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.
Unidentified speaker
Keelan, this is Councilor Smith online.
Loretta Smith
Hello, Councilor Smith.
Unidentified speaker
We hear you.
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Councilor.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Good morning.
I am now calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council.
Good—.
Could please start by calling the roll.
Good morning.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal.
Unidentified speaker
Good morning.
Sameer Kanal
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan.
Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Rain.
Loretta Smith
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Present.
Keelan McClymont
Smith.
Loretta Smith
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Here.
Unidentified speaker
And can we please read the rules of decorum?
Keelan McClymont
Welcome to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The presiding officer preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should please address the matter being considered.
Thank you.
When testifying, please state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you are a lobbyist, please identify the organization you represent.
Virtual testifiers should please unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
Our first item is agenda approval.
Are there any requests to reorder items, reschedule an item for the future, or change anything on our planned agenda.
Just verifying, Councilor Novick, is that to the— to this?
No.
Okay, thank you.
Uh, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?
The agenda is approved.
Thank you, colleagues.
Keelan, could we please call public communications?
First up, we have, uh, Edie Rogaway.
Thank you.
Wow, you guys are fast.
Hi, can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can.
Um, I'm gonna— you guys are really fast.
I wasn't prepared, so I'm gonna, um, not be on my screen, but you'll be able to hear me.
My name is Edie Rogaway.
I'm a second-generation Portlander.
I'm a court-appointed criminal defense attorney.
I've been doing that for about 25 years.
My dad was born— my dad, who I lost in December, was born here and was very proud to be a Portlander as well.
And I, you know, like so many people, I am just heartbroken and disgusted by what I'm seeing happen.
Thank you.
Time and time again, when, when things really started going bad during COVID I tried to be part of the solution.
I got, I got on one of the mayor's committees after just wasting hours and hours talking about nothingness so people could feel good about their wokeness, doing nothing that was related to the issues at hand.
I gave up because it was a waste of my time.
But the thing I want to say to you all is that I have been paying attention.
I paid attention to how much money you all got during COVID in free federal COVID funds that was completely squandered.
I was able to get the database to the City of Portland vendor website where you can look up pretty much anybody that's ever been paid by the City of Portland.
And it was, it was shocking what I found out, including a lot of self-serving interests.
For example, you know, Ms. Avalos, prior to getting elected, On the City Council after, you know, configuring a new system where you can get elected with only 9% of the vote, you know, receives— was in a position where a lot of funds to this nonprofit were city funds.
But really what I want to say is that what I've noticed is that almost all of the moderates are from Portland, if not born here, grew up here.
Of the peacocks, I believe only one grew up here.
A second grew up in Camas, where his parents own all of the gas stations between Vancouver and Camas, but he doesn't tell anybody that because it screws up his socialist credibility.
The rest of them came here from other parts of the country.
The moderates, however, I think you all grew up here, if not all of you, most of you.
And I think that's really telling because what I see time and time again is the City Council proposing and enacting legislation that is literally the opposite of what any local I know wants.
And it's the same when you look at the voting maps and how the city votes.
The Kremlin votes one way.
The Kremlin consists primarily of people not from Portland, and the rest of the city votes a different way.
So for the moderates, I would really ask you guys to step up your game because they are a very organized group.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Uh, next up we have Bill Haug.
Welcome.
My name is Bill Haug.
I live in Northeast Portland on 35th Place.
I'm a lifelong Northeast Portland resident, as was my father.
I'm here with a concern and a plea for assistance.
PBOT is constructing a concrete island in the middle of Northeast Killingsworth at 35th Place.
With the construction of this 38-foot-long island, larger vehicles will no longer be able to turn west from my street onto Killingsworth.
Picture an obstruction approximately the footprint of a TriMet bus in the middle of a 2-lane road 24 hours a day.
Thank you.
This will affect not only my vehicle but also garbage trucks and trade and delivery vehicles of all types, or anyone towing a trailer.
Hillingsworth near me is a 2-lane arterial road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
The intersection at 35th Place is not a school crossing, nor a bus stop, nor a commercial area.
It is lightly used by pedestrians with the exception of Sundays.
When members of Emmanuel Ethiopian Evangelical Church, located on the corner, park on neighborhood streets and cross Killingsworth.
Neighbors were not consulted in the design of this project.
No one on my block was aware that this island was going to be built, including a neighbor who was on the Concordia Neighborhood Association board.
None of the neighbors I've spoken to are in favor of a whale-sized concrete island in the middle of Killingsworth.
Thank you.
Church Pastor Behalu Shifra told me the church community only wants a, quote, simple painted white line crosswalk, unquote.
A concrete island will eliminate a number of parking spaces in front of their church.
You might wonder why I'm protesting so late in the process.
Communication with PBOT has been very difficult.
I believe there have been administrative notification errors during the project.
And PBOT staff have acknowledged failings in communication, but they're unwilling to alter plans.
I received a paper in my door on a Friday in November describing construction that would begin on the following Monday.
Not much notice.
Using the name of the project manager and number on the flyer, I called that Monday, leaving a message.
With no return call, I placed a second call, left a second message.
Thank you.
I've never received a return call or message of any kind.
My efforts go beyond 2 phone calls.
I've written emails, I visited PBOT offices in person, and have been directed to staff members who might listen, but the project is still proceeding.
PBOT justifies the project based on PedPDX guidelines.
Killingsworth Street in this location does not meet the stated criteria in the plan for anything more than a marked crosswalk.
Marked crosswalks are utilized successfully all over Portland.
Please put a stop to this unwanted, unneeded, and expensive concrete island.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for being here today.
Next up, we have Vicki Payne joining us online.
Good morning.
My name is Vicki Payne, and I'm speaking on my own behalf today.
I'm here because you will be voting on the budget today or tomorrow.
And while I understand trade-offs have to be made in these challenging times, I also understand that some of these decisions are prolonging the challenges our city has been facing.
Reducing funds for campsite cleanups is short-sighted, and the excuses given by some of the council members are just completely baseless.
I challenge each of you to go along with Central City Concern when they do the actual campsite assessments and offer help to people.
Um, All some of you in the media ever refer to are the stories from the last step in the process with rapid response, after they have refused multiple offers of shelter and services.
The data shows we are still letting people choose to walk away and set up camp again instead of accepting these services and shelter, and for some reason believe them when they claim no help was offered, which is completely untrue.
They just didn't want to have to follow rules to be inside.
This is absolutely unhelpful, and we are the only city and state where homelessness is growing because we are the only city and state still allowing people to choose to stay on the streets.
Domicile unknown deaths are down a bit, likely due to the mayor's efforts to end unsheltered homelessness and get people inside, but still too high in my opinion.
And we seem to be the only county that just grossly accepts that hundreds of people are going to die on our streets every year instead of trying a bit harder to get them sheltered.
Of course, not everyone is ready for that, but it doesn't mean we should allow someone to choose death on the cold pavement over shelter they don't really like.
Thank you.
And while I applaud the effort to try and save some of the frontline worker positions, it's, it's disingenuous what employee groups you are lumping into that amendment.
We were promised that some of these redundant jobs would be eliminated under the new charter, and you are trying to go backwards.
I am still waiting on the report that we were all promised as a city about how much money the new charter was going to save us by eliminating all of these redundancies.
Instead, we keep hearing about the costs have skyrocketed out of control, larger office budgets, larger staff sizes, second offices that will likely only be used a few hours per week, one of which is a mere 2.5 miles from City Hall.
Polling shows people want public safety.
We cannot attract businesses which bring jobs and tax revenue that pay for all of our wonderful social services without continuing on the path to restoring safety and livability in this city.
Thank you.
Please do better.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for being here today.
Next up we have Aaron Hunt.
Good morning and welcome.
Good morning.
Um, can you all hear me?
Yeah.
All right, cool.
So I'm Aaron Hunt, um, a rec lead instructor at Charles Jordan Community Center.
Um, our center is very unique.
There's a lot of community groups that we We work with, uh, we're centered in a community that serves kids that are primarily underserved, low economic, very diverse community.
So there at Charles Jordan Community Center, I teach about 12 or 14 youth enrichment classes.
I also oversee all our youth camps.
I also oversee an after-school program where we do homework with the kids.
We offer gym, we offer arts and crafts, different activities from the time school gets out to 6 PM.
And for a lot of our families in that community, That's a very vital program to have.
A lot of our parents are single-home parents.
They're having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
Um, and my position is one of the ones that's on the slate to be eliminated.
And I understand that you guys are kind of in a tough position.
There's something's going to have to get cut.
Um, I'm here to talk to you today about to reconsider it.
That's really all I'm looking for.
It'd be great to keep that position there for that community.
Thank you.
Pulling me out right now would be kind of tough because my last day would be the second week into camps.
So that would be pulling me out with about 6 and a half weeks left.
And we've had a lot of turnover there.
So we have a new building director who I would normally report to, but he is— he's new to parks from Florida, so he doesn't know anything about camps.
We have a coordinator filling in who I would also report to as I oversee camps, filling in for 6 months, who is also new to that position and hasn't supervised camps.
So pulling me out would kind of pull out the only person that knows how to run camps there.
We have multiple youth camps that kind of depend on me to do the daily curriculum, the scheduling, scheduling staffing, being able to step in and lead activities.
We have a lot of new staff that are high school kids that haven't been put in those positions.
So a lot of what I do is mentoring them and training them and teaching them how to teach kids, how to run activities with them.
So to pull me out would kind of put them at a disadvantage.
Also, with the after-school program, because our older coordinator won't be back until about midway through fall, pulling me out of that will also have a negative impact because I'm the one that does the scheduling, the staffing, and our other 2, our building director and our coordinator, are new, so they wouldn't know how to do that.
My position is kind of a hard one to fill, even if you wanted to hire someone off the street, like as a seasonal worker, because if you do like youth enrichment classes, those are only scheduled like 1 hour here, 3 hours there, 4 hours there.
And when I talked to the previous coordinator, she's already told me if my position gets eliminated, all those youth enrichment classes are going away because they're just not going to be able to find anybody to be able to teach them.
The after-school program, instead of growing it because our numbers have gone up each year and the waitlist, they're going to have to shrink it in half.
Right now we're looking at expanding the program and getting up to 70 or 80 kids if we can.
But space is limited because we have a lot of partner groups.
So unlike St. John's that has access to the whole building.
We've got 2 spaces now, and we're looking to expand to 2 more to increase the numbers.
But, um, I just ask that you guys reconsider, um, putting my position— and yeah, thank, thank you very much.
Thanks for being here today.
Next up, we have Michelle Miller.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, councilors.
Good morning, Mayor.
My name is Michelle Milla, and I am a Northwest Portland resident chair of State and Hood Neighbors.
Over the last year, our neighbors have spent a great deal of time talking about public safety because we keep encountering the same consequences when one part of the systems that we're talking about with these budget talks fail.
We've testified before this council about police staffing, fire response, and CHAT, we've appeared before Multnomah County on behavioral health and the district attorney's budget.
And from where we sit in Northwest Portland, all these feel like the same conversations.
We've watched a behavioral health crisis become a fire response, and then we watched that fire response turn into a police response and then evolve into a prosecution issue.
And again, we keep watching the same situations return to our sidewalks when the system lacks the capacity to resolve them.
Last month, as you know, a Providence Park security guard checking on a man in crisis suffered catastrophic injuries was that a behavioral health issue?
Was it a public safety issue?
A criminal justice issue?
The answer is yes, it was all of those.
It was all of those things.
We saw the same reality when Elephant's Deli was destroyed after a woman in crisis started a fire there.
What those solutions have in common— excuse me, what those situations have in common is that no single agency solves them alone.
These are not competing systems.
They are public safety ecosystem.
It is one system.
Thank you.
The burden doesn't disappear, as Councilors Zimmerman and Clark have stated.
It just moves from one place to the next.
And you guys have the tools to solve that.
It's not hard.
No homeowner cancels their insurance or disconnects their smoke detectors or stops maintaining their foundations.
These systems protect everything else that they've built.
Public safety functions in the same way.
This week, Multnomah County reduced funding for the DA's office.
Here at the city, CHAT was preserved through a one-time amendment.
Thank you.
But if CHAT is essential, and I believe it is, why are we funding it what happens next year?
This council has before it an amendment that would restore CHAT, Advanced Life Support Teams, the Victim Services Unit, and PS3 on a permanent basis, and I'm asking you to pass that.
The city is weakening one end of the public safety ecosystem while the county weakens another, and these decisions are compounding.
So as residents in neighborhoods like ours, we just want some common sense here.
We're not asking for less of one system in exchange for another.
Councilmember Herbold.
We're asking for enough of all of them to function together.
So the ask is just please protect the ecosystem, and thank you for your consideration.
Thank you very much.
That completes communications.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for everybody who came today.
Could we please move to the consent agenda?
No items have been pulled from the consent agenda.
I'll call the roll to approve the agenda.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The consent agenda is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
Okay.
And Keelan, I apologize in advance.
Can we please read items 5 through 11 all at once?
Item 5, document 2026-193, memorandum for adoption of the FY 2026-27 budget for the City of Portland.
Item 6, document 2026-194, certify that certain services are provided by the city to establish eligibility for state shared revenues.
Item 7, document 2026-195, approve accepting funds from the State of Oregon under the State Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026, and ending June 30th, 2027.
Item 8, document 2026-196, adopt the annual budget of the city and establish appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026, Aye.
Opposed?
Abstain.
Item 8, document 2026-196, approve levying taxes for the city for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026, and ending June 30th, 2027.
Item 10, document 2026-198, authorize a temporary interfund loan not to exceed $600,000 from the Parks Capital Fund to the Hydroelectric Power Operating Fund to provide interim funding to avoid negative cash and fund balances at 2025-26 fiscal year end.
Item 11, document 2026-199, adopt the supplemental budget for the FY 2025-26 overexpenditure process and make budget adjustments in various funds.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
We have 7 items before us today, all of which play a role in the adopted budget today's hearing will continue at 1:30 PM and then reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 AM.
We have given public notice that we will take testimony on all 7 budget items together.
However, due to a quirk of state budget law, we actually will be taking testimony on the state revenue sharing ordinance and resolution separately.
We have a hard out today at 1:30, and we must conclude our work on amendments tomorrow by 12:30 to have time to close the budget and approve the budget.
Thank you, Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney.
Before adjournment.
To ensure that both— that there's both time to hear from the public and for council to work, yesterday we gave public notice that testimony would be limited to 90 seconds per speaker.
Thank you to all of you who are here to speak.
And we are now in consideration of item 5.
What follows is a synopsis of Exhibit A, the budget instructions.
First, we will open and close the state shared revenue hearing to affirm that we are eligible to receive state shared revenues from liquor and cannabis.
Second, we will approve the budget.
We will take public testimony on those items and then carry over item 6, a resolution, and item 7, an emergency ordinance, to June 17th to vote on all items together.
Then we will open and hear public testimony on all items related to the adopted budget and the overexpenditure ordinance.
We will then consider the adopted budget and hear motions to amend it, including budget notes.
And we will then consider the tax levy ordinance, which allows the city to levy property taxes again.
We will carry that over, over that emergency ordinance to June 17th for a vote.
We will then turn over— turn to the overexpenditure ordinance and related interfund loan first readings.
And finally, we will vote to conform item 5 to any amendments taken, passed, made.
I am now opening a— here we are now in consideration of items 6 and 7.
I have a motion to move items 6 and 7 to the agenda.
And I am now opening a hearing to discuss proposed uses of state revenue sharing.
This is a hearing to— this hearing is being held by the City of Portland, Oregon, in compliance with provisions of state revenue sharing regulations, ORS 221.770.
It is to allow citizens to comment on the possible use of these funds in conjunction with the annual budget process.
As proposed for council adoption, the fiscal year '26-'27 budget anticipates receipts totaling $19,496,999 from state revenue sharing under ORS 221.770.
As has been the case in prior years, it is proposed that this revenue be allocated in equal parts to support fire prevention and police patrol services.
Also before us is a resolution to certify that the city meets the eligibility requirements for state shared revenue.
Second.
State law requires that we provide a number of services to be eligible for this state shared revenue, and this resolution certifies that we do so.
The services certified by the City of Portland are police protection, fire prevention, street construction, maintenance and lighting, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, planning, zoning, and subdivision control, and water.
Finally, before us is an ordinance to accept state shared revenue.
Once council has held a hearing and certified that the city is qualified, we must take this action to accept the revenue.
Keelan, can we please call the first panel for public testimony?
We have one person signed up for document 2026-194, Lynette Thomas.
Yeah, come on up.
Oh, okay.
Lynette, I think, I think you meant to sign up for the adopted budget with all the amendments and not this particular item?
All I know is it's about Montavilla Park Shelter.
Yeah, okay, I can call you with the group that's going to testify on all the amendments.
Okay, sorry about that.
Thanks.
That completes testimony for these 2 items.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
We are, uh, now in council discussion of our shared state shared revenue.
Uh, is there any discussion?
Okay.
Item 6, the resolution attesting to the City of Portland's eligibility for state revenue, and Item 7, the emergency ordinance to accept state shared revenue, are continued to a time certain— time and date certain of 6:15 PM on June 17th, 2026.
I am now closing this hearing to discuss proposed uses of state council President, hold on.
So you said— you just said it has to move— number 7, I'm saying number 7 has to move to that date?
Yes.
And we're noticing that it also says emergency ordinance.
Yes.
So it will need 9 votes that day?
Yes.
Okay.
I think that's quite risky.
I agree.
So what is the purpose for the emergency ordinance?
Couldn't tell you immediately.
Do we have someone from the budget office who could explain why that is?
For the record, Ruth Levine, budget director.
It's just an emergency ordinance because it's not a budget ordinance and it needs to take effect by the end of June.
So I can't think of another time we did an emergency ordinance where we read it in and then brought it back later.
I guess that's what I'm a little bit— I'm a little confused in that.
Normally when it's an emergency, we vote on it and take it.
If it passes as a non-emergency ordinance, it's effective in 30 days, which would be beyond the July 1st date.
So either way, Whether you consider it today or next week, you would need to pass it on an emergency basis for it to be effective July 1st.
I think you should have great concern over that.
Yeah.
I think that threshold is quite risky given this budget.
Thank you very much.
Okay, colleagues, we are now in consideration of items 8, 9, 10, and 11.
These comprise the adopted budget and over-expenditure ordinance items.
We will now take testimony on these items together.
Keelan, can you please call the first panel of public testimony?
Thank you.
I'll call folks up in groups of 5.
First up, we have Lynette Thomas.
