 3.09.
Out of what?
You are— your guess is as good as mine.
And then the other metric is the racial and ethnic diversity of the population, percentage of Portlanders who identify as BIPOC.
I have no idea how we're going to hold the equity officer of the city responsible for that, given the century-plus of what has led to that.
I think we have to hold the city responsible.
To our population being what it is.
But I think we have work to do to measure the— and by the way, I picked this bureau both because these are both extremes and because we know they do good work.
I just don't know that we're measuring it.
And I want to make sure that we have metrics that accurately reflect that.
The second thing I wanted to talk about was just to clarify, you mentioned that silence in this Chamber might generally mean assent.
I think that we had a sort of working knowledge last year that notes were generally something where if there wasn't a reason for— to not do it, we should try to get to a yes on it last year.
I think that worked very well.
I hope we continue that this year, even if maybe amendments end up being err on the side of leave the way— things the way they are.
Notes can be different.
So I just wanted to flag that.
And then the third and final thing I wanted to mention, just Yes.
To, um, it, it was a, um, a conversation around the Fire Bureau there.
Uh, Councilor Ryan and I, I just wanted to note, um, are splitting the cost of, uh, repairing a fireboat at Hayden Island, um, which has not had maintenance in a number of years and which, uh, has been— I've ridden, I've been, I've done a ride-along on it.
It just kind of putters along in whatever embarrassing way you're kind of thinking about right now.
They have a few boats there.
The others are in good shape, better shape anyway.
And so these are the sorts of things that I think we should be looking to do and looking to support around the budget and through our own budgets to be able to put things back in the district.
And so I wanted to flag that as well.
If anyone's looking for another place to put your end-of-year leftover, if you have any leftover, There's a couple other riverfront ones shared between D3 and D4.
So just wanted to flag that as well.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Councilor Kanal, I just wanted to strenuously disagree.
I think that any equity officer who can't increase the percentage of the population identifying as BIPOC by 5% a year is not worth their salt and should be canned.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor President.
I just wanted to make a little statement about budget notes.
I think, um, last year was our first time around.
We had lots of budget notes.
I had budget notes.
Everybody had budget notes.
And I realize now in retrospect that some of those were unfunded mandates, that I asked bureaus to do things that there was no money attached to it.
And, uh, and, you know, some of them contacted me and said, hey, uh, we got to scale this back because we don't really have the resources.
And I just think we all need to be really sensitive to that.
And I don't— I didn't listen to these closely enough to know if there are unfunded mandates, but just to be aware that we're asking bureaus to do things that they may not have the resources to do.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, I appreciate that, and that's a fair point.
I hope that the way we've changed what we're using notes for addresses that concern.
And I appreciate the guidance we've gotten on that.
I think that if we're able to say this is— it's really guidance on how you spend, or it's information attached to sort of give information on how an expenditure is used, I think that's something— or an allocation— then I think we'll be in better shape if we're following that rule and avoid even having to Okay, colleagues.
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, Councilor— no, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
I didn't track all of the details of your amendment.
I know my office gave some feedback, staffers did, but it made me pause to think about a practice that's missing, and that is when we look at ordinances especially, and even with some of our budget ordinances, we're lacking a deeper economic impact analysis.
And since our economy is in the tank, let's face it, like every indicator, we're struggling compared to every market in the country.
And so this council's got to become more focused on economic development, period.
And when we also pass ordinances, We talk about KPIs, but— and you can even include that in the economic analysis.
So what are 3 indicators that you're measuring?
If you're measuring success, what are those 3?
And we should actually deliberate that and discuss that while we're passing.
Otherwise, we're always going to be stuck in that government habit of measuring inputs as opposed to outcomes.
And so I just think that it's our own discipline that we can improve upon.
Thank you.
In working with the administration.
And every conversation I've had with you, Mr. Mayor, and also with C.A.
Lee, I know that that would be welcomed and wanted.
So I hope that we just consider some of what you're talking about as improved practices.
I say it a lot, I'll say it again, I think we're policy-rich and practice-poor, and we're system-poor, in other words.
And so systems improve when you improve practices.
The great state of Oregon has more policies passed that haven't been implemented than I think any state.
So we're good at that.
And let's stop being good at that.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Colleagues, we have successfully made it through our final budget-related work session.
I appreciate everybody having a conversation about this to air our last amendments and maybe save us some time on debate.
We have very limited time Wednesday and Thursday.
Thank you for extending into Thursday.
Thank you, Councilor Thank you, Councilor Sameer Kanal, for sacrificing the Committee of the Whole slot.
Colleagues, between now and next week, I encourage us all to talk to each other.
These are now out there publicly, and we can have conversations with each other.
Find your 7th votes, improve them, collaborate, and we will be back here next week on this topic.
But we will be back here tomorrow at 2 o'clock for the remainder of our recessed meeting.
I'm going to let councilors Councilor Avalos and then Clark have the final word, and then we're out of here.
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I just wanted— thank you.
I just wanted to confirm, so is then tomorrow canceled?
Tomorrow morning canceled since we finished early?
Jamie Dunphy
Tomorrow morning has been canceled.
There is no Committee of the Whole meeting tomorrow.
We at 2 o'clock will continue our recessed City Council meeting.
Candace Avalos
Okay, I knew there was no Committee of the Whole, but we had time reserved, so I don't have to wake up early tomorrow?
Jamie Dunphy
Yes, you do not have to wake up early tomorrow.
Keith Wilson
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Clark.
Olivia Clark
Well, thank you, Council President.
I think this has been a really good process, and I appreciate your kind of putting sideboards on everything and helping guide us.
I just wondered again, who and how are we going to get the compiled list of all of these?
Jamie Dunphy
So we are going to be— we're asking if you are looking to formally get your budget notes or amendments written up through the CBO to submit those by Friday.
We just sent out a memo explaining the process from my office as well.
We will be distributing or publishing those and then distributing them on Monday.
Dan Ryan
Oh, I have something really quick.
Jamie Dunphy
Sure, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, I just want to thank all of the councilors and staffers who have been doing dragon boat practices.
Our final practice is today at 5:30.
Mr. Mayor, you've recruited a heavyweight team.
And I'm okay with that.
We're mighty, and that's what matters.
And we're skilled and disciplined, and that matters.
And our good friends from Kaohsiung City Council will be arriving.
They're probably in the air right now or arriving as we speak.
And they're serious.
And so public is— I just know there's so many people watching this meeting.
The Challenge Cup is Saturday at noon down on the waterfront.
Thank you.
And it's between whatever that team's called, the mayor's team, the Paddle Forward.
What's the name of your team?
Mayor the Current Be With You.
Mayor the Current Be With You.
All right, that's cute.
You should lose for that.
Ours is Paddle Forward, and I have no idea what the Kaohsiung team is.
But a big thanks to Wilma Speltz and my office for being the leader And he has been so patient with all of you.
The attendance has been horrible, but Will has kept on us so that we continue to have a coach.
I hope to see everyone there so we finally have a full boat, because trust me, it's really hard to move that thing when there's only 10 of us.
So please show up.
Thanks.
Bye.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Green, last word.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I just want to say that, um, I will be there on Saturday to paddle in the same direction, I think is the name of the I would be there for practice tonight, but I have to represent the Regional Water Providers Consortium board meeting.
I'll just note that I have a natural affinity in athleticism when it comes to paddling, so I'm not worried.
You're on notice, Mr. Mayor.
Dan Ryan
Okay, so your one, your one practice is just fine.
Jamie Dunphy
That's good.
Yeah.
All right, with that, I am adjourning this work session of the Portland City Council.
Thank you so much, everybody.