Is Lynette here or did she step out?
Lynette Thomas, Miranda Wood, Tori Rohrbach, welcome folks, come on down.
Feel free to grab whatever seat makes sense, introduce yourself for the record, and you're welcome to share your pronouns.
And you have 90 seconds apiece.
My name is Miranda Wood, she/her.
I am an Ask Me 189 member and a business systems analyst in Public Works, speaking in a personal capacity.
I would like to speak about my experience during the technology core realignment and the concerns I have regarding staff that were identified for layoffs.
Staff have consistently raised the issue that movements and cuts were made before determining the services staff provide, and staff have tried to give more info to the core realignment team.
Only on May 26th did my group finally receive an inquiry from our bureau.
Asking us to list work tasks and what will be discontinued.
With staff layoffs only 3 weeks away, it is extremely concerning that the city does not have a comprehensive inventory of impacts to service delivery.
As a couple of specific examples, while the mayor has expanded the budget for the leaf collection and street cleaning program, at the same time the core realignment is laying off the core realignment is reassigning work and laying off Public Works business systems analysts who implement and maintain specific asset management systems.
Their institutional knowledge would be best suited to move towards a future city standard.
Sorry, we're at time.
I didn't get a 30-second—.
Uh, the— we're 23 over.
Oh, I see.
Yeah, sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Whoever wants to go next, feel free to jump in.
Good morning, Mayor Wilson, Council President Dunphy, and Portland City Councilors.
My name is Tori Rohrbach, and I'm speaking as a member of AFSCME Local 189 and for myself.
Thank you for saving our desk clerks, but today I ask that you take the final step and save the vital support structure they depend on.
2 Weeks ago, I officially reached the 34 years of service with the City of Portland.
I am working as a PASS, the Police Administrative Support Specialist, with the Detective Division.
I am the only PASS currently assigned to the Family Services Division, which consists of the Special Victims Unit and the Child Abuse Team.
On a spreadsheet, my job looks like an administrative line item.
In reality, I spend my days working at the front desk assisting survivors of domestic violence and child abuse.
Whether I'm connecting a fleeing victim with an advocate, helping a worried parent wishing to speak to a detective assigned to their child's case, or routing emergency abuse calls, my face is the first thing they see when they come through the front door.
If you continue with cuts to administration, you create a direct bottleneck for the people seeking our help.
Councilmember over the last several weeks, I know this council has worked incredibly hard to balance a very difficult budget.
I appreciate the dedication and long hours each of you have and contribute to this process.
And the final piece of the detail, I ask that you please include this final piece of the puzzle by considering an amendment to maintain the vital support of our frontline team and families we serve.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Point of information.
Yeah, it seems like—.
Is the bell— the first bell's not working.
We're working on it.
Okay.
Yeah, saw that there was a timer issue here.
Okay, that's good.
We may have shortchanged you.
I apologize.
Whoever wants—.
Yeah, go ahead.
All right, well, good morning.
I hope you all can, uh, flex decorum just a little bit to unmute, as for the first time this month addressing this body.
Portland City Council, happy Pride Month.
There's an appropriate response.
Happy Pride Month to you.
All right, maybe next time we'll work on the practice.
I started this several weeks ago where we talked about, uh, this not being a moral document.
This budget would ask you to compromise your morals, and I think that that's without dispute.
I'm resisting the cynical thoughts that no minds will be changed today.
I wish we could take the names off of amendments.
I feel like that is divisive.
I would love to see numbers, not names.
I want to take the people, the leaders' names off of this.
You do this on behalf of Portland.
I remember the many of the, the political things that, that we have been through around same-sex marriage and various other governance that I remember the measures.
I remember 26-156 when we took away— there was a motion to take away at the ballot your control over water and sewer rate setting in the city.
10 years later, Portlanders did that and handed it to the administration.
But that was an important thing that we preserved.
Make it about the numbers, not about the 2 amendments here today that I want to talk about.
Both preserve workers, Both are positive, and I think you have more that you are in alignment with than you are in opposition on.
We have got to find a way to do the reconciliation process.
I know this isn't the House and Senate, but this adoption really is reconciliation.
And more than reconciliation here, I hope you find it amongst each other, because this has been an extremely painful process to watch, the deep division.
I represent my members who are your employees.
And count on the decisions you'll make today.
The mayor's budget needed help.
That was never more clear to me than when I will say, Councilor Avalos, thank you for again bringing a preservation of our healthcare.
It's unbelievable to me that they couldn't have seen that one coming.
We can do better.
Work together.
You have our support.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
City Council members, my name is Lynette Thomas.
I'm here to speak about the Montavilla Park covered structure.
Um, it's been October of '21, nearly 5 years ago.
It's already too long not having one.
And, um, I want to tell you a little bit myself.
Um, I migrated here from Seattle halfway through second grade.
That's well over half a century ago.
Montavilla Park was my very first experience.
My parents brought me to, has been a part of my life since then many, many times.
Portland is my home.
Vast majority of my life there.
My first home was in Montevilla.
My teen years a block away from the home that I now own of nearly 40 years as of this fall.
I have had extensive use of the park with my daughter and used—.
Had birthday experiences at the shelter that used to exist at Montevilla Park.
And I think it's really important Little kids especially need to have a covered kind of area for parental help as well as protection from sun and rain and things like that to make it a positive experience.
So we don't let weather stop us getting out in our beautiful parks.
Montevilla is a gathering hub like Pioneer Place is for the whole city's living room.
Newer housing without yards increases the need for Montevilla as a community space.
Every week, Hope and Bread feeds people, body and soul, meeting there, and we need this kind of space for that to continue.
Montebello Park is a community space necessary for community relationships.
Please find a way to replace what the City of Portland removed and already took away.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Representative Tran.
Good morning, Mr. Mayor and City Councilor.
I'm here in support of Budget Amendment 9, Montevideo Park Picnic Shelter.
I am state representative of House District 45, Northeast and Southeast Portland.
Last summer, I spent a whole Sunday evening at Montevideo Park with Bishop Akiyama and Hope and Bread Church, facilitated by Reverend Sarah Fisher.
Housed and unhoused neighbors gathered as a street church offer a space where we all were all fed and we're all welcome to share the gift of time, attention, nourishing food, creativity, and non-judgmental hospitality.
I want to thank Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane, District 3, for inviting me to share that experience with her and being a fierce Thank you.
I'm Councilor Jamie Dunphy, and I'm a homeless advocate for East Portland.
When we work together as a community, we can make real differences in someone's day.
Montevideo Park is at the heart of House District 45.
Since the Pitt Shelter was demolished in 2021, there has been no shelter to hold community activity.
Hope and Bread Street Church meets there 52 Sundays a year.
The people who live in Montevideo and surrounding neighborhoods have already waited 6 years for this shelter to be rebuilt.
Monteverde Park is an important resource for people in small apartments and otherwise cannot afford a weekend getaway or other venue for family celebration.
The needs come from the community and is for the community.
The price tag reflects the delay in funding as well as the fact that there is a permanent, durable structure that, like its predecessor, will hopefully serve generations to come.
I urge you to pass this amendment, which rather than the whole amount funds seed money of 50% of permitting and construction costs.
Thank you.
I hope I can count on your support.
Thank you very much, Representative Tran.
Next up, our next panel includes Isaac McLennan, Benjamin Gilbert, Jordan Lewis, Chris Gustafson, Aaliyah Mays.
Come on up.
Feel free to jump in.
And please introduce yourselves for the record.
Great.
Good morning.
Good morning, Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark, members of City Council.
My name is Isaac McLennan.
I'm the president of the Portland Firefighters Association.
I want to begin by thanking Council for the progress that has already been made.
Funding has been identified to preserve Engine 22 in St. Johns, and support has been provided for the CHAT program.
However, another critical public safety issue remains unresolved.
The proposed budget would reduce overnight staffing in 3 rescue units serving East and Southeast Portland.
The rescues provide life-saving emergency medical response in some of the busiest areas of our city.
As well as fires, as we just saw a couple days ago.
The remaining cost to fully restore these 3 rescues is $1.65 million.
The good news is that multiple amendments before— you have multiple amendments before you that provide funding options to restore that service.
While there may be disagreement about which funding source is best, there should be an agreement that Portland residents deserve the emergency response they rely on today.
Thank you.
This is not a request to expand services.
It is a request to maintain existing emergency response capability and avoid moving backward.
When Portlanders call 911 because a loved one is having a heart attack, struggling to breathe, or trapped in a house fire, they deserve a quick response.
I respectfully ask you to adopt a budget that fully restores overnight staffing for all 3 rescue units.
Second.
Thank you.
Good morning, Council.
For the record, I am Chris Gustafson, treasurer of the City of Portland Professional Workers Union, resident of District 3, and a renter.
And I am appreciative of the opportunity to once again address Council over a critical issue for the working families Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I'm going to talk about one of the most important issues facing the city of Portland, and that is the core services realignment, and specifically our support for Amendment Green-Avalos-Morillo 1, which will pause this process which has from the start been flawed.
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure, and this whole process was premised on the idea that, one, there were Thank you.
The premise of this ordinance was based on a premise that there were redundant jobs at the city, which is a premise that still has yet to be proven, and then was based on a measure that Michael Jordan just came up with out of thin air, that that number was 20%.
This is ultimately a process that I don't think any experts in change management in the room would support as being like a valid way to go about doing a— to acquire efficiencies within an organization.
So we would ask that you pause this.
Please support GAM 1.
This has specific consequences to 100 working families in the city of Portland.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
My name is Ben Gilbert, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland Democratic Socialists of America.
A mass democratic organization with over 3,000 dues-paying members in the Portland metro area.
Portlanders deserve a budget that prioritizes services and protects the workers who deliver them.
This council has another opportunity to save basic city services and represented jobs.
Green, Avalos, Murillo 1, or Services First, restores cuts in the mayor's proposed budget and protects essential city services.
It brings back frontline public safety, Support for victims, well-kept parks, and responsive 311 services, maintains essential programs and community services across the city, restores critical fire and rescue staffing and emergency response capacity, and creates an Office of Immigration Affairs to support immigrant and refugee communities.
As Councilor Green said, continuing to pump tens of millions of dollars into sweeps, tens of millions into a broken shelter system, and promising tens of millions of dollars to renovate the Moda Center before a public process is wild, and it's council's job to intervene.
City council has the opportunity and obligation to beat back the mayor's disgraceful union-busting budget.
As Councilor Avalos pointed out, the mayor had money available and services were cut anyway.
We must reject austerity.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hello, City Council.
Uh, can I start?
Go ahead.
My name is Jordan Lewis.
I'm a volunteer lobbyist for Portland Democratic Socialists of America, and I am he/him pronouns.
Uh, I wanted to testify in person today.
I thought this was the 4th out of 7 items in the block, so I couldn't make it in person.
Um, I want to talk about, uh, in the past couple decades, Portland embarked on a really ambitious, like, our own space program, and that was We installed 20 public toilets in the city of Portland, and that was really ambitious for an American city.
And we got some of it done.
We got 20 toilets installed.
And just what I recently— we removed one from around the Old Town Greyhound Station, and I saw a photo that I just can't stop thinking of.
This is—.
This photo is so perfect.
The future—.
This is—.
This is our city on austerity.
Yeah.
It is an empty concrete slab, maybe asphalt slab, people living on said concrete slab, and a quasi-government employee wheeling around a dumpster to throw away the items of the people who live on the giant concrete slab.
Um, this is, this is what austerity does to our city, and it's just such an amazing example of where we're headed if we continue the process.
So I'm here supporting Green, Avalos, Murillo 1.
Thank you.
Please stop the union busting.
Stop the austerity.
Stop the cuts.
These jobs are important.
These jobs deliver services on the ground.
So I'm just begging you, please, we can save these jobs.
And these jobs are what we— this is the lifeblood of the city.
These are services that people rely on.
The amount of people who need to poop has not changed.
We gotta, we gotta keep, we gotta keep these people working.
At least pause the cuts.
Thanks.
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Aaliyah Mays.
Next up we have Gloria Hernandez, um, sorry, Aveline Moyo, Carrie Alovea, Devin Ruiz, Carrie Ko.
Welcome, folks.
Carrie, you're already here.
Go ahead and take it.
All right, hold on, let me pull up my sniff.
All right, thank you.
My name is Carrie Coe.
I'm the president of the City of Portland Professional Workers Union, representing 800 people around the city, and a member, a constituent in District 2.
Um, and I want to be clear about what today is.
Today is about action.
I want to thank the councilors that continue to put forward amendments to address the known risks of core realignment.
It is important to our members that you know, though, that there's nothing friendly to labor or to constituents about debating concepts and not moving things forward.
Today is about action.
You have the opportunity to prevent harm to your workers, to the services Portlanders care about, to the systems that are critical to the functionality of this city.
This is an opportunity to be leaders that we can look to and that Portlanders can trust.
When you see problems, when you see severe risks, when you see a lot of uncertainty, you don't have to speed forward with a core realignment mandate handed to you by a previous administration.
Take the time to course correct, figure out how to do city business right the first time.
This is what the Service First Amendment does.
Thank you.
Come out of today with a comprehensive package that is good for Portlanders, that's good for workers, and that's good for the functioning of our city.
We are looking to you to move positive action today on true public safety, on parks, to support a functional city and to support workers and to be fiscally responsible and accountable.
Find a way forward.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead and begin.
Okay, um, hello, my name is Carrie Alovia.
I'm here to advocate for my brother-in-law David Frew, who's sitting next to me here.
Dave attends the Senior Center Project at Portland Parks and Recreation.
To my knowledge, this is the only city-funded day program for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
It's a social program for people who need a place to make friends, exercise important social skills, Have fun, and even celebrate birthdays.
When Dave joined the Senior Center Project 6 years ago, he made friends with people like himself for the first time in his life.
The results are profoundly positive and life-changing for him.
However, even though my calculations show that the program costs only 0.4% of the 2025-26 budget, the new proposed budget completely eliminates it.
Councilmember Herbold.
The rationalization is that there are over 10 other programs locally that replicate the senior center project.
However, there are actually zero.
There are no other programs in the city that offer what this one does.
The main reason is that the senior center project is part of the discount program at Portland Parks and Recreation, which is funded by the recent parks levy that I voted for.
Thank you.
So Dave, who doesn't qualify for Medicaid because he worked for 35 years and saved his money, can actually afford to pay out of pocket with the discount.
If the city does not reverse its decision to eliminate the senior center project, Dave will face loneliness and isolation when it's eliminated at the end of this month.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Gloria Hernandez.
Good morning.
I'm going to be doing the English interpretation of the testimony today.
I am— for the record, my name is Yasmin.
I'm the political director for SEIU Local 49.
Hola, mi nombre es Maria Flores y estoy aquí para hablar el testimonio de mi compañera de trabajo Gloria Hernandez.
Good morning.
My name is Maria.
I'm here providing testimony or reading testimony on behalf of my coworker Buenos días, consejeros.
Me llamo Gloria Hernandez.
Llevo 23 años trabajando para Relay Resources y soy leal janitor en Justice Center.
También soy miembro de CU Local 49.
Good morning, councilors.
My name is Gloria Hernandez.
I have worked for Relay Resources for 23 years and I'm a lead janitor for the Justice Center.
And also a member of SEIU Local 49.
Somos 5 personas que limpian la comisaría central de las oficinas de los detectives y jefes de policía y otras áreas del centro de justicia, una instalación que opera las 24 horas.
Si la ciudad recorta el fondo para los If I was cleaning the Central Precinct offices of detectives and the police chief of police and other areas in the Justice Center, 24-hour facility.
If you cut funding for janitorial services, I'm afraid that it would result in unsanitary conditions such as overflowing trash cans and dirty surfaces.
This is one of the reasons why we, SEIU Local 49, ask you to support the Services First budget amendment to maintain the essential services that we at Relay Resources provide.
Negociamos con nuestros empleados, contamos con buenos salarios y un seguro médico que nos permite cuidar de nuestra salud.
It is also essential that you maintain good union jobs.
As union members, we negotiate with our employer.
We have good pay and health insurance that allows allows us to take care of ourselves.
Esto es especialmente importante porque la mayoría de los empleados de Relay tenemos algunas discapacidades somos trabajadores completamente, pero muchos de nuestros hemos sufrido discriminaciones y faltas de respeto en otros lugares de trabajo.
This is especially important because the majority of relay employees have disabilities.
We are capable workers, but many of us have faced discrimination and disrespect at other places.
Por eso les pedimos This is why we ask you to vote yes for the Services First Amendment to support good union jobs and essential services for the City of Portland residents and staff.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Aveline Moyo, Devin Ruiz, Dina Ross, Megan Horst, Jeremy Bosole, Sabina Urdez, Elliot Levin.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mayor Wilson, Council President Dunphy, members of council.
My name is Elliott Levin.
I'm the research director for ProTech 17, speaking on behalf of nearly 1,000 employees of the city who are represented by our union.
I'm here to speak in support of Green-Avalos-Morillo 1 this morning.
I'm going to keep my testimony very simple and clear today.
It always costs less to do things right the first time.
For our union, the direct staffing impacts of core realignment are relatively small.
However, the impacts to our members' programs and their ability to do their critical work will be dramatic.
There will be real financial consequences for these rushed decisions.
Support systems that the city relies on are being warped or eliminated entirely.
Programs that Portlanders expect to be run effectively, like curb ramp replacement and pothole filling, will be degraded and less responsive.
Engineering employees are being moved to the Technology Bureau.
Community engagement is being used as a catch-all term to combine very different functions with no thought towards outcomes.
When city management is pressed on the reasons for these decisions and cuts, it quickly becomes clear that these are being made with bad or missing information.
They're often Solely being advanced to meet arbitrary quotas on numbers of positions to cut.
We've heard from the highest levels of management that breaking things and fixing them later is an expected outcome of core realignment.
This is not an acceptable way to run the city.
You've heard from many, many of your employees about the problems that core realignment will cause.
You trust these employees to make life safety decisions on behalf of the city every single day.
Please trust these employees today.
Thank you.
When they tell you, do things right the first time.
It's always less expensive.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Dina Ross, Megan Horst, Jeremy Bosole, Sabina Urdez, go ahead, Sabina.
Good morning, councilors.
My name is Sabina Ardash, and I'm a District 1 constituent and an immigrant speaking on behalf of Thrive East PDX.
I'm here to testify in support of Pirtle-Guiney 8.
District 1 has the highest percentage of immigrants and refugees in Portland, so the investments that you make in immigrant affairs have a direct impact on the communities that I live and work alongside every day.
I helped found and continue to help lead Thrive East PDX, a coalition of 28 East Portland organizations, and many of these groups serve immigrant and refugee communities or work closely with immigrant families.
Through that work, and as an immigrant myself, I have seen, heard, and felt firsthand the impact of unchecked and unconstitutional immigration enforcement, not just in our neighborhoods, but in my own family.
I strongly support the Pirtle-Guiney 8 Amendment because we need dedicated ongoing resources for immigrant and refugee affairs, and we need to support the staff member doing This is especially important as Congress just passed the Secure America Act, a nearly $70 billion funding package to carry out President Trump's immigration enforcement agenda through the end of his term.
Portland's immigrant communities are already asking what that means for their families and neighborhoods.
When Mayor Wilson appointed Brenda Alvarado as the city's immigrant affairs lead, the position was described as helping coordinate the city's response to immigration issues.
I'm going to ask the mayor to please We should be investing in that capacity now, not after a crisis emerges.
I also appreciate that this amendment was developed in coordination with the Immigrant Affairs Liaison position and reflects respect for the lived experience, expertise, and leadership of the person carrying out this work.
I urge you to vote yes on Pirtle-Guiney 8.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Jeremy.
Good morning, councilors.
I urge you to vote yes on the Services First Amendment.
Uh, I think that it's pretty obvious these are mostly union jobs.
I cannot understand why we needed the other amendment from Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and Novick.
I don't I understand all of the energy put into moderating good progressive plans that are put on the table, and I do think that if you vote no on the Services First Amendment, that it would be your undoing.
So I highly recommend and urge you to vote yes on the Services First Amendment.
Labor remembers and would not soon forget the betrayal.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Alan Hipolito, Jane Strogatzky, Ray Van Horst, Sarah Marugg, Diana Meissenhelter.
Thank you.
Welcome, folks.
Hi.
Buenos días, consejeras.
Me llamo Alan Hipólito.
Trabaja Grupo Suma.
We are a member of the PCEF coalition, the dozens of groups, hundreds of volunteers who knocked on thousands of doors to pass Oregon's first-ever people of color-led environmental ballot initiative.
The only climate measure to pass in 2018 general election.
We worked so hard because nobody was listening to us.
Not the big greens, not the funders, not the city of Portland.
When we talked about the environment in our neighborhoods, we were ignored.
Maybe some of you on this council know what I'm talking about.
Maybe you've been ignored or discounted or disregarded because you weren't white.
Thank you.
Or you weren't a man, or you weren't straight, or because your body didn't work the same way as the person doing the ignoring.
They didn't recognize the legitimacy of your voice.
And it's important to be clear what we're looking for when we state our case.
We're not looking to flip the script.
We're not looking to gain power over another.
We're looking for our place at the table, for our voice to be heard.
In front of this council, your committees, your offices, and in one-on-one discussions, the PeaceF Coalition has consistently, repeatedly made a clear request.
Thank you.
Nothing about us without us.
If you have ideas about using this fund that we built to respond to the city's serious budget challenges, let's talk about it.
Let's work together.
That's not what happened.
That's unfortunate and a damn shame.
But the good news is we can still work together.
We're all here right now.
We can fix this right now.
A council of PSF defenders and people who know what it means to be discounted surely we can find $5.9 million in this budget to make the CIP whole and hold PIMO harmless.
Certainly someone here can make a motion, edit their amendment, reach out to their colleague in or out of their caucus, and propose a solution here and now.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is Rae.
I'm a resident of Portland represented by our District 3, uh, councilors, and I am an employee of the Revenue Division and an AFSCME 189 member.
I'm here today to present a petition signed by myself and my peers to retain one of our co-workers whose job is slated for removal.
Though Stephen Ray's job title is Admin Specialist 2, we at Revenue know that that could never encompass all that he does for us.
Thank you.
Some examples of what he's responsible for involves invoicing and employee reimbursement requests, purchasing bureau supplies, acting as a liaison between revenue and third parties such as building maintenance, commercial contractors, and outside vendors, helping to bridge the gap in resources between revenue and other city departments since we are located in a completely separate building.
And he does so much more.
We're here to present today 74 signatures from staff represented by 3 unions: Protect 17, CPPW, and ASME 189, who want to urge the council to please consider sparing this position that supports over 150 Revenue Division staff, supervisors, and managers every day, a position that Stephen is uniquely qualified for.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, hello, I'm Sarah Marag, and I'm from the Revenue Division, and I just wanted to thank the mayor and council members for your time and consideration.
We appreciate the opportunity to present Uh, this petition, and we respectfully ask that you consider the employee support that we provided to you guys for retaining Steven Ray in his position.
And we just want to thank you for listening to us and for your guys' service and dedication to the city.
So thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Diana Meissenhalter, speaking on behalf of XRPDX, a local chapter of a global climate justice group.
I also serve on the NAACP Environmental Justice Committee, which is enraged by what is transpiring.
We recognize the challenging monetary city situation the city finds itself in and believe more creative and equitable funding mechanisms must be found.
The mayor's budget set up an unfortunate precedent, opening the Pandora's of raiding PCF funds to backfill budget items unrelated to PCF's original voter-approved mission.
While the use of the interest may be legal, that and utilizing 5th-year SIP funds are definitely not moral.
It was clear from the start that to reach the climate goals scientists say are necessary in the timeframe allotted, we would need many times over even the unanticipated windfall that PCF has become.
Furthermore, the PCF Community Advisory Group has already allotted funds up to 2019.
Councilmember 29, based on anticipated revenue for multi-year projects.
So the city is in essence stealing from the future of those projects, despite promises made to the community when the transfer to city oversight took place.
The $5.9 million slated for PMO street cleaning is not in line with the emissions reductions focus, and certainly given huge sums that will benefit billionaires' revenue at the Moda Center would be a travesty.
We need real guardrails so that the mayor and council are not tempted to divert funds in the future, but that PCF decisions are left to the community advisory board and climate investment plan processes.
The city needs better transparency, accountability, and management of PCF.
Raiding what this community set up to address a very real and existential climate crisis we face if we do not act now is a far more serious thank you very much.
Megan Horst, joining us online.
Hi.
Welcome.
Thanks for allowing me to speak this morning.
I am a member of the PCF committee and here speaking in that role, although I'm speaking as myself and not as a full committee since we have not made a formal vote on this.
Now, I want to express my concern that the committee is not being engaged in meaningful deliberation about potentially significant changes to the climate investment plan, including in the proposed budget the move of funds and responsibility for the maintenance of green infrastructure from DES to PMO.
We've asked questions about the rationale and specifics of this change, including to greenhouse gas emissions and the community benefits, the main goals of PSET, and have not received answers.
And it sounds like a more significant change than purely administrative and implies a change to the climate investment plan.
The PSF committee, as written in code, has the responsibility for making recommendations to the CIP, and we have requested transparency and adherence to a due process for these requests and continue to be left without answers.
We respectfully request that these proposals be paused until the committee has been provided information necessary to conduct a thorough review and engage in a transparent and collaborative decision-making process about any changes to CIP.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Uh, Jane Strogatzki.
Next up we have Edith Gillis, Jacob Carson, Mary Emerson, Sarah White Curtis, Ao Nguyen.
Yes.
Most of the city expenses are wasted on cops.
Cops don't prevent or solve crimes or support crime victims and do not build community mutual caring via social justice.
Be honest.
Show all city expenses on police in one category.
Their overtime, the attorneys screwing Portlanders injured and disabled, robbed, wrongly arrested, terrorized, traumatized, impoverished, or whose loved ones were killed by cops.
Hold cops accountable to pay their own liability insurance instead of double charging Portlanders for cops' violent crimes, lowering our city bond value and general funds.
Fire cops who don't do their jobs in their shift instead of ticketing or arresting people at the end of their shift, then working too slowly to, to get overtime.
Cops do not protect us from kidnappers, abusers, human traffickers, armed thugs, but PBB unlawfully aids and abets those criminals.
The PBB and officers had more money, resources, information, equipment, weapons, etc.
Than ever before, yet cops still committed crimes, did not protect Portlanders, or provide the services they extort us by not working in order to scare and fool us into rewarding them for failing their jobs because they chose just because they refuse to show up for their job on time doesn't mean we should pay them.
Cut their inflated budget.
Increase the Portland Street Response so each neighborhood has 24/7 services.
Increase services proven to prevent crimes and poverty— parks, recreation, rental protections, victim services, and immigrant justice— so there are fewer crimes and crime victims and more public safety and livability.
Fire the cops who refuse to respond promptly and properly to calls and render proper aid.
End retirement for cops who commit crimes.
Protect Portland Clean Energy Benefits Fund only for what voters chose and only use its interest for the Avalos-Green-Murillo Amendment.
Cops don't make us safe.
We make us safe with climate justice, housing, parks, and community services that prevent crime and heal victims.
Stop funding our oppression.
Invest in our mutual liberation.
Pass the Avalos-Green-Murillo Amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is Mary Emerson.
I live in District 3.
I'm here to speak in support of the Services First Amendment.
These are really rough financial times.
I understand it.
You have a really difficult job ahead of you, and I just implore you to remember who elected you.
It was the people of Portland, not moneyed interests.
So I think right now you need to look in your heart.
You need to think what am— what's going to be best for the community, for all of the people of Portland.
You need to support the Services First Amendment because Portlanders deserve protect our frontline workers and preserve essential city services.
This is for us, not the moneyed interest.
For us, the people of Portland, the people who you hope to vote for you next time around.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
District 3.
I am in support of Green Avalos, Morillo 1, otherwise known as Services First.
We've been told repeatedly that the city is in dire financial straits and that we need to cut a bunch of stuff.
Some of you may not be aware of this, but the rest of us out here in hard times, we prioritize the basics, not the luxury.
We buy rice and beans, we don't buy lobster.
Thank you.
We've been told that we need to cut nearly 100 jobs to save, what, $10, $15 million?
Yet at the same time, we've been told that the city has over $100 million to invest in MODA.
I implore you to invest in the basics.
Keep the lights on, keep the services going, keep the parks clean, and don't buy any more Thank you very much.
Jacob Carson.
Councilors, I'm testifying today on behalf of the Portland Parks Board to urge you to pass the amendments before you today that will fund daily care, maintenance, and repairs in Portland parks.
For those unfamiliar, the Parks Board serves as a sort of Lorax for Portland.
We're an advisory board tasked with advocating for the city's parks.
My message for you is that when daily care gets cut, then small problems will go unnoticed.
And then when maintenance is deferred, those small problems will become repair projects.
And then when repairs are delayed, those projects will become major capital failures.
Deferred maintenance will compound over time and it will get expensive.
There will be an infrastructure debt created by this budget as written, and it will become visible to every resident in this city.
Thank you.
It'll look like dirty facilities, unrepaired playgrounds, damaged fields, unsafe paths, graffiti that's not remediated, failing irrigation systems, and parks that simply feel neglected.
And that's to say nothing of programmatic cuts.
If we continue hollowing out routine maintenance capacity, we are creating a ticking time bomb of future capital liabilities that the city will eventually have to pay for.
Without action today, this budget will not keep our parks as functional, safe, and affordable to maintain over time.
Thank you.
As written, it will not keep programs effective and accessible.
This budget breaks a trust that was established between the city and, and the people, and it was established with the passage of the parks levy.
The deal that we all metaphorically shook hands on was that Portlanders would pay higher taxes, and in exchange, service levels for Portland parks would be maintained.
But right now, that's not the deal that council and the mayor is putting on the table.
I urge you to change course.
Thank you.
And pass amendments necessary to restore funding to parks before temporary savings becomes a permanent decline in one of Portland's most valuable assets.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Noel Studer-Spievak, Chris Olson, Stephanie McBarron, Ronfis Giannettino-Viatoro, Oscar Malpartida.
Thank you very much.
And colleagues, just so you know, we are going to get through testimony.
We'll take a restroom welcome.
Hey, I guess I'm the first one here.
I'll just go ahead.
Uh, my name is Chris Olson, for the record, resident District 2.
I'll just be really simple.
I knocked 1,000 doors between the Myrna Munoz and, uh, Tammy Carpenter campaign.
Um, that is the canary in your coal mine, and you know which 6 people I'm talking to, because we're coming for you.
And if you continue this austerity Thank you very much.
Noelle Studer-Spievak, online.
Councilors, my name is Noelle Studer-Spievak.
I live in District 2, and I offer comments on behalf of the thousands of members of 350 PDX.
We recognize this has been a difficult budget year due to many factors beyond Portland elected officials' control.
We appreciate the time and creativity that has been contributed by so many.
Thank you for the amendments you've passed so far to fund the Sustainability Office, retain tree staff for PSF Strategic Programs 8 and 34, and fund the St. Johns Fire Station for this year.
We support Canal 9 to ensure that the St. Johns Fire Station is permanently funded.
It's the only station serving the critical energy infrastructure, infrastructure hub and Linton neighbors.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
We're not taking a position on the PCF-related amendments but wish to reiterate overall concern about the process and the diversion of funds.
We ask for an updated amendment that would restore PCF funds that were diverted from BES and PBOT to PMO.
As Dr. Horst stated, the PCF committee has not been briefed on these CIP changes or given a chance to make a decision.
Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you.
If City Council wants to fund PMO, it should come from this year's general fund budget or another applicable funding source, not from PSF and not from a future year.
Finally, once the budget process is complete, we hope that Council will clarify, strengthen, and codify process for future PSF changes.
The mayor should not be able to propose a budget suggesting significant changes to the PCF CIP right after council has completed it.
City councilors should have to find another way— shouldn't have to find another way to cover the gap if the mayor proposes diverting already allocated funds for non-PCF-aligned purposes.
And all changes to the PCF should occur through the annual PCF CIP update process.
We ask that the council commit to codifying the process so that changes can be made with plenty of advanced lead time in the future.
Second.
Please see Dr. Charisse Bach's written testimony for details.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome to right here at the table.
Oh, me?
Okay.
Hello.
Good morning, Council.
My name is Steph McBarron.
I am a D3 voter and a Democratic Socialist, and I am here speaking in favor of the Services First Amendment.
PSEF interest funds are not the same thing as PSEF, the primary fund.
I think the healthy ecosystem of this city is an incredibly appropriate way to spend these funds, at least more so than potentially giving these funds to a basketball arena.
The outcome of the Services First Amendment will send a message to the city of Portland and to its constituents what the priorities of the current council are and where they lie.
311 Services allow people without reliable internet access to maintain participation in city services and engagement like council testimony.
Parks and recreation services have a citizen mandate via the recent levy and also allow care caregivers a work-life balance from the people who rely on them.
It needs no justification to preserve overnight support staffing for potential violent incidences, given that the business community of this city have made it clear that keeping the city clean and safe and accessible is a major priority.
So I believe the Services First Amendment represents a compromise agreement that multiple members of this council across the board can have faith in to provide for this city even in an era of imposed austerity.
And the outcome of this amendment, one way or the other, Thank you very much.
Good morning.
For the record, my name is Ranfis Genetianovia-Toro.
I'm with Blue-Green Alliance.
I'm a former PCF committee member, but again, here I'm here on my own behalf.
My, on my capacity as Blue-Green Alliance.
First and foremost, I want to just start off by saying something controversial.
Uh, I like you guys.
I like you all individually.
Uh, but I'm on the, I'm on the fence around as a team.
As a team, I really want you all to continue to find ways to support and protect union jobs.
Union jobs is the difference between the city that taught box in the city that works.
And I think many folks today have made a good demonstrating case why we need workers on the front lines doing the things that the city is able to feel and see the differences on the ground.
Second, I want to sort of echo the statements that both Megan Horst and Alan Hippolyto made around the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
I think it's really important to recognize, one, that the Portland Clean Energy Fund is not a slush fund.
It's not a resource for just nonprofits.
It is there to protect and preserve and advance clean energy funds for Portlanders.
So I want to continue to hope and advocate to take the long view on the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
Let's address the crisis that we have today with the budget.
But let's make sure we take the long view in protecting Portlanders from an affordability energy crisis, from a climate crisis and declining snow caps.
And so just want to continue to advocate for that.
I want to thank the mayor.
I want to thank the council for its leadership and its tough deliberations here.
But again, I want to advocate, take the long view, protect the funds, create accountability, create process, work as a team.
Thank you for listening on my wish list.
Thank you very much.
Oscar.
Uh, hi, my name is Oscar Malpartida and I live in District 3, and I ask that council, especially my District 3 councilors, say yes to Pirtle-Guiney Amendment 8.
I believe our city is at its best when we pair our values with action.
As a son of immigrants and a volunteer accompanier, I've seen how meaningful support can strengthen the quality and impact of the work and the trauma that the community holds from the fall.
Hiring a community advocate Thank you very much.
All right, uh, last call for Aveline Hernandez, Devin Ruiz, and Councilor Dan Ryan.
Dina Ross, Jane Strogatzki.
That completes testimony.
Okay, colleagues, it is currently 10:51.
I would like everybody to be back here at 11:05, and we will begin debate of amendments.
Thank you.
All right, folks, I am bringing us back to order now.
I mean, I'm gonna get a screen grab.
So we have now shh.
Thank you.
We have concluded testimony, so the record for oral testimony is now closed.
No additional oral testimony will be heard today or tomorrow, June 11th, or on June 17th.
However, the written record will remain open until council votes on the budget on June 17th.
Colleagues, we are now in consideration of item 8, the adopted budget ordinance.
My office distributed an agenda for the pre-filed amendments and notes yesterday afternoon at 2 o'clock after briefing all 12 offices and receiving any red flag level feedback.
We will begin with amendments today, get through as many of them as we can, and move into notes tomorrow morning.
I have also notified all of us that some notes have been flagged by the city attorney as not related to appropriations and therefore are inadmissible as budget those items, including the one budget note that I myself filed, were listed at the end of the agenda.
I do not anticipate them being heard in the very tight time that we have for our work.
We are going to start with the technical amendment related to the arts tax.
Budget Director Levine, could you please help us introduce this?
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Hi, Ruth Levine again, Budget Director.
This is simply a sort of conforming amendment because the arts tax ordinance passed after the approved budget was heard.
And so this is just the portion of it that allocates funding to the Revenue Division and to FTE to implement the changes to the arts tax.
Thank you, Ruth.
So I will formally move this amendment.
And I would seek a second.
Second.
Thank you, colleagues.
Is there a discussion of the technical conforming amendment?
Technical amendment 0.
Councilor, uh, I just want to check.
Novick, is that for—.
Okay.
Rebecca Dobert
Councilor Zimmerman.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
The part about the new money seems fine to me.
What I don't understand is with a 42% increase on this tax, it's another $1.15 million, but there have to be 2 new staff members with and I don't remember, maybe, maybe I missed that, but when Councilor Dunphy proposed this, I didn't know it was coming with additional staff here in terms of— it's not a whole lot of money that's going to be raised that actually goes to the arts programs now, and this 2 FTE additional seems strange.
Uh, the Revenue Division Director is here.
Thomas Lanham, could you respond?
Good morning, I'm Thomas Lanham, Revenue Division Director.
The 2 FTEs are those are one-time only, and they're there because we expect there to be an increase in number of customer service calls in the transition year.
So we just expect more people to have questions, maybe some confusion, so more staff to answer the calls for one year, and then we're back to baseline.
Okay, so it's anticipated to be more expensive to collect and implement the program, not in the aspect of putting arts dollars out to the, the art community or to the teaching community.
This is really on your side of this, the collection side of it.
It is, but it won't be more expensive ongoing.
This is simply one-time implementation year.
So this whole budget, $1.15 million, is strictly implementation costs, one time.
All right, thank you for the clarification there.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
And, uh, I would just clarify that there the overall balance of the fund does not increase with the changes that we had.
We are collecting the same amount while we reduce the number of payers and increase the amount each payer pays.
And so ultimately it nets to the same amount we were collecting.
But this one-time cost— yeah, thank you, Thomas, for explaining that.
Councilor Knoll.
Thanks.
Question on— to follow up on Councilor Zimmerman's question, These positions will be created as limited duration, right?
Correct.
Okay.
And, um, does that mean that, that this year there will be $1.15 million fewer dollars to go out, or is there, because of the implementation, there's additional revenue available for this?
There will.
So is your question around the support for the arts community?
Yes.
That $3.5 million will remain constant.
So recall in a presentation on the 27th that I gave this body, we talked about the fund balance and reducing the target fund balance a little bit as a one-time bridge.
So that's what this would— Got it.
I do recall that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion of the technical amendment, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
Okay, colleagues, we're now going to move on to Block 1, the large ideas related to the realignment and public safety restoration.
There are 3 big such ideas that have been pre-filed.
There's the Green-Avalos-Murillo 1 amendment, Clark 2, and Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1, 2, and 3.
I'd like all 3 sponsor groups to introduce their amendments in the order I stated.
And I'll actually— Councilor Novick's actually going to go first on this.
And so I'm gonna turn to Councilor Novick to introduce first, and I believe we'll then go to Green, Clark, and then Pirtle-Guiney-Novick have multiple amendments.
So Councilor Novick.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I have my hand up because I wanted to move Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1, restore fire rescue capacity by reprioritizing council office budgets, because I, for various reasons, think that's good for— that'd be the first thing for us to vote on.
So I formally move that amendment.
Okay.
Councilor Novick has moved Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1.
Point of order.
It was my understanding we were going to open up all of the amendments before anything got moved.
It was my intention to do that, and so I will still allow colleagues to explain their amendments before we move towards full formal discussion.
But Councilor Novick has gone ahead and moved it.
It's his right to do so.
So, and a second on that?
Okay.
Okay.
So we will move to that.
Councilor Novick.
So now I will discuss both this amendment and the other amendments in the group, just having only formally moved this first one.
Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1, Thank you.
Motion 1 would restore one PF&R rescue company that was reduced to peak hour staffing in the proposed budget.
It names Rescue 19 because after consulting with the fire chief, that is the rescue that gets the most calls.
It serves both District 3 and District 1.
The proposed budget— the proposed proposal would reduce operation— the proposed budget reduces all 3.
This would restore the hours for one.
And the restoration is funded by reducing general fund discretionary allocations to council office budgets, excluding District 1.
A total of $1.278 million reduced across 9 council office budgets, $142,000 per office.
That actually would only reduce council office budgets by $92,000 apiece because last year we passed a one-time $50,000 cut to council office budgets, which would be restored, thus being an increase in the budget, in the approved budget.
So it's really only a $92,000 cut.
Thank you.
The remaining—.
We—.
42.99% Of these savings is available for the general fund use.
The remaining 57% will be returned to ratepayer-supported bureaus, primarily PBOT, water, and sewer.
Anything that— there's other proposals to restore the rescues, but they rely on one-time funding, which poses future fiscal risk.
I think that's a good point.
This is a proposal to restore one of the rescues by making an ongoing cut, so it is fiscally responsible.
And I hope that everybody will join me in supporting this because I have to tell you, council office budgets is an issue that community is watching.
I was on KGW a couple of days ago, had a long interview, and then last night they do this sort of follow-up viewer response.
Yes.
And what were the viewers particularly interested in?
And viewers were particularly interested in how big our office budgets are.
So this is something that the voters will be paying attention to.
Pirtle-Guiney 2 largely preserves the same public safety functions and jobs that Clark 1 would have, only it doesn't use the same funding mechanism.
It uses a funding mechanism that some members of this body seem to feel preferable.
It would restore public safety support specialists and 2 fire rescue companies, counting on one to have been saved by Novick-Pirtle-Guiney 1.
It would restore $1.7 million in PPB training and 1 senior police administrative support specialist.
This amendment goes beyond Clark 1 in that it proposes to extend employment and wages through July, actually to August 3rd.
That's right.
And healthcare benefits through the end of August for all employees who are being laid off.
This change is estimated at $1.2 million, with $420,000 will be funded by the general fund.
It also— the amendment adds position authority for 10 positions that were reduced through core realignment.
A month ago, I started talking to the unions most affected by core realignment.
Thank you.
And I asked them, I realize that you think that we should stop the entire thing, but are there particular positions that pose particular operational risk to the city that we should be particularly concerned about?
And they came up with a list of those positions, and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and I went to the administration and asked for their reaction.
And there were 10 positions the administration acknowledged were particularly high risk.
So including, for example, 2 positions within PBOT that are instrumental in actually raising money from parking and from the rideshare companies.
So that's another big chunk of this amendment.
And so we think this is a fiscally responsible amendment.
It—.
Oh, I forgot one very important thing.
It restores the revenue bonds that were this is actually money taken from the business license tax reserve, the $2.5 million by council's previous action.
So we think that that will, you know, help address concerns about our credit rating.
This is actually— the bottom line is it costs less than Clark 1 would've because we're taking advantage of the fact that some positions like the desk clerks have already been funded by previous actions of the council.
So we think that this is a proposal which is fiscally responsible, does not mortgage our future, maintains targeted essential services.
And I'll turn to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney to elaborate and add.
Thank you, Councilor Novick and Council President.
Thank you for allowing us all to go through these kind of large amendments.
Colleagues, I think you'll see that we have before us 3 different approaches to some, not all but some of the major things that are left on the table.
And I would posit that for many of these things, the vast majority of councilors have said we want to take action here.
For many of the things— dare I say most of the things on this list— we have all voted in one way or another to try to move forward and do better in these places.
What you have before you is Councilor Novick and I's attempt to hear from our colleagues what funding sources folks were and were not comfortable with, to hear from our colleagues what level of restore folks were or were not comfortable drawing into future dollars folks were comfortable with, to hear our labor partners what the real mistakes are, the things that are going to cause us real challenges as a city moving forward in core realignment, and to ensure that we don't move forward with those.
To hear from community what cuts in public safety are the hardest to take risks on, and to hear from our financial experts where we made moves last time because we did not have other options before us at that point, but would be better off in terms of our fiscal responsibility, our credit rating, and our future needs making some adjustments.
We bring this forward knowing that folks are not all in the same place on all of these things, but hoping that this can be seen in the light it is brought, which is as a true attempt to try to find a funding source and a level of additional support that can reach agreement across this council.
I know there are other things that folks will be more interested in, more willing to vote for, but I hope that this is something everybody can consider and that we can have a conversation about how we find the balance of retaining the work that we absolutely must do and our critical employees who do that work, while also looking at what we can do in a fiscally responsible way that ensures that we don't have to cut even deeper into the bone next year and in the future, and possibly even depending on how things shake out with of our revenue sources, as we saw last year, later in the current fiscal year.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Green to Green and then Avalos and then Murillo to GAM 1.
Thank you.
I'll reserve my comments, response, debate to the alternative things when we get to that point, but I'll just motivate Green, Avalos, Murillo 1 now.
Colleagues, we face a clear choice.
We can save nearly 100 frontline jobs and keep faith with Portland voters who recently passed— voted yes for a parks levy.
Or we can embrace a set of cuts that betray those promises and cause needless damage to our public sector.
The mayor's budget slashes almost, among other things, almost 80% of our public safety support specialists.
These cuts would erase much of the progress our city has made towards sending the right responder to the right call.
The cuts also include the elimination of advanced life support teams at Portland Fire and Rescue, a move that risks lives.
The service's First Amendment funds 96 positions across multiple bureaus, including PS3s, ALS teams, parks maintenance workers, janitorial staff, and a new Office of Immigration Affairs.
It also pauses a rushed internal realignment process that would have laid off 46 employees performing core administrative functions.
Functions, which I'll note, that's a process that started before our new city administrator was here and without engagement with labor from the start.
I've heard the charge that this amendment is, quote, fiscally irresponsible.
But frankly, it is far more irresponsible to cut services people rely on every day when we don't have to.
You cannot cut public safety and parks, ignore the long-term human and economic costs that come with it, and call that responsibility.
Now let's talk about parks.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
The competing amendments from some of my colleagues cut parks maintenance by $6 million, overtly by breaking the promise we all made to voters.
We told the people of Portland that if they approved that levy, we would not cut services.
Yet here we are.
What's worse, this $6 million cut would seriously jeopardize any future attempt to renew or expand the parks levy, a levy worth nearly $450 million.
To risk losing that amount of money because we want to save $6 million now is frankly the— as financially irresponsible as it can possibly get.
I've heard opponent— I've heard opponents of the service's First Amendment say they don't like it because it kicks the can down the road, but that misses the point entirely.
Delaying these cuts is a feature, not a bug.
Delaying a poorly executed realignment process gives us time to bring labor to the table for more than a rushed 3-hour meeting and time to craft a responsible realignment that actually protects workers and services.
You cannot claim to defend progress while carelessly laying off the very people who make progress possible.
Make no mistake, labor has been crystal clear about which of these options they prefer.
Some of you may have noticed that they rallied in front of City Hall not once but twice in the last week, demanding that this body stand up to defend union jobs, demanding that we decline to realign, and demanding that we put services first.
So colleagues, I urge you to pass this amendment thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Avalos, do you want to— any other— Councilor Morillo?
I think that Councilor Green laid it out very beautifully, but I really want to emphasize that this is about pausing the core realignment so that we have time to engage labor in the ways that they need to be engaged.
They should have been engaged this entire time.
And a 3-hour summit last minute with a few days to make changes is not good process.
It is not good involvement.
And there are the Temu versions of our amendment being proposed today.
I would urge us to go for the real deal.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Clark to Clark 2.
Thank you, Council President.
Um, Clark 2 may look familiar to you because it's very much like Clark 1 at all.
It restores a variety of public safety cuts that were not addressed in previous amendments.
There may be one duplication that I apologize for, but you'll note that it's a reduced amount from Clark 1, from 10+ to 7.6.
Yes.
And it does not draw from contingencies or reserves or bargain against future revenues.
It's from a set-aside that will not be spent in the Public Safety Accountability Commission.
I have to say that I was in a neighborhood meeting last night where a woman, her house was broken into.
She called for help from the police.
She didn't get a response, anyone show up for 5 hours.
And I tried to explain to her that we don't have the resources that we need in public safety.
That really didn't make her any happier.
But this is partly why I recommended this, is to restore some of those public safety reductions in the mayor's budget.
I also brought it back I brought this back in a different form because I wanted to get on the record that despite the comments from my colleagues when we discussed the first Clark one at all, that that does not violate the charter.
And when the time is appropriate, I would like to ask that our City Attorney Robert Taylor just opine on this and reassure us that this— and put this on the record that Clark thank you.
Happy to recognize Robert Taylor.
Thank you.
Robert Taylor, City Attorney, for the record.
I can confirm that Clark 2 would not violate the charter.
The charter requires that the OCPA receive a A budget of 5% of the total police operating budget.
That 5% would be appropriated in the budget.
It would be available for OCPA to spend in this fiscal year.
And if they do not spend that money in the fiscal year, then in the spring TAO, any unspent money could be used.
Thank you.
To replenish the fund from which these monies are drawn.
So I believe it is consistent with the charter.
Thank you, City Attorney.
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Okay, colleagues, we are now in discussion of Novick 1, but as all the other amendments have been previewed, it is absolutely acceptable to reference them in conversation, and we'll jump into the queue.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you all for bringing these amendments forward that will change the direction of where the city is going.
Um, to have this discussion, I need to have— I need to have Ruth Levine up front.
Thank you for coming up, Director Levine.
I can tell you I am struggling with this, with this vote, and I need to have some clarity.
Just when I think I have clarity, my common sense kicks in.
And it tells me I don't.
So I want to find out, is there a public document that describes what our realignment number is in terms of dollars, what we're expecting to cut over the next 5 years, and the number of employees we're expecting to reduce?
And this is the first year of our realignment.
And do we have a blueprint of how we meet that number, how we meet those, uh, numbers, whether it be in employees and, um, funds, whether it be the restricted fund or the general fund?
Do we have something?
Because I don't think any of these councilors have a working knowledge of what we're doing.
I don't think anyone can say, because I would think, and as a small business owner, I had to have a plan every year of what I was going to spend and what I wasn't going to spend.
So I'm thinking, where is that document?
I don't think— I've asked questions of numerous counselors over the past 3 days, and they don't know the answers to any of these questions.
I said, do you know how much we are Um, saving towards this realignment.
And I need to— I need all of us to have the same working knowledge, and we don't have that.
So is there someone, either it be you or Tracy, that can tell us what is the number that we're trying to meet so that we don't have the same situation right now?
Because right now we're going to be in the same situation if we're going to try to meet the current operating budget that we have '26-'27, if we try to repeat that, we're going to have the same $170 million gap.
So I need to know, what is the plan?
So thanks for the question, Councilor.
So in the mayor's proposed budget, it included a total of $19.5 million of savings from positions and EMS that were reduced across the entire city.
Of that, $4.1 million is general fund and the other $15.4 million is in other restricted funds across the city.
So that is the number that was arrived at.
Savings.
The savings number that was arrived at in the mayor's proposed.
And Tracy can speak to more of the sort of 5-year plan aspect of it, but that's, that's what the budget lays out.
And, and, and I just want to say this to my councilors.
Did you all know that?
Did you all know what we were saving for this year?
I don't think so, because people are not nodding their heads.
So the first question, do we have a 5-year plan?
Uh, for the record, Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator for City Operations.
To answer your question directly, Councilor Smith, we do not have a 5-year plan.
What we do have is the realignment over the next 2 fiscal years.
So for this fiscal year and next fiscal year, where we're at in the overall realignment project is we're at the decision-making phase.
Once we make it through that, we move on to implementation.
Thank you.
Which we have provided direction will be phased over this fiscal year and potentially some lingering pieces in next fiscal year.
Those are not inclusive of planned future reductions.
DCA, um, Warren, thank you.
So this is what I'm trying to say.
I can't say whether or not I support Councilor Novick's amendment because I don't know if it's addressing where our overall plan is.
Um, I'm not a peacock or moderate.
I'm a common sense person, and I just deal with 2 2.
So if I know the goal of this council and the mayor is to reduce, let's say, $100 million, and we reduce $25 this year, So that means we got 75 to reduce next year.
I know that's the plan that we're on.
And if I'm expected to support any of these amendments, I need to know what I'm supporting.
And I don't feel like there is a realignment plan.
See, you bring— I would do— I would have done it backwards.
I would have come up with the plan and say, this is what we need to do to stay within the revenue that we bring in based on the 5-year forecast.
Yes.
Peter should be here telling us what the 5-year forecast is.
I understand that we're going to have some debt drop-off next year, so we're going to have a little bit more money to close that gap.
But we should have a plan to say this.
As a leader, you got to say, this is what we're trying to do, y'all.
Labor, management, we got to cut 100 folks, and it's going to happen over 4 years.
I think that's a good plan.
So it's not a surprise to people when they get a notice to say they're being laid off because they don't know the plan either.
So I just wanted to, to say this.
So it's tough for me, Councilor Novick.
It doesn't matter where you're going to get the money from.
I am not clear what our plan is and how we're achieving those goals through these amendments.
And what I would like to do, since we don't have a 5-year plan, I would like to take a recess and have the council president— I'd like to move to take a recess with council president and the leaders of these amendments get together and come up with one thing right now that we can put forward, not 90 days from now, but today, that will meet some of our goals.
And I just also want to add public Public safety means a lot to different people.
Public safety to me means the police.
We did not cut the police.
This budget did not cut the police at all.
It cut PS3s.
And so when people say we cut our public safety budget, no, we didn't.
No, we didn't.
We didn't cut any police or any fire.
So we have to use the language that people understand, not the ones that you want them to understand, because PS3s are not police.
Councilmember Herbold.
Please.
And so if, if I can move this, because if I'm struggling, I take this job very seriously.
I'm not a pushover.
I'm not a just a, a, a yes for any one side.
But when something messes with my soul, I can't sleep.
So So I want us, the leaders, and I'd like to move something forward, Mr. President, so we can come up with something because I think we're in a standstill right now.
And we need to talk and come up with something because this is ridiculous right now.
So I'm not clear.
We are in a motion on debate.
I'm not clear what the motion to recess would— Okay, point of order.
Would that violate quorum if we recess and have a quorum of all of us to go discuss it though?
No, no, no, just the council president and the, and the writer of each of these amendments to see if we can combine this.
You tell me if that's possible, Robert.
Okay, I'm looking to Robert to see how I proceed.
Sure, thank you.
Uh, presently there is a okay, pending motion to amend before the body, Councilor Smith has made a motion to recess.
If there is a second, the motion to recess takes precedence over the motion to amend.
So you could adopt the motion to recess and stand in recess.
Second.
Less than a quorum of the council could meet to discuss a matter without violating the quorum rule.
Thank you.
Is there a second on Councilor Smith's motion?
Second.
Okay, Councilor Zimmerman has seconded.
Do we move to a vote?
You would vote on the motion to recess.
Okay.
Mr. President, point of information.
I believe this is a non-debatable motion.
Is that correct, or is this debatable?
Uh, I believe it is, uh, not debatable.
Okay, then let's move to a vote.
A point of information.
Oh, please.
For how long?
Yeah, how long would the recess?
Thank you, Council President.
I would say give us up to about an hour, 45 minutes.
Okay, noting that we, we are limited on time today until we have a hard out at 1:30.
Give us 30 minutes.
We, we, we, um, there is also an option for us to— we, we do reconvene tomorrow and we can consider amendments tomorrow, so there is an opportunity for that.
But let's please move to a roll call vote on the motion to No.
No.
No, though, Council President, if we vote on these other things and they fail, we may want to come back to this.
Understood.
No.
No.
This should be a public discussion to show our values and what we're standing for.
No.
No.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Mitch Green.
Mitch Green
No.
Unidentified speaker
No, Vic?
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Unidentified speaker
Uh, with all due respect to Councilor Smith, I'm gonna vote no.
No, no.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Unidentified speaker
I just don't know how this doesn't violate serial conversations.
Mitch Green
No.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
No.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Unidentified speaker
Uh, the motion to recess fails with a vote of 2 ayes and 10 nays.
Thank you.
Councilor Morillo, to the amendment.
This is for Novick's, uh, Novick-Pirtle-Guiney 1.
Okay, thank you.
Um, I, I appreciate the sponsors trying to bring this forward, um, and to, to save these things.
What I will say is that these services are already saved within GAM 1.
Um, well, I'm affectionately calling it GAM 1, Green Avalos Morillo 1.
So I don't think it needs to pass.
The other thing that I would say, and I think we've been hammering this home for a while, and frankly, I'll make a video to explain it to the public because we've been talking about comparable cities and the types of staffing that they have.
Our council operations has 11 staff.
3 Of those positions are vacant.
In Minneapolis, which was another city that was compared to for them having less office office funds, they have over 40 staff for their version of council operations.
So the reason that they don't need as much legislative support within their council offices is because their legislative branch is stacked up.
They have a bunch of legal and technical and administrative financial help that we do not have in our offices.
That's why we have staff, because we have to do everything that we are not.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just want to point out that the city of Minneapolis, which we are not supported in with Council Ops, and it's not because the Council Ops team isn't fantastic, they absolutely are, they are just literally understaffed.
11 Staff, 3 are not there, 40 in a comparable city.
Like, please consider this.
I also want to point out that Minneapolis is the city that was compared to this last legislative cycle, because I looked this all up to see if I was just completely making this up out of thin air.
They just voted to increase their Council budgets so that they can hire more staff by $1.75 million because they realized that they were profoundly understaffed and that that prohibits their ability to serve the public.
When we're talking about City Council office funds, it's not like this is going into a ritzy office fund where I'm going to get a Cadillac.
This is going towards our constituent services work.
This is going towards legal support.
This is going towards just all of the information that we need to be good and strong policymakers and to ensure that our staff are not overworked and stressed out and underpaid.
So to me, I understand the intent here.
I actually think this is the election ploy to say that we're doing something responsible, but it's not responsible because it doesn't account for how other cities have a very robust legislative branch that we don't have.
And what this is going to do in the long term is actually prohibit us from having turn that on.
Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Vice President Clark.
Thank you, Council President.
Well, I beg to differ.
I think that this is a very important ordinance.
I think it's really important to restore the fire rescue capacity, and it's in my amendment as well.
I do feel like our office budgets are pretty high.
I'm willing to make that sacrifice.
I'm not happy that this amendment excludes District 1, but I, um, I am supportive of it.
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Thank you.
I, I'll just comment on this specific, uh, amendment because I think last time we, we already discussed the amendments, uh, related to council office staff reductions and why that's important to maintain and how it's effectively empowering lobbyists.
So I won't re— uh, reiterate all that.
This cuts $1.2 million total from council budgets.
Rescues are $550,000 each.
So there is a wastage issue going on here because we're using the wrong type of For $1.2 million, you can actually restore 2 rescues if you have the right type of money, and this is not the right type.
In fact, the same sponsors are restoring 2 rescues with $1.1 million in the very next amendment.
So we know that already.
And as this is one of 6 amendments that we're going to discuss today that restores rescues in some way, I, I think it's important for us to look at which ones we're going to do.
And I, I don't see a purpose in a $1.2 million cut to save $550,000 worth of money.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Green.
I had jumped in the queue to make arguments that are largely similar to Councilor Kanal's.
I have expressed to the councilor who's carrying this that I am open to some level of cuts in my office throughout this process, and I'm not closing the door on that.
But for all the reasons that Councilor Kanal just stated, I think there are more efficient ways to do this.
I do want to say, to the credit, is this is an ongoing restoration of these things.
That's important.
And there are a lot of, like, sort of short-term fixes that we've been forced to do because we were given a budget that's largely unacceptable in those areas.
Some of the ways that we restore those ongoing cuts have not been palatable up to this point.
So appreciate your doggedness for keep on trying there.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Green, you gave me the perfect introduction because the reason I think this is important is by restoring one rescue with ongoing funding, we send a clear message that this council wants the rescue program to continue, that it's not just about a one-time, one-year, but that there's a commitment to this program which is solely wiped out— which is fully wiped out in the mayor's proposed.
Frankly, I don't care what budgets look like in other cities.
I care about what works here, and I want us to have enough funds that we can have robust offices, which is why I am only comfortable cutting our offices by a, a small amount.
This cuts them by under $100,000 a year for each of us at a time when we are asking for significant cuts across It is a way of saying we are willing to also tighten our belts to make sure that we can provide the core services that are needed and send that signal that this needs to be an ongoing program.
I would encourage folks to look at this even if there are restorations elsewhere, precisely because of that ongoing funding source.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Smith.
Thank you.
I think we talked about this before.
Thank you all for even considering putting this to rest and have some conversation.
But I want to say it costs to govern, and I'm going to say it again.
Our previous council, they left here with a budget of $1.6 million.
So that part is very important, and I agree with my colleagues, you can't compare us to other We had a mandate through the charter that wanted us to do additional community outreach, and that's what we've done.
And many of us have gotten council offices in our districts, and they've been working really, really well.
And just as I'm— I also want to find out, Council President, a point of information.
Yes.
Where do I withdraw all of my budget amendments?
Is that here or do I have to wait?
You can just text me and I— or tell me which ones you'd want to withdraw and I will just—.
All 3 of them.
I want to withdraw all of them.
But I'd like to say we need to stop eating our own, and I consider us our own.
We cannot— we cannot carry a $169 million gap off the backs of council We did not cut a lot of money.
We only cut $3.8 million off the general fund and $15 million off the restricted fund, which we have lots of money in the restricted funds.
So to sit here and grandstand in an election year to make us look like we're being the bad guy for wanting our own office budgets— if you want to pay for some things, pay for them out of your budget.
Councilmember and I don't like the fact that I've seen time after time after time over the last 2 months, I've seen councilors come at other elected officials and their budgets and the mayor's budget.
We need to stop that.
It is not cool.
It does not get you any votes.
It does not.
The thing that's going to get us some votes or not some votes is whether or not we can come together on an amendment that is going to close this gap for the, for the that's what's going to do it.
So please, you do this every year.
Stop it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Novick.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And just in response to Councilor Kanal's point, the money that goes back to the— to water and sewer and PBOT is not wasted.
We have a hard enough time maintaining our assets.
So the fact that only 42.99% of the cut goes to the general fund doesn't mean that the money is wasted.
Water and sewer and PBOT can all use the money they'll get too.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Zimmerman.
I made it really clear last time that voting to have different council offices funded at a different level, I thought both was anti-democratic and likely well, and I'll just say personally very concerning.
I find it strange that you both continued down that route.
So I'm disappointed in that because there were routes there.
But I also just want to ask to our city attorney, what say you of funding of equal offices, funding them differently based on the makeup of the year?
Well, I think that's a very good question.
Meaning this year it's District 1 that gets more funding based on this proposal, but next year if District 4 is in favor or out of favor— I've never seen this type of districts being funded differently, and I'm just curious, is that a legal risk?
Because I certainly feel like it probably is, but I'm, I'm curious on your Just gut check here.
Thank you for the question.
I don't think it is illegal.
Whether it is good policy is a question for the body.
Do you think that I, as a councilor who would be funded at a lower rate than Councilor Avalos, Smith, and Dunphy, would have a case to be made that, just speaking for myself, that I'm asked to do the same job as they are, but I'm now asked to do it with less money, would that not be ripe for a challenge?
I do not believe so.
Okay, that's fine.
I think that anybody who counts the numbers says Councilor Novick's continued push for this to occur is— you know, Councilor Morillo brought up good points, very good points.
Others brought up good points.
I find it distasteful to fund 12 offices differently based on what you think makes sense for each office.
I just, I just foundationally do not understand that, and I think there was a route here, and I think you blew it.
That's called institutional racism.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Ryan, you know, okay, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Thank you, Council President.
Quick question, um, can we just get clarity for this amendment that we're discussing?
How much would It would cut $142,146 from what is in the approved.
However, the approved includes a $50,000 per office increase.
So compared to last year's budget, it would be a cut of $92,146.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Kamelin.
Councilor Zimmerman?
Yeah, thanks.
What would that be if it was all 12 equally?
Uh, 1/3 more than what's currently there, if that helps with the math, but I'm not looking at the number.
Well, I'm just using a calculator like anybody Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Ryan.
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
Well, I think you all know I proposed an amendment in the approved budget to use council office funds to restore CHAP funding, and I still believe the underspending in council offices can be used to restore city services, especially when we went well over what was advertised in the charter— when we vote on the charter that was approved in 2022.
Councilor Zimmerman, your comments make sense, and I'm actually now sold we should do this across the board.
That said, I think this proposal of shared sacrifice of our office budget to support the nimble fire rescues is a significant way to help improve safety in our neighborhoods.
I will be supporting this.
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Okay, Councilor Zimmerman.
I, I guess I'm, I'm just wondering what, what the 2 sponsors— I mean, to not have it across the board seems damning to me, and I'm just wondering what that was about.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
We've had a lot of conversation about the increased costs for our colleagues in District 1.
They have established in-district offices in a far more robust way than any of the rest of us have even considered, and their constituents have further to travel, and therefore there are times when they try to do more in-district.
I say that as somebody whose district abuts District 1, and I know that many people in my district, especially in the Culley, Hayden Island, and St. Johns neighborhoods, face barriers as well.
But we were trying to be responsive to that concern.
I will note that there was conversation in our last meeting about perhaps having even budgets for our office work, if you will, but having a district office stipend for District 1, which might make up the difference we're talking about.
Here.
I think that's an interesting and creative proposal, but because we hadn't discussed that policy in a comprehensive way, we didn't want to move forward— or at least I didn't want to move forward and impose that on my District 1 colleagues without a more robust conversation.
I do think that is something we could talk about in the future if this moved forward.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Kanal.
I'll be brief.
Um, I, I use the word wastage in the context of relative to the purpose of the amendment.
If the, if the term inefficiency is, uh, more acceptable, I'm happy to use that.
I think that we're looking at what would it— I think the idea was, was likely to, to also, uh, to see if it would get a vote for, for doing it this way with the, the in, um, the uneven reduction, but it doesn't necessarily seem to be doing that.
And so I'm gonna ask if we can limit debate.
Okay, thank you, Councilor.
Although I am last on the queue, so I'm actually gonna not do that.
Yeah, let's— perfect.
Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion and debate, can we please move to a roll call on Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1?
Moved by Novick, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
No.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
No.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
No.
No.
The amendment fails with a vote of 5 ayes and 7 nays.
Okay, Councilor Green to Green-Avalos-Morillo 1.
Yeah, I guess I'd like to move this.
Okay.
Councilor Green moves Green-Avalos-Murillo 1.
Is there a second?
Second.
Councilor Smith seconds.
Colleagues, discussion of Green-Avalos-Murillo 1?
Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark.
Thank you, Councilor President.
I actually have a question that is even probably larger than just the Green amendment.
And I would like to know if I can ask CA Lee or—.
Absolutely.
Maybe the DCA about what we're looking at in terms of some sort of extended compensation for employees that are being threatened with layoffs right now.
What is under— can we talk about what's under discussion?
Yes, we can have our finance team come in and talk about the actual numbers associated with this amendment and what that does from a financial standpoint.
But I was, I was also asking, do we have other— are there other plans in the works to extend benefits, healthcare benefits?
What, what are we talking about in the administration for those people that are facing we can have DCA Warren, or if Ron is in the room, come talk through kind of that extension that we have been discussing, uh, with several council members.
Thank you.
As it relates to realignment work.
Thank you.
For the record, uh, Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator of City Operations.
Um, one of the things that we've been considering is setting a layoff date for the okay.
We have been working with city staff to look at a potential layoff date for August 3rd.
If we were to set the layoff date for August 3rd, that would extend benefits until the end of August.
We've provided information to, I think, a smaller subset of councilors around what that financial impact would be.
I've been working with the city budget office, you know, in past fiscal years, we have frequently taken longer than July 1st to move through layoffs because of the workload that is associated with that.
And so gearing up for this budget session, we had some proactive conversations around what happens if we don't hit the July 1st date.
Can we extend the date out further?
Yes.
So that we can make sure that folks get a minimum of 30 days' notice, that we're being able to process all of those reductions.
And so we've been planning for that.
I think the cost is fairly minimal and is divided up citywide across all funds.
Thanks for that answer, DCA Warren.
Can you Can you just explain to me, if I am a person who's facing a layoff, what does that mean for me, what you just said, if we get the extension?
If we set the layoff date effective August 3rd, that means that on August 3rd they would no longer work for the city.
They would be separated from the city if they are, as part of that layoff process, not able to exercise bumping rights Or some other way to continue employment with the city, and they would have health benefits through the end of August.
Thank you.
And are there folks that are through the core realignment that are looking at layoffs, are there bumping rights for these people?
Yes.
Do we have, do we have any additional information on that?
Ron, can you provide some estimates?
Uh, good morning, councilors.
For the record, Ron Zito, Interim Director for the Bureau of Human Resources.
Um, we do have an extensive number of people that have bumping rights.
Those bumping conversations have been taking place over the past month or so and are wrapping up over the next week.
Um, to date, we've seen bumps go from the initial, initial person impacted I don't have the exact numbers with me right now to report, but we can follow up with that.
Point of order.
Is this germane to the GAM amendment?
I, I find it so, yeah.
Um, I appreciate that response.
I hadn't really been aware of bumping rights or of the extensions, so that makes a difference in how I look at some of these amendments.
Thank you, all of you, very much.
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Thank you.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Council President.
I'm noticing that the sponsors are in the queue behind me, and if either of them would like to speak first to introduce this, I'm fine waiting.
They've already introduced it.
Quick question on what we just heard.
There was conversation about extending dates for layoffs, but that's not included in this amendment, is it?
Is it?
It is not.
Okay, um, colleagues, Portlanders, city employees, I want to prevent cuts.
I want to protect public safety.
I want to prevent layoffs that will impact critical services in our city.
I want to prevent layoffs that will critically impact the lives of individuals who work for us at the city.
I too was taught, as a woman of a certain age, as a labor advocate, as a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who believes that there are better answers than scarcity, that we can have it all.
I wish we could have it all, but our revenues are Councilmember Herbold.
Our revenues are down and our revenues are limited.
And while there are places we can pull from, there are consequences to that.
And not just we'll have to make the same layoff next year and that will suck for people, so let's do it now, but that we will have to cut deeper next year If we double up on the funds that we use this year, and that weighs on me because that is in fact not having it all.
And this amendment, this amendment is not just about realignment and public safety, which are the things we have been talking about.
This amendment is not just about jobs.
This amendment reverses, as far as I can tell, every single cut except for cuts to managers.
And I'm pointing that out because that means this amendment reverses a very small reduction in the hours that our splash pads are turned on.
I would love to have splash pads turned on for more hours during the summer, but y'all, I would not love to have splash pads turned on for more hours during the summer at the expense of having to cut somebody else's job next budget.
I don't.
And while I do think the city needs to take a hard look at our managers, restoring every single frontline position and no managers leaves me with questions about whether we are doing that in the places where span of control is frankly far too low in our city, and we do need to address that, or if we are inadvertently doing that in places where we have managers who are already overseeing 11 people each.
I don't know.
I don't know because that's not the type of look that was done here.
And at a time where I'm having conversations with PCF advocates about trying to get PSAF out of the wrong places in the budget, which I think is critically important and something that we absolutely must discuss before we are done.
So I hope we get to that.
I have an amendment that does a better job than the one that's filed, which you'll all see.
Pulling even more PSAF into regular city operations is a really hard pill for me to swallow.
So colleagues, I can't look Portlanders in the eye and say that we took out a second mortgage on every hard decision, which is what I believe this amendment does.
It punts every hard decision.
And we have asked the sponsors, Where are we going to get the money from next year?
And for tens of millions of dollars of hard decision, the response we got was something like a potential of $5 or $8 million where we were looking for reductions in savings.
We have to do more.
We have to preserve some of these positions.
We have to preserve more public safety.
We have to figure out how to do that, but we cannot say no to every single cut.
If we don't like the cuts the mayor's made, we need to propose different ones instead.
I do not like scarcity mindset, but we also do not have endless funds.
So colleagues, I am asking us to say no to this, not because I want to make any of these cuts, but because I want us to figure out what we can do to not leave us in a worse situation next year.
So that we don't have to lay off even more people comparatively next year because we extended splash pad hours this year, which again, I would love to be able to do.
Unfortunately, I have to vote no.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, as far as I can tell, there are 3, maybe 4 arguments in opposition to my amendment coming from Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, things I've already seen from Councilor Novick, and anticipate probably others up here.
Uh, one of them is that that— and primarily probably that this is fiscally irresponsible, that we have kicked the can down the road and delayed making tough decisions.
And that is foundationally untrue because what we are doing in this amendment, and both of you know it because you were in the same meeting as me, we are looking at the— we are honoring that demand of the labor unions who said we are asking for a pause.
Thank you.
For a year so that way we can be at the table and we can help you find the efficiency savings that we need to find.
A shared recognition that we don't have a magic money pot, that we, that we are in a fiscal challenge, and that they have great ideas because they've worked in this city for multiple decades.
And what they've seen as rank-and-file workers is uninformed decisions made by consultants and people in the management structure.
Thank you.
That are going to lead to longer costs and bigger costs down the road.
Ignoring that is fiscally irresponsible.
I've also noted multiple times, and at least 2 work sessions now, that the City of Portland has officially stated that we expect to get $45 million in business license tax revenue that we can rely upon for an investment that we're going to have to make a decision upon this year.
And I'll note that yesterday the City of Portland on its own website this is the city's position.
It says the city is anticipating $45 million in tax revenue from the sale of the Portland Trail Blazers from the estate of Paul Allen to the new owners.
This, and I quote, this revenue is not currently allocated to any future expense and could go towards the $120 million the city would invest in the Moda Center.
And so it's not fiscally irresponsible.
I'm not kicking the can down the road.
What I'm doing is I'm calling the question right now.
I'm sorry.
Are we going to pretend like that money doesn't exist, even though we've said it multiple times will exist, that we've lobbied the state legislature on a promise that it does, that it exists or will exist?
Or are we going to keep our promises to people who've trusted us on the parks levy vote?
I knocked those doors.
I knocked them.
I knocked about 1,000 doors for the parks levy.
And they said, how can I trust you?
I think we have to be honest.
That this is actually going to keep what we have.
And even though you're raising our taxes, I say we've all out here— I'm out here staking my reputation on it.
I'm going to promise that we are not going to cut those services.
And failing to adopt this budget amendment breaks that promise in profound ways and risks the failure to passage the next parks levy, which I find, you know, Councilor Smith, you raised really good points earlier about the 5-year plan.
What is our 5-year plan.
I've yet to see a replacement for the parks levy in that plan.
And so if we need to pass that parks levy again in the next 5 years, we're going to need the fidelity.
We're going to need Portlanders to look at us and say, um, we believe you when you say you're going to do things.
Uh, it also ignores the cost of doing realignment poorly.
Okay, you only get one shot at something like this.
You might get multiple shots, but But not year after year.
You get one shot at basically changing our form of government, making it more efficient, and if you do it poorly, you lose a bunch of institutional knowledge that is very valuable to an organization.
Okay, Mr. Mayor, you have said that I need people to help me steer the ship, or I need rudders on the ship or something like that.
I agree I agree with you.
You do.
And that's why you didn't want to support my chop from the top.
Okay, heard.
But the workers who run this city are the rudders too.
And so what this core realignment does, and you guys heard it as well as me, is it says we believe you when you say you can help us steer this ship and find the savings we need.
And so I think that if the primary argument that it's fiscally irresponsible is, is the driver here, and you're also sidestepping around or ignoring the fact that we're going to get $45 million in VLT revenue, or at least we're promising it, we're promising it to state legislatures, then that's wildly inconsistent, okay?
Especially when we have to make the decision before December on how to pay for this thing.
Um, I think another critique I've seen is that it's an obvious election for I think you both put that in your press conference the other day, which I find deeply offensive because I've always sort of remained really good comportment up to this dais, and I've never impugned or questioned the motives of my colleagues.
And I got to tell you, the people who vote for me, who are really excited about for me, are probably not too thrilled that I want to take PSF interest to fund the Portland Police Bureau.
So if you think that's an election play, I think it's a good election play.
Yeah.
That's an interesting thing to say while also ignoring the Office cut budget, which is obviously a clear election play.
So I just want to say that on the merits, what we are doing is we're saying let's use the resources that we have, that we have right now.
Portlanders are watching.
They're asking if we're going to use the resources we have right now to keep our city running well.
I'm saying let's do it.
I've made my case.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Morillo.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Green, for outlining all of that, and especially for outlining the fact that we need this pause because we do have an opportunity to address how we can use additional funds in the future.
I think something that we've heard repeatedly is that we don't know what we are breaking right now.
And actually, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, something that you brought up is that you're not quite sure what these impacts are going to do, which is That is exactly why we need the pause.
That is the purpose of this.
I have had meetings with the administration where they again have literally told us that they may have to rehire people back later because we don't know what the impacts are gonna be, or we might lose experts or specialists who we cannot afford to lose without breaking systems.
That is not efficiency.
That is— there is no process.
That is not efficiency.
And a 3-hour summit to make up for the lack of true commitment to talk to labor, to talk to frontline staff who know what needs to happen or doesn't need to happen, is a failure of us to really look at the budget and to use our budget authority.
There were times where we talked to different bureaus over the past few weeks where they came up with $80,000 of cutting different tools or other implementary things that they can use without cutting individuals in the bureaus.
$80,000 Is an entire job.
That's an entire person.
That's an entire human being doing services for Portlanders.
Those are the types of discussions that we really need to be having all the way down to those nitty-gritty line items, and we're not doing that right now.
So the purpose of this is to give us a pause.
And again, Councilor Green brought up the money that will come in from the sale of the Trail Blazers.
We have opportunities to look at what a true efficiency looks like.
Efficiency doesn't look like making a 20% cut across the board without real information for why 20% was chosen.
Efficiency does not look like cutting out an employee that's worked here for 20, 30 years who has institutional knowledge, who is then going to have to go through an expensive rehiring process if they are willing to come back to us, which I wouldn't if you guys did that to me.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
So are we willing to lose that level of expertise and dedication that people have committed to our city and have served for that long?
I don't— I'm not willing to lose that.
The sudden concerns about PCF are also hilarious to me because you know what I noticed last year?
This council body did not care at all.
I'm trying really hard not to cuss for the streaming services, but—.
Thank you.
This council body did not care at all.
When the mayor took money out of PCF for his shelter plan, if we have concerns about PCF interest being used, which is what this amendment does, then we can totally have that discussion, and we will be having that discussion with the PCF committee.
But the standard practice right now is that PCF interest can be used.
So if it's being withheld, I do have questions about what it's being held for, because I suspect it's not going to be to save city workers.
I suspect it's not being to save core services.
I know we have a very expensive renovation up ahead.
Maybe it'll be used for that.
At least our documentation actually outlines what it's going to be used for.
And everything that it's going to be used for, I will remind people, is to fund PS3s, which are unarmed, unsworn officers who actually do the day-to-day work of finding people's stolen vehicle, writing the reports.
It funds the Victim Services Unit, which helps survivors and their families who are going through extremely difficult times.
Times.
This is the only amendment that fully funds the Parks Bureau when we just told people we will pass a parks levy, put your faith in us, we're not going to let you down again if you do this.
I don't know how I'm supposed to go back to my voters and tell them to fund another parks levy if necessary if we don't move forward with this.
This funds the 311 positions so that when people call the city, they actually get an answer.
That was some of the testimony we just got earlier today, that people are not getting responses.
This is funding the core services that people need, but it's also buying us time to do this the right way.
And efficiency does not mean a cut across the board with inappropriate due diligence.
And I want to say one more thing too, because some of these things we're all hearing behind the scenes and we don't get to talk about them publicly, but the extension of the layoffs— when we had our labor negotiations, we were talking about a 2-year extension.
Thank you.
Summit, which was the 3-hour last-minute meeting to check off the box to say we talked to labor.
Um, the reason that they are going to delay those layoffs is not out of the kindness of our hearts because it's so much better for the workers.
It's because there are literally too many layoffs to process within that time.
It is because the bureau cannot process all of those layoffs.
That's why.
So to act like that's a benevolent action from the administration to help the city employees is not true.
That is to buy them time when we could be buying time to actually do this the right way.
I, I think what Councilor Green said is correct.
When we crafted this amendment, there are things that I wouldn't necessarily fund in it, but we were actually thinking about all of you, the things that you care about, the compromises that your districts need, and we put this together in good faith to save these core services and to buy us time to do it the right way.
That is not electioneering; that's governance.
And you can bring forward the Temu version of the amendment to save face and say that you are fighting for labor too when you inevitably vote this down.
But I hope that you will have the courage to put all of those politics aside and vote yes for this today because we need time to support the city employees in a real material way, and that is what this does.
And I think that we have the opportunity as a council to be courageous about the funds that.
We have to really look at these cuts, to look at the excessive management that we have in this city.
But we can't do any of that right now because most of us up here don't really understand why the decisions were made.
And most of us don't even have a line item budget.
And most of us were not given the opportunity to dig into this.
So we are building a government that is supposed to last the next 100 years or more.
Councilor Smith.
We have an opportunity to do core realignment services the right way.
We have the opportunity to not do this like the federal government did and gutted our federal system.
We have the opportunity to save city employees who have dedicated their lives to this work, and I think that we owe it to them to try.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Novick.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'd like to ask for a show of hands.
How many of us are willing to commit right now that we will oppose using the expected money from the sale of the Blazers to renovate the Moda Center?
To oppose?
Yes, that you will oppose using the money from the sale of the Blazers to renovate the Moda Center.
Is this connected to right now?
Well, Councilor Zimmerman, what I'm— Councilor Green is saying that we can count on the money from the sale of the Blazers to balance next year's budget.
And I think we just demonstrated that we cannot.
Councilor Green also seems to think that he can work with labor to come up with a magic list of layoffs in the next year that everybody will be happy with.
There is no such thing as a magic list of layoffs that everybody will be happy with.
I agree we should talk to labor, and I went to labor and asked, can you identify some key positions, understanding that you would like to preserve all of them.
Can you identify some key positions that cutting them are particularly dangerous for the city?
And they did that.
And I went to the administration.
The administration agreed that some of those positions were critical, and we're proposing not to cut them.
Councilor Murillo, you know what the PCF interest would be used for.
Every year for the past few years, the council has used the previous year's PCF interest to help balance the general fund budget.
And I will note that Mr. Beery has told me that each year he's gone to the PCF committee to talk about it, and they have grudgingly signed off on it.
You are talking about using 2 years' worth of PCF interest in 1 year, and that will dramatically augment the fiscal cliff that we are expecting to see next year.
I think that's a good point.
And you have no plan to address that fiscal cliff.
So also, we've already dug into reserves in the approved budget.
We could have possibly used that piece of interest to help guard against an emergency.
If this passes, we have no money to guard against an emergency, virtually none.
So not only are we going to be looking at huge cuts in next year's budget, but we're going to be looking at huge cuts in the year after that.
Thank you.
We could be looking at dramatic immediate cuts in this year's budget.
Nobody wants to make these cuts, but we do not have enough money and cuts have to be made.
And again, as Councilor Perugini pointed out, you talk about core realignment and about public safety, but that is not what this amendment is limited to.
This amendment literally says no thank you, Councilor Novick.
Colleagues, it is 12:22.
We have an hour and 8 minutes left.
We are on the Second Amendment.
Councilor Avalos.
Thank you.
So, um, yeah, I want to respond briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised.
First, I want to acknowledge that many of us share the same concerns.
None of us are comfortable relying on one-time resources to address a structural budget problem.
None of us believe that this amendment magically solves next year's challenges, and none of us believe difficult decisions disappear if this amendment passes.
The question before us is not whether we have long-term financial challenges.
We do, we do.
But the question before us is whether we should accept that these specific cuts today resources exist that could prevent them.
I've heard concerns that this amendment is simply punting difficult decisions into the future, but I would respectfully point out that nearly every budget proposal before us, including the mayor's budget and multiple alternative amendments, relies on one-time resources, reserves, contingency funds, or other temporary solutions to soften cuts.
So the disagreement is not whether to use one-time dollars.
The disagreement is how many services and workers are we willing to lose this year.
Thank you.
And on that question, I simply reach a different conclusion.
I'm not comfortable telling workers, park users, families, immigrant communities, emergency responders, and the public that these cuts are unavoidable when dollars are available today to prevent them.
For us, this might be one budget cycle, but for these workers, this is a year of pay.
This is food on their table.
This is stability for their families, and that is important to me.
Last year, many of us were told that transferring PSF interest was necessary to protect core services, but this year we learned that significant transferred funds remained available while layoffs and service reductions were still being proposed.
If those dollars were transferred to protect services, then I believe that they should actually be used to protect services.
That is what this amendment does.
I respect colleagues who have landed in a different place.
These are difficult decisions and reasonable people can disagree, but I do not believe preserving frontline services, preserving workers, and preserving community I believe it is exactly what Portlanders sent us here to do, and for those reasons, I ask for your support on this amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Ryan.
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
Could CEO Jonas Sperry come up, please?
CFO.
I just promoted you.
Sorry.
Congratulations.
You're the CFO.
CEO.
Okay.
I need to understand the financial risk of this amendment.
Look, Councilor Novick touched on it, but I wanna hear it from you directly related to the funding source that we're talking about.
We're all kind of talking over each other.
So you have to, you're the objective source here.
Yeah, thank you, Councilor, and apologies for the distraction in the back.
So I'll just say first, I'm encouraged to hear a lot of recognition today around the value of fiscal responsibility.
I think that's really important to have that public dialogue.
I additionally recall some wise caution during the May conversations about protecting fiscal health against doing sort of one-time balancing, one-time cut games, and have heard continued admonishment from multiple members of this council about kicking the can down the road.
So again, encouraged to have that.
Thank you.
That conversation here publicly.
I'll say from the seat I sit in, none of these, as we've acknowledged, are easy decisions.
And I think there's 2 potential pathways, both of which are pretty difficult.
The first pathway is to make the difficult decisions to support financial stabilization and recovery.
That is reflected in the mayor's proposed, reflected in the council-approved budget as of May 20th.
Is consistent with recommendations from the city's financial leadership and is in alignment with the city's core value of fiscal responsibility.
The alternate proposed path presents some high-risk financial outcomes.
It increases near-term cost pressure, as has been discussed today.
It increases risk to future stability and exacerbates the likelihood of financial instability.
It punts responsibility to solve for that difficult financial reality to a future council, to a future budget cycle, potentially even to be resolved mid-year in the fall TAO or spring TAO.
There's no way around that reality.
So as difficult as that may be, you've heard my recommendations for 18 months that we need to accept those difficult cost reductions, uh, if the council wishes to maintain a possible path to regain, uh, financial stability for the city.
Thank you for your, um, your dispassionate honesty.
Um, I'll just say no one up here wants layoffs.
It's really clear.
And here we are with zero surprise as our revenue is down due to our struggling economy that is impacting working-class families across this city.
As such, it's impacting our city as well.
This amendment is not based on current reality.
This amendment does kick the can down the road and avoids making the executive-level budget decisions that Portlanders expect us to make.
We need to continue the hard work of streamlining our city's operations and unifying our bureaus and service areas.
It's really hard work.
For those of us who have done this before, you know this work is really difficult.
It never feels good to anyone.
That said, we simply can't afford to avoid continuing this work at this time.
I will be supporting this.
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Mr. President.
CFO Beary, I'm glad that you're still there.
Thank you.
Do we publish— do we evaluate the marginal impact to financial stability or financial risk or credit rating based upon all the decisions that we make that draw down reserves and contingency funds when we build a budget?
Yes.
Councilor, thank you for the question.
Let me make sure I understand correctly.
Do we—.
Is your question, as we make incremental decisions, do we reassess?
I'm actually talking about— so in the mayor's proposed, I think there was roughly $44 million of contingency balances that were used to plug the broader gap.
All of those were the collection of decisions.
There's decision packages that are being funded and so every time we look at that, are we saying, okay, well, there's some threshold here beyond which the risk— we have this runaway risk?
How do we evaluate the marginal impact of each one of those decisions to include amendments that might come from councilors?
Yeah, I think I understand the question.
So let me try to answer and tell me if I get it, if I'm answering what you're looking for.
So short answer is yes.
As we hit those major points, major decision points, and that would be true of of a major moment like a mayor's proposed, a council approved, major amendments, any mid-year council policy adjustments that are made that have cost or risk impacts.
We are paying attention.
And when I say we, I mean myself as CFO, along with City Budget Office, our treasurer, our debt manager, who have the experience and intel to know what the rating agencies and financial markets are looking for.
Thank you.
So yes, that assessment occurs qualitatively every day.
Quantitatively, I think as we've discussed in this room before, I know as we've discussed in this room, you know, we don't have a model.
Frankly, we don't have staff who have the ability to update a complex model moment after moment after moment.
What we do know is, as we previously discussed, some of the key things that the rating agencies in particular look at in fund balance and contingency.
And we know from data that we can run right now that those levels have dropped in this budget below where they recommend to maintain the city's AAA rating.
And I can repeat those numbers if it's helpful.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
So, but what I'm hearing is we don't actually have a quantitative assessment of the risk of each decision.
Decision that we make vis-à-vis, say, our credit rating and our kind of larger sort of financial risk.
Yeah, Councilor, I guess I'm not clear what you mean.
I mean, I'm not sure that that's a function that exists.
I'm not clear how we would have a model that we would update in real time as those decisions— just needed to ask if we do that because the reason why I asked that is I've got some colleagues who are saying it's this specific that's going to then heighten our risk of a credit rating downgrade or provide this.
And the argument I'm making is that's largely just a vibes-based argument.
That is a qualitative assessment, and qualitative assessments are highly subjective.
And so I just want to note that if we were to approve this amendment, there would still be at least $8 million of current year, fiscal year accrued PCF interest in there.
Thank you.
In a broader set of— broader budget.
I also think that the credit rating agencies look at what we do with our money, what kind of investments we make, what kind of promises we make.
And if we are making decisions that we know are— we've heard internally from even some of our senior leaders are going to require buybacks and costly efforts to sort of purchase back that capability, promises of future BLT revenue for a new long-term liability and obligation.
I think if I'm a credit rating agency, I'm looking at those decisions too.
Councilor, you may have more experience and knowledge in that space than I do.
That certainly would not be consistent with my experience and knowledge.
I've got quite a bit of experience as well.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, I'm going to limit debate to the folks who are currently in the queue as it is 12:30.
Thank you, Council President.
Uh, I'll try to be brief.
Uh, first of all, I just want to thank, uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney for her comments.
I found them particularly moving.
I think it's very difficult for those of us who are pragmatic progressives, who have, uh, organized unions, who have walked picket lines, who have supported labor throughout their career, uh, to be confronted with these choices.
It's It's very difficult.
Change is difficult, and it's inevitable because of charter change.
The core alignment is not perfect, and many of us had multiple meetings with the staff who put this together.
We pushed back, they made changes, we tried to adapt.
But this amendment is not a balanced approach, either for labor or for management.
Thank you.
Let me just say that I represent 165,000 people in District 4, but I'm interested in really what's best for the entire city, all 650,000 people here.
And there are people— a majority of those people voted for charter change.
They were looking for not just cooperation between bureaus, they're looking for consolidation, they're looking for savings.
I heard witnesses today say some really interesting things.
I'm just going to repeat them really quickly.
Thank you.
Portlanders are watching.
What's best for the city, invest in the basics.
I take that all to heart.
All those comments are very meaningful, and I am going to be voting no on this amendment.
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Morillo.
Thank you.
I just find it really interesting that the mayor is saying that we're not investing in the city.
This council is so terrified of investing in a one-time financial investment in our core services and in our core employees, because we had no problem— well, some of us had problems, but we had no problem overall voting for the mayor's shelter plan.
The city of Portland has never run mass shelters the way that it is trying to do right now.
That is a new book of business that we have never done before.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
That was one-time dollars that put us in a fiscal cliff, but people said, okay, we need to meet the moment and do some of that work, right?
You know what is our book of business?
The people sitting in the audience right now.
What is our book of business is the city employees and the core services that the City of Portland has funded for a very long time.
Those are the things that when Portlanders call the city, they expect to receive and they expect to get responded to.
So there is such hypocrisy in how we are choosing to approach this conversation when we are talking about core services and employees that we should have been funding this entire time, especially at a time when the predictions are showing that the BLT and PSF revenue is going to rise and that the there is still going to be at minimum $8 million in the bank of PCF interest.
So to act like we're bankrupting that and we're going to be in dire straits is not accurate.
There is still going to be money left there.
We cannot afford to do this wrong.
We cannot afford to lay people off, lose their expertise, and then go through an expensive rehiring process.
That costs money too.
It costs money.
To take hours out of everyone's day to do interviews.
It costs money to have HR representatives put those things together and do outreach and recruit and all of that.
It all costs money.
So we are either going to pay now to do this right, or we are going to pay later because we didn't take the time to do it the correct way.
And we owe it to Portland to provide the core services that we always said that we would.
I think that we have an opportunity to do this the right way.
That is what this is about.
Give us the time to work with city employees and unions and do this the way that it should have always been done.
I'm really pleading with you, my colleagues, that we take time to set up our government for the next 100 years in the best way possible.
And that means that we can't do that without time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Kanal.
Thank you, Council President.
Before I go into the comments, I just want to get on the record here.
I, I think, Councilor Green, this amendment is still a good idea regardless of whether or not the $45 million in business license tax revenue from the sale of the Trail Blazers is used on some other purpose.
Uh, and the reason I bring this up is to say I think there's an important conversation that needs to be had on that, and I want to make sure that we still have that conversation in committee.
Um, I think the dispensation is part of the context.
Dispensation of all of our other dollars is part of the context, but not a necessary piece of information to guarantee support or opposition to this particular amendment.
And that's— I just wanted to get that on the record.
Um, I had comments prepared on this.
I think it's better to discuss the comment in opposition on fiscal responsibility because I went through some of the same, uh, arguments.
Some were initially compelling to me, some were less so.
I, I did have the concern about double cuts when I first heard about it, but I think that I learned about a lot of the specific things that were being funded in this, um, and that was compelling to me.
And I'd also argue We cannot be building our budget around reliance on PSF interest in the future unless we're going to create some sort of policy on an ongoing basis that PSF interest returns to the general fund, which right now is not on the table.
So the idea that we're counting on this money— well, who's counting on it?
I'm not sure that that's a fair way of, of, of anticipating impacts on next year's budget.
Having worked in realigning bureaus, cutting to an arbitrary target will will yield outcomes that are more costly in the final analysis, either through inefficiencies, hirebacks, things like that, or loss of services, and often having to do a quick stopgap of contracting out some work as well.
Third, I don't think that this completely eliminates reductions.
I think it prevents them in this moment, but it spreads the conversation out to allow for some attrition, but also a lot more intentionality, which is the more important part of this.
I don't want anyone to think that this guarantees that every city employee is safe forever, Even from realignment specifically, but it does mean that there'll be a fair and informed process before decisions are made.
And from what I'm hearing from testimony, that's the ask.
It's not keep our jobs forever.
It's let's have a fair conversation and look at what that means.
As a side note, if staff reductions were inevitable due to the charter change, then management would be taking equivalent cuts too, and they're not.
But the ultimate reason I'm voting yes on this is because of what Councilor Green said regarding the parks levy.
I looked voters in the eye too.
When I was knocking doors in support of the levy.
11 Of us, by the way, supported that levy.
And I think we owe our voters a path to meet the obligations of the parks levy.
This amendment, like every proposal, is imperfect, but it's the only one that meets that commitment.
And as a side note, the testimony we heard from a past today recreation staffer at Charles Jordan, both of those positions are restored in this amendment.
I'm pretty sure the program the testifier was talking about that served her brother is restored in it too.
Thank you.
I would love it if we could find another place to take the money than the current fiscal year's PSF interest, but it became clear in May in particular that we just can't get a 7th vote to do it any other way either.
The specific cuts to other places that would add up to the right amount didn't pass.
The chop from the top package didn't pass.
We could violate the charter with a different amendment later on today, but that's a non-starter.
There is one other amendment that does a big swing like this, and I do think it's a legitimate comparison to have the conversation about Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 2, or I guess 4 now.
Um, but that one doesn't meet the parks levy commitments, and that's a really important, uh, thing for me.
I'd be very happy to look at the Portland Solutions budget to restore some of the PCF interest dollars later.
I'd be very happy to look at management for that.
But it seems like there's a 6-6 tie, uh, on all of that.
So let's try another source today.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Smith, last word.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've listened to everyone, and it sounds like people are standing in their own corners on how they feel about this.
And I'm not sure if we're, um, taking a vote today, Council President.
Yep.
Um, I don't see a, a plan.
I don't want to see folks lose their jobs at all, but I don't know where we're going, so it's hard for me to support this amendment because I don't know to what end are we getting to.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, I'll because I limited debate, so that's why you're not in the queue.
Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote on Green, Avalos, Murillo 1?
Moved by Green, seconded by Smith.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Mulginney?
No.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Unidentified speaker
It is because we don't know what the end is that we need time.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
Okay, it is 12:42, colleagues.
We have 50-ish minutes thank you, Council President.
I didn't know we were going right to Clark 2.
I don't know, in the interest of time, that I really need to say very much about this.
People are familiar with it.
It's different from Clark 1 in that it's fewer dollars.
We've taken out some of the programs that were Uh, covered in other amendments.
Um, again, it's, um, not taking any money out of contingencies or reserves or future general fund.
Um, so, uh, it really is a public safety restoration package, and I would ask for your consideration and your aye vote on this.
And with that, I'll conclude.
Okay.
Uh, you are moving—.
Oh, sorry, had to move move it.
I move this amendment.
Second.
Councilor Clark moves, Clark 2, Councilor Ryan seconds.
Colleagues to the amendment?
Councilor Novick.
My apologies, legacy hand.
Okay, Councilor Green.
Councilor Clark, I appreciate you trying to fund a lot of the things I want to fund.
For the same reasons, I couldn't support this source of funding, and I know I know it's borrowing against the fund, but it is still borrowing against the fund.
And I offered a different way to fund a lot of those positions that just failed.
So I can't support this.
I'll be forced to find a way to support the PS3s later on and amend that.
But I can't at this time support yours.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Knoll.
Thank you.
I'd like to make a comment, but I'd also request that we limit debate.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just want to say, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I appreciate the opportunity to debate to those in the queue.
And I just want to— all I want to read is Section 2-1006 of the charter.
The board shall have authority to exercise independent judgment in performing all legally assigned powers and duties.
City Council, Mayor, City Administrator, Auditor, and City Department Superiors and other administrative agencies shall not interfere in the exercise of the board's independent judgment.
It continues on after that with about the physical office, but I think the core, the core issue here is whether or not we're interfering in their budgeting process, and it's a fairly obvious yes for me.
So I'll be voting no on this.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Thanks.
I appreciate that it was a fairly obvious, uh, no from our city attorney.
And so I'll just remind folks, I appreciate Councilor Clark, you bringing this back, because when this was brought up before, I did ask what the spend plan was in this first year as this board gets stood up, and the answer was there is and so this is quite literally just a bucket of money that will sit in a place to do nothing.
And I think that this is an appropriate use of it.
And the way in which, Councilor Clark, you have structured this to adhere to the charter but also put it to good use in the time, the interim time while the charter use gets spun up, I think is a responsible use.
I think that Portlanders I think our voters value the service that our PS3s provide.
I think they value North and East Precincts being open, and I think they value the rescues from Portland Fire.
And I'm happy to support it, and I am secure in the legal opinion and the loan structure that this does not interfere with a group who has no spend plan, will not execute any of these dollars, and next 365 days, uh, and that when they do have one, we'll cross that bridge when we get there and they can do that.
But this is otherwise just going to be a pot of money that sits to do nothing.
So it's a good one, we should support it.
I appreciate you, Council Clerk.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Colleagues, uh, seeing no one else in the queue, I'd like to move to a roll call vote on Clark 2.
Moved by Clark, seconded by Ryan.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
No.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Unidentified speaker
No, but I do hope to see a compromise amendment.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
No.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment fails with a vote of 5 ayes, 6 nays, and 1 absent.
Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and/or Novick to Novick— or Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 2 and the associated budget note, I believe.
Is that right?
Um, Mr. President, I think that we will now move I move Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 4 with 3 as an associated budget amendment.
2 Only would've used PCF interest to restore 2 rescues.
We were hoping to restore Rescue 19 with council office budgets.
We, with some trepidation, are willing to restore all 3 rescues as an add-on to Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 2 and Novick 3.
Second.
Novick 4.
So it's, it's Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 4 that we would move.
Okay.
And the—.
Do we have the text of that?
You should have it in every— but everybody should have it in their inboxes.
It has been filed with the clerk, and I believe that the only difference, um, the only difference should be, uh, the addition of that rescue.
Again, we'd hoped to fund that with ongoing funds but don't want to leave that okay, thank you.
So, uh, and would one of you please formally move this?
So moved.
Second.
There we go.
Councilor Novick, would you like to kick us off?
Sure.
Um, I think that, um, I've already said most of what I would want to say about this amendment.
Um, I would hope that folks who supported, um, Gam 1.
Gam 1.
We'll support it because I think that the vast majority of it is things that I know, I know that you support.
The one, one thing that is in it that is not in Gam 1, that's a distinct difference, is restoring $1.7 million for cuts in police training.
And I'd like to ask Chief Day to come up and talk about the consequences of not restoring those cuts.
Thank you, Councilor.
Uh, afternoon everyone.
Council President, Vice President, Mayor, CA Lee, Bob Day, Chief of Police.
The state of Oregon requires that each police officer attend a 16-week academy and that within every 3 years they receive 84 hours of ongoing training.
That training is around force, ethics, equity, CPR, etc.
Police Bureau offers an additional 15 weeks of training on top of the 16 for all new recruits.
State of Oregon requires we qualify once a year with our firearms.
Portland Police Bureau does it 3 times a year.
Our special emergency action team, our crisis negotiation team, our rapid response teams, and other teams that handle our most complex, highly difficult, risk-oriented problems train extensively, well above the national average.
We were the first police department in the nation to make mandatory crisis intervention team training requirement for the entire police bureau.
That point, later on, the state has adopted it.
It is now part of the state program, and the Portland Police Bureau then developed the Enhanced Crisis Intervention Team, which is additional training in the area of mental health and de-escalation.
I share all that because we have been and continue to be not only a state but a national leader in training, well above the national standard.
I appreciate Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Novick their willingness to consider even this small amount.
This is a Band-Aid on what is still going to be a very severe cut year around training, but this $1.7 million will be able to be directed to some of our most critical needs and allow us to continue to try and set a standard that exceeds the minimum requirements of the state.
Could you elaborate on some of the cuts that you might have to make if this does not go through?
There's been a few that that are decisions I have to make in the next couple of weeks prior to July one.
One is around our vehicle operations.
It costs about fifty thousand dollars per advanced academy to get our recruits properly trained in driving, and we are running four advanced academies a year.
So that's about two hundred thousand dollars.
And then we have scheduled training for our patrol officers.
Be the first time in, I don't know if it's 3 or 5 years, might be 5, but at least 3 years where we're going to be doing driving directed for our patrol officers.
Certainly not lost on council the risk associated with not having people given a chance to practice their driving, given the extensive amount of driving that we do on a regular basis.
That's an example.
Another area that we would be Looking at, as I mentioned earlier, some of our tactical teams, the training that they provide and invest in requires not only the equipment and the time for the training, but then the backfill for the training.
We have a number of other programs that we work through.
Our air support unit, for example, which is critical in the usage of the street takeovers and events like that, those pilots have to receive ongoing training to maintain their certification.
And when we look at critical incidents, for example, our public order team, rapid response team, it's not just about the members, but we are constantly working on leadership development training.
So this is every incident we have.
For example, the Rose Festival had an incident commander.
That incident commander has to attend certifications.
Those trainings are not available largely in the state of Oregon.
We have to go out of state to get those certifications to be able to get that exposure.
So it's not just at the line level, but this is really throughout the organization, potential hits.
And the other parts, some of the areas we would have to look at is continuing education training for our detective division.
Our investigators are facing incredibly ongoing complex challenges around technology and investigative that's a snapshot, Councilor.
I mean, there are a multitude of areas that we're looking at.
As I mentioned, some of them are already in place.
Okay.
Other things associated with the Advanced Academy.
That's a snapshot, Councilor.
I mean, there are a multitude of areas that we're looking at.
As I mentioned, some of them are already in place.
Some of them more immediate.
The final thing I would add is when we cut training, the risk is generally something that manifests itself years out, probably not something that's going to change on July 1st.
A quick Google search will show you that most lawsuits that are filed against police departments start with failure to supervise and failure to train.
There's an immediate look at how the agency invests in training, and this will certainly put us behind.
The final thing I'll add is that even if we stop training in some of these critical areas in this year, we can't just pick up next year because these are perishable skills and officers' skills will regress.
So when we start to do training again, even if funding is restored next year, we're going to have to go back almost 2 years, re-establish that baseline, and make up that time.
Thank you.
Chief, don't go too far.
I suspect other folks may have some questions.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Councilor Novick, for doing the overview of this.
I'd like to add a couple of things.
First and importantly, a piece of this proposal is a continuation for all laid off employees, not just those who are a part of core service realignment, in employment through the beginning of August and an extension of healthcare through the end of August.
Not to make management's life easy, but because frankly this budget process is a bit of whiplash for our city employees.
Are they laid off?
Are they not?
What should they plan for?
And we should not expect that anybody can go out and find a new job and get healthcare for their family in 2 weeks' time.
So I actually think that we should budget in every budget to extend employment to the beginning of July and healthcare to the end of July or to the beginning of August and the end of August as an ongoing practice.
So that we don't have that burden on our employees, and also so that we don't have that burden on our services and the employees who are picking up that work.
So I want to note that that is a part of this amendment that I think is incredibly important.
Councilor Green, when you first laid out to me the amendment that you brought forward, Gamble.
I said I don't think I can take that much.
I think that it's too robust for what I'm comfortable with.
And you said to me, bring an alternative, propose something scaled back.
And Councilor, I took you at your word.
I don't believe in compromise for compromise's sake, but I do believe in listening to my colleagues and hearing where there might be areas where we can come together, hearing what is so important that we cannot leave this work until we do it.
I don't want to risk a fight over funding sources that leaves us not addressing some key critical mistakes in core services realignment.
I don't want to leave in a fight over funding sources that leaves us not restoring public safety infrastructure that I know that my colleagues in D3 and D1 desperately need for their communities.
I don't want to leave in a fight over funding sources with our city employees who are facing layoffs off in that whiplash with only 2 weeks to prepare for their families' futures.
So I got to work, and I do believe that what we are proposing captures what I have heard the bulk of us say we needed.
It doesn't capture everything, and if we missed a key position, I'd like to hear that from you.
But I hope that folks can look at this not based on the names on the page or what any of us might have liked more, but based on what we need to do for our city.
I have proved with my votes repeatedly that I am willing to support things that the people who I hear from need, and I hope we can all Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Council President.
It is 12:58.
There is a lot in this amendment that I support, and there are some things in this amendment that I cannot support as it is written right now.
I think that it would be a dereliction of duty to Portlanders if we failed to find an opportunity to find the compromise that we need in this moment.
There is not time for me to get to yes on this right now.
This will fail if we do not take a recess, and I'm just going to lay that out right now.
So at this time, I would move that we would recess for the day and pick this up Okay.
Councilor Green has moved to recess.
Is there a second?
Second.
Councilor Avalos has moved— has seconded.
Um, there is a non-debatable motion, so we move to an immediate roll call vote on whether to adjourn or to recess for the day.
Keelan, can you please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Dan Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Reserving the right to change this before the end here.
I'm voting no right now.
No.
No.
Ryan, sorry.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Keelan McClymont
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Mitch Green
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Absent.
No.
The motion to recess for the day fails with a vote of 3 ayes, 8 nos, and 1 absent.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor— or Vice President Clerk.
Thank you, Councilor President, and thank you, Chief Day, for staying up there for a moment.
Colleagues, I came into this hearing today, or this discussion, with a really an open mind about this.
And I really appreciate the 2 sponsors who didn't necessarily include me in the conversation, but included some of the items that I had in my amendment, Clark 2.
I obviously doubled the amount of EMS for PPB and added some desk clerks.
And some other things.
So I have a couple questions for the chief and then a couple questions for the sponsors, uh, before I finalize my thinking here.
But Chief Day, can you, um, talk a little bit more specifically about a couple things that I was concerned about when I wanted to raise the EMS to 3— I think 3 point whatever it was in, in mine, 3.3?
Um, how does this affect our training and our ability to implement Vision Zero, number one.
And number two, I'm really concerned about the loss of the de-escalation training that we've been doing that I think is incredibly effective, particularly around the CEI hub.
Are those things that you can address in regards to the training budget?
Yeah, one of the areas that we have to look at is our traffic unit, which is our primary use for Vision Zero reductions.
And unfortunately, just to highlight, we're not doing well this year.
In fact, our fatals this year are actually tracking unacceptably high.
But the traffic unit itself and the motor unit needs ongoing training and certification, oftentimes, once again, that requires out-of-state.
One of the challenges the police bureau faces in the state of Oregon As the largest agency in the state, it's difficult to find like-minded programs or programs that can match the need and demand of the police bureau.
We do a lot of stuff with our partner motor units.
I want to give a shout-out to several agencies that supported us during the Rose Festival.
So we do work very closely.
We had Eugene, Salem, Lake Oswego, a lot of agencies here to help us during Rose Festival.
We work very closely with them.
But Specific Division Those motor officers are critical.
We've just recently were able to reestablish an afternoon motor officer program.
I'd love to be able to extend that to day shift hours, but that's going to require additional investment in training, time, and equipment, which are all things that EM&S funds.
So there is a risk of impact there, plus the ongoing certification need for the investigation of these crash scenes.
When you have a fatal or a serious injury accident.
And I was literally just on the phone with, with some people from the state recently where we're seeing not only the fatal accidents, but we're seeing an increased amount of serious injury accidents.
A credit to our medical teams that our people are surviving more, directly related to traffic speed and impaired driving.
And so the officers who conduct those investigations, they need certification.
Communications and trainings as well.
They're fairly highly complex.
I mean, they're manslaughter charges, so they're felony charges.
So all of that does impact Vision Zero.
Regarding de-escalation, de-escalation is a concept that the Portland Police Bureau has adopted for a number of years.
It runs as a theme throughout all of our training.
My concern with these cuts is that we moved several years ago to a scenario-based training model where we no longer just train in a silo.
We don't just do defensive tactics or just do firearms training or just do driving.
All the training we do is intended to incorporate the many facets of the job.
So we create scenarios that oftentimes— when I started, it usually ended in an arrest.
Today we have a lot of scenarios that don't end in arrest.
Today we have a lot of scenarios that end with officers walking away or calling PSR or calling Project Respond or whatever it might be.
And so the de-escalation training itself, that concept is not going to change for us as an organization, but our ability to craft these scenarios, which require more time, more personnel, and more resources, will be impacted.
So we will do less of that repetition, which will then obviously— that's a perishable skill we want to, you know, continue to be aware of as that lack of investment thank you for that.
Thank you for that information.
Um, I, I value that, um, and I'm very concerned about that.
I have a, uh, question— questions for the, um, 2 sponsors.
What, um, what is the community garden botanist in EMS?
And that seems kind of out of place here.
I don't quite get it.
And then can you also address the other thing I think is kind of out of place, which is the the Children Investment Fund, I don't get what we're doing here.
Could you address both those things, sponsors, please?
Thank you, Vice President.
The botanist slash youth conservation crew position was actually one of the positions identified to me by Protect 17 as something that they thought had uniquely salient characteristics.
And when I looked at it, But this is something of all the parks positions that I would really like to save.
So that's really, you know, that's the long and short of it.
To the other question, as part of core services realignment in the communications service area, which is a completed realignment, a few positions were moved to be fully general fund funded, though the work that they do continues to be primarily serving other fund programs like the Children's Levy and the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
We are shifting some dollars so that those positions can still serve other bureaus as needed by having some general fund in the mix, but being Primarily funded still through their original funding source, so long as they are primarily still supporting those other fund bureaus in order to help us preserve every general fund dollar possible.
It's okay.
I'm not sure I followed all that, but thank you.
I want to also express my appreciation for the co-sponsors for their labor summit, even though I wasn't invited.
Um, I, I appreciate what you did in trying to get at the high-risk positions.
I have to admit that right now I'm really struggling with this amendment.
I'm not sure which way I'm going to go.
I want to listen to anybody else that has an opinion about this to weigh in, and, um, I'll be thinking.
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Knoll.
Thanks.
Uh, I, I'm going I'm where Councilor Green was in the sense of would love to have time to figure out something here.
I did want to first say I appreciate that you're extending funding in healthcare for those who are laid off, and I think that this is something we should pursue as a long-term policy down the line, is establishing a fund that takes care of that.
But I'm also trying to make sure we don't lay off as many people this year, and so there's that.
I think the budget conversation we're to the policy conversation is a, um, is I think the distinction that I'm, I'm dealing with here.
I, I also know that we're talking about the exact same type of concern, if only a lesser degree, of whether or not we're talking about just shy of 2/3 or just shy of 1/3 of the, uh, anticipated PCF interest for this year going towards it.
I, my— I have a bunch of concerns with it that aren't reasons to vote no, but I just want to I just wanted to flag that I'm concerned about the idea of creating programs that are not funded enough to succeed.
And I brought this up in the context of PS3s.
I'd prefer to actually maybe move that conversation to where we're restoring all of that.
But there's conversations that need to happen that I think may not be able to be done in the next however many minutes.
So I'll leave it there.
But I am, I am concerned about that.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
I am effectively exactly where Councilor Green is.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
I actually had a quick technical clarifying question if Ruth Levine could possibly come up.
I just, I had a question about the children's levy component of it and whether this is actually necessary or not.
Could you help us?
Sure.
Yeah, sorry, I'm just getting some of the details.
Yeah, in the proposed budget, the realignment positions or the positions that are doing service area level work in these different enterprise teams, so whether they're comms or HR or whatever, are paid for by essentially all of the bureaus and funds within a given service area.
So in Community Economic Development, the bureaus and funds in there Contribute into the costs for that service area team.
And so that position got moved into that service area team, which means the $215-ish thousand that it costs are being sort of shared amongst all of the bureaus in that service area.
This amendment would move it back to Portland Children's Levy and put it 100% on Portland Children's Levy, which is how it is like in the current fiscal year.
And then take the general fund share of the dollars within that service area model, which I don't have the dollar figure handy at the moment.
Okay.
But, um, I'm trying to get it.
So that's the gist of it.
Gotcha.
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please move to a vote on Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 4?
Moved by Novick, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney.
Reserving the right to reconsider this later, but I'll be voting Aye.
No.
No.
No.
Aye.
No.
I really wanted time to think more about this and work on how to get into yes, but I didn't get that opportunity, so I'm a no right now.
No.
Dunphy?
Aye.
The amendment fails with a vote of 3 ayes, 8 nays, and 1 absent.
Okay, sorry, grabbing my notes very quickly.
Can I—.
Councilor Kanal to Kanal-Koyama Lane 10.
Yes, thank you, Council President.
Mr. President, I would like to move Kanal Koyama Lane 10.
I am going to speak to it and say we have— we had 6 amendments to fund the rescues.
2 Were withdrawn and 3 have failed.
That means there's one left.
It's this one.
This amendment would restore all 3 rescue units using money that was obtained through a settlement in a lawsuit for the major opioid manufacturers.
If that sounds very familiar to you from an amendment we put that I put up in May, that's because this part is exactly identical to it.
What this amendment does that's different from what we did in May is it backfills Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery so that they are kept whole.
In fact, it backfills them with ongoing dollars.
They're currently one-time funded dollars.
And I've written this in as 3 parts with the idea that if someone has an objection to one of these funding sources and would be willing to vote yes, please divide it.
Please divide it to get at least one or even 2, or, you know, you wouldn't have to divide it if you like all 3, I guess, but all 3 of them would be ideal through.
Part A of this reduces from shelter programs, specifically the planned expansion of the North Portland Temporary Alternative Shelter site.
It would still expand, it would just not expand by as much.
We, uh, its current non-RV capacity is 90 units and 117 residents.
It would increase to 175 units and an estimated 227 residents instead of an estimated— the, the planned expansion is 212 units with 275 residents.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
So it still expands, it nearly doubles, but it doesn't go up by over double.
Part B, it removes $550,000 from the Impact Reduction Program's campsite removal program and moves that to Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery, and that would backfill them, and then the opioid dollars would move over and fund a second rescue.
And there's a specific note attached there that it would not reduce the funding for the any trash or other solid waste removal, only campsite removal.
The third is the exact same as the second, it's just bundled.
So if you are willing to cut by $550K and not by $1.1K— $1.1 million, you could divide it in that way.
So it's a 3-part amendment.
Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery remains whole.
It uses opioid dollars for something that we've heard from our attorneys it can be used for, which is funding the, the rescue units at Portland Fire And it will also, I think, have the benefit, if Part A passes, of ensuring that we're not putting our shelters in a position where they're not as likely to succeed.
Because we've seen, as we've had the conversation around not only the particular provider that's been in the news, but I think this is true of many of our shelter providers, that very, very large-scale shelters are both harder to manage and end up with more issues.
Thank you.
With larger problems, um, either within the residents that the staff can't deal with or between staff and residents.
And so having a more manageable size, I think, is beneficial in and of itself.
So with that, I'm going to move, uh, Kanal-Koyama Lane 10 and ask for a second.
Second.
Councilor Kanal moves Koyama Lane— or Kanal-Koyama Lane 10, and Councilor Koyama Lane seconds.
Colleagues, Any colleagues to the amendment?
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Thank you, Council President.
I'm really happy to join Councilor Kanal in sponsoring this amendment.
It is a path forward to funding a rescue unit in Southeast and East Portland, and this realignment of funds has been made with the guidance of the city attorney, results— and results in responsible usage of our opioid settlement funds.
To make sure that our emergency services are restored and available to respond in case of emergencies.
And this ongoing funding for Bybee Lakes is so important, providing trauma-informed, data-driven, person-centered services to people experiencing homelessness.
So this one-time restoration of one of our fire rescue units, units who are some of our first responders To those in crisis is also critical, and it gives us some time to make sure that these services are fully funded in next year's budget.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Thank you.
I want to make sure that I understand what Grand Recovery is, Councilor Kanal.
Is that the shelter run by City Team on Grand Avenue, or is that something different?
I'm not sure I have the right thing in mind here.
I'm going to verify the provider, uh, just, uh, I'll get right back to you on that.
Okay.
Um, I do love seeing Bybee Lakes in here as somebody who fought like hell to get them funded by Multnomah County and then was successful last year with— or 2 years ago with Commissioner Julie Berm Edwards.
I'm happy about that, but I was struck because Because I haven't received a request from them for anything this year, and I'm wondering if I missed something.
If the city is already funding something that we're closing, I'm just trying to understand this.
What it is?
I couldn't tell if you used restoration funding to something happening at Bybee, or if there was if this is additive.
Bybee, I know you were talking about large shelters or.
Bad, but I think Bybee Lakes is 225 beds.
I think they're doing a good job, but I'm just trying to sense what— if this is new funding, what it was, because I don't think I got a request from them.
No, no, I appreciate that clarification opportunity here.
Last time when we were talking about just moving the money out of shelter, the opioid dollars, we were told— this is in May— we were told that those opioid dollars are penciled in for, or earmarked for, Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery, which by the way is TPI.
TPI.
Not, not the city team one.
There, there's 2 on Grand.
Thanks.
Um, so the idea is if you move the opioid dollars out and move them to FIRE, then you've reduced, uh, the funding for Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery.
So that was the, the amendment we put up in May.
This amendment backfills those dollars so that Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery stay at the same level of dollars that they have.
There's no change either way, with the exception of it was one-time because opioid settlement dollars are one-time and this is ongoing.
So, but it's the same funding amount.
So there's no change there.
It's effectively, they're a pass-through for the money that's coming, freeing up the opioid dollars.
And the reductions go to other places as— And the reductions are mostly coming from— so one reduction is Impact Reduction Program campsite removal.
Both B and C are impact reduction program campsite removal.
I am not sure if, if anyone would be— who is not willing to do $1.1 million from there would be willing to do $550,000.
So I wrote it so that it could be divided if that's the case.
And then Part A is allowing for the increase but not quite as much to North Portland, and I put the exact numbers in there.
Okay.
And then And from the administration, what your overall plan for Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery before this amendment was, what?
I don't know if we've got Portland Solutions or the mayor, whomever wants to tackle that.
Do you— hi, uh, Director Barchernap, do you have this amendment?
Are you familiar with this amendment?
Yes.
Um, so I'll just quickly, uh, Skyler Barchernap, Director of Portland Solutions, for the record.
Bybee Lakes was gonna be at 50 beds, which is what we're currently funding right now.
So that was the plan.
And Grand Recovery would stay the same as it is right now, which is about 100 to 140 beds depending on the need.
It can flex up to almost 300 in severe weather, but we wouldn't keep it at that availability on a day-to-day basis.
If this passed?
Yes.
If this didn't pass in the current proposed budget, what is happening with those 2 organizations?
So I would have to look for The mayor and CA for direction.
I think my shelter team would propose that those both, well, at least the Grand Recovery still be kept at its current capacity.
I think we'd have to have the discussion of the Bybee Lakes shelter.
I think what Councilor Kanal is putting forward is to keep both of those whole and wants to reduce the North Portland Road, is my understanding.
Okay, I want to make sure I understand.
So you said you have to check in with the administration, but in the proposed budget, what was the plan for Bybee and TPI's grand recovery?
To keep them operating as they are right now.
So keep them whole.
Okay, so—.
This basically swaps funding to be able to use the opioid settlement dollars for the rescue is my understanding, but backfills Bybee and Grand Recovery with dollars from other programs within Portland Solutions.
Is it fair for me— and I know that Councilor Kanal was— you're talking about one-time only or ongoing, but from a— over the next year, the way I'm reading that then is that there really is no substantive— this is not something that helps Bybee in the next year because it's the same amount of funding but your point is one-time only or ongoing is a substantive part of it.
Am I— That, that is correct from my perspective.
Okay, thank you.
Um, thanks for that.
I think I'm, I'm a big proponent of Bybee Lakes.
I think that the RV shelter and the expansion that's going to North Portland is a good thing.
I don't want to get in front of that.
The recovery is fine, but reducing the impact reduction program again for this is not something I'll be supportive of.
Um, and, and I think I've got my questions out.
Thank you, Director, for coming up.
Appreciate Councilor Kanal, the questions.
Uh, I think I'll be a no here.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Uh, colleagues, we have 8 minutes left.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
This might be a question— this might be a question that you can answer as the sponsors.
Um, we may need Director Brockridge am I correct in reading that this creates a reduction from the mayor's proposed total number of shelter beds?
My understanding is yes to that because of the reduction in Reedway, or the— I should say the closure of Reedway.
And Reedway, many, not all, but most of their beds were planned to go to expand North Portland.
Additionally, there's a separate reduction that the mayor Mayor's proposed budget has not to beds per se, but to RV slots.
Yes.
Which is also at North Portland.
Okay.
And that, and then that's not in this amendment, neither of those.
But yeah.
But because of the reduction in Reedway and that causing the increase at North Portland, reducing that increase in North Portland would cause a total reduction in access.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Thanks.
I just had a question for Councilor Zimmerman.
Um, I, I think if, uh, I understand the point you're making about impact reduction program, can I clarify, does Part A meet with more approval from you?
Uh, because that's the part that has nothing to do with impact reduction, uh, and instead is the North Portland expansion.
And I know that we've, we've had the conversation, so I won't reiterate them about, uh, as a, as a group, not Specifically us, about the capacity of providers to maintain safe spaces at the size that they're at.
I think limiting a size of the North Portland shelter capacity is a concern for me, right?
I'm trying not to reduce beds as the county— as much as the county have reduced.
I also don't have a— Uh, I think you're working harder than I, than I want to, to reduce the number of different various different shelters.
I think that that overall number is something I'm trying to preserve.
So I do appreciate you busted them out differently here and separatable, but, um, I'm also trying to understand largely what you're trying to solve with the opioid fund changes, um, versus what was in the proposed, and I can't tell if I'm there yet.
Yeah, I think to— I'll speak to that and then I'll close the earlier loop.
There's a lot of— if you look at the overall proposed budget, there are a lot of restricted funds which are being put into Portland Solutions.
Not all of those are a perfect fit.
Some I think are a good fit.
It.
Uh, I think it's fair to say that Bybee Lakes is fundable using opioid settlement dollars, that— and our attorneys agree with that.
Um, for example, but I'm looking at that and I'm looking at how the conversation went last time because the point of this is to fund the rescues.
That's the ultimate point of all this, is to, to create funding for restoration of 24/7 service at all 3 of the rescues through this amendment.
Um, each, each of the 3 parts funds one rescue.
So, uh, if there's a particular funding source concern, then you can break it out.
Uh, so that's the, the, the why there.
The other piece is that in May, what happened is we were— ideally, we'd be just saying take this from shelter, right, and not getting into the, the particular details.
The problem is that there's earmarks that are not known if you read the budget document, right?
And so when we— I was personally surprised I was surprised in May when I proposed the first half of this amendment, just the opioid settlement move, dollars being moved to fund the rescues, and I was told that specifically defunds Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery.
So in reworking it, it was how do we do that without defunding Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery?
And there was an option to make ongoing some of this funding as well.
So that's an added bonus.
But the main thing is I know that's important to at least 3 of my colleagues up here who brought it up then, Councilors Ryan Clark and I think yourself, about it back in May.
So how do we not reduce capacity there but still fund the rescues?
And so that was the ultimate goal.
And these are things that we may disagree on in terms of whether it's better to cut, whether these are good or bad ideas to cut.
I think often what we're looking at here is how do we make sure we're not cutting What's the least damaging thing to do?
I personally think that it would be more damaging to Portlanders to have the, the 3 rescues reduced in their hours than it would be to limit the, the expansion of the North Portland task site.
So if, if you agree, I hope that at least Part A can be of, of interest to you.
And then for all my colleagues, if you agree that, um, reduction in campsite removals of a little over 10%, that's what this would be B and C, because $15 million in there, then— and that is less of a negative than the reduction in rescue units— then I would hope that you would support B and C. And if it's— if you feel free to divide it out as well, if you'd prefer to have only half of that come out of that to fund one rescue.
And I urge anyone who is interested in that to divide it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Uh, we have 2 minutes left.
I'm going to extend a courtesy to Mayor Wilson.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, colleagues, for your, uh, care and concern for the rescue units.
It's been a painful budget, to say the least, and the rescues are one of our more important public safety response, uh, focuses.
We were very deliberative in our approach as we looked at our overall public safety and public space continuum.
The rescues are, are an important part, but I also want to note that in our shelter system, we took a 30% cut to our shelters.
This would take an additional $550,000 cut overall, despite the parts and the pieces.
This council also took a cut to our impact reduction program in the previous amendment discussions.
This would add another $1.1 million cut.
Thank you.
To an already reduced budget.
So I just want to make sure we address the false choices here.
We need it all, but we have built this program, our public space public safety, on a continuum, on a scaffolding that the overall flow of the continuum works.
When we have rescues or CHAT or PSR show up, we treat and then abandon the people to the street without a resource to care for them.
Thank you.
We're missing the part of the continuum of care which we fully have.
We've been very clear in the cuts.
We took significant cuts to shelter so we could fund public safety, but it's a flow and it's a system we've built.
Now, I would appeal to you to continue to fund the system in the budget as we've presented to you.
Thank you, Mayor Wilson.
Unfortunately, colleagues, we are at 1:30 and we have a hard out today, so we will recess this meeting until 9:30 We will take this up where we are in the—.
Yeah, vote on 129.
Okay, we got 3 people.
Very deliberate debate.
Let's take the vote.
We got 3 people in the queue.
I'm just moving to divide the question so we could vote on each part separately.
Like I said, we are now at 1:30 and we do not have time.
So unfortunately we have to recess and we will take this up at the top of the meeting tomorrow.
Apologies.
We are in recess.