Portland City Council Special Meeting

7:54Good morning, everybody.

7:56I am calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland City Council.

8:03Keelan, can we—.

8:03Do we take the roll?

8:04Yeah, please take the roll.

8:05Good morning.

8:07Good morning.

8:09Present.

8:13Here.

8:15Here.

8:16Maria.

8:18Here.

8:20Here.

8:20Here.

8:23Here.

8:23Avalos.

8:24Present.

8:24Smith.

8:25Here.

8:26Dunphy.

8:26Here.

8:28And could we please read the rules of decorum?

8:31Good morning.

8:32Welcome to the Portland City Council.

8:33To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council.

8:40Information on engaging with council can be found at the council clerk's webpage.

8:45Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

8:48Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

8:50The presiding officer preserves order.

8:52Disruptive 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.

9:01If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

9:03Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.

9:06Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

9:10Additionally, Council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.

9:13Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

9:15When testifying, state your name for the record.

9:17Your address is not necessary.

9:19If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent, and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the Council Clerk calls your name.

9:25Thank you.

9:27Thank you very much.

9:28Colleagues, we have far more to do today than we will ever possibly get through.

9:33There are 17 remaining amendments or budget notes that we did not get to yesterday.

9:40And when we left off, we were in the middle of debate on Kanal Koyama Lane 10.

9:45Well, maybe not the middle, towards the end of the debate.

9:48I'm going to have us move back into that.

9:50That item has been moved and seconded, and we are in discussion of Kanal Koyama Lane 10.

9:57Councilor Kanal.

9:57Thank you, Mayor.

9:58Okay, thank you, Council President.

10:00Good morning.

10:01Yesterday when we first did the initial block of amendments, it was very helpful for me to understand what the other amendments were in that initial block.

10:09I think was Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1, 2, 3, 4, Green-Avalos-Morillo 1, Clark 2, I believe.

10:17So I, because there may be a possibility of a compromise being worked out yesterday that had something to do with this amendment too, I wanted to first ask if it would be possible to hear an update and understand if there is an amendment coming that involved the sponsors yesterday of those 2 big amendments and if there was anything that came out of it.

10:43And I don't know who to ask because I don't know who was involved in the conversation.

10:49Councilors, are we in the middle of—.

10:51It's relevant to this amendment because I want to understand if there's other things that may fund the rescues.

10:57And I think it might be helpful for everybody to know that.

10:59So I'm just curious because yesterday we did this last quarter.

11:01Councilor Kanal, I don't believe that there is anything that is going to be funding the rescues.

11:06Okay.

11:08Of the pre-filed amendments, Council President, is there anything else that funds the rescues?

11:13No, there is nothing else pre-filed that we have not voted on besides Kanal-Koyama Lane 10 that is currently before us that funds the rescue units.

11:21Okay.

11:22This is the last chance to fund the rescues then.

11:25And I want to note that we have looked at places to fund the rescues all over the place.

11:33I believe there was conversation in Councilor Green's amendment from the May budget that would have funded the rescues.

11:42There have been amendments from me that would have funded the rescues in May.

11:47There are amendments now from Councilor Koyama Lane and I that'll be in front of you.

11:50There have been, I think, 6 different funding sources proposed for it.

11:54I take every councilor at their word that when they say, I'm voting no, not because I disagree with where the money is going, but where the money is coming from, I take everyone at their word on that because I often have the same concern.

12:08But we've exhausted every other funding source and we're now left with 2, and they're both in this amendment.

12:17One is whether or not to allow the expansion of Urban Alchemy's temporary alternative shelter site in North Portland.

12:29The other is whether or not to take a just shy of a 10%, I think about 8% reduction in the Impact Reduction Program's budget allocation for this year.

12:42And to specifically earmark that in the context of only reducing campsite removal, not reducing trash and solid waste removal as well.

12:55I will note that there are colleagues up here who have claimed over and over and over again to support public safety.

13:01This is the time that you show it.

13:03Public safety to me does include the fire department.

13:06Does.

13:07Always has, always will.

13:10And I think it's time to put up or shut up.

13:12Now, I do understand that some of you may have different views of the relative things.

13:17And so we've created an opportunity in how it's written that you can divide it.

13:21If you'd like to fund one rescue through a certain way or 2 rescues through another way, you have those options.

13:27And I want to make sure that everybody knows they're available because at this point, I think it's funding source 5 and funding source 6.

13:33So I encourage you to please find one that you're okay with.

13:36Because otherwise we're going to be in a situation where we don't have that service going forward.

13:42And when minutes matter, when seconds matter, additional benefits to response time matters.

13:48And having 3 units in— I will note Districts 1 and Districts 3— available for people who are in medical distress will be the difference between life and death for some of those folks.

14:02Thank you.

14:03Thank you.

14:04Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

14:05Councilor Novick.

14:07Thank you, Mr. President.

14:08Councilor Kanal, if you vote down the other options, then you can say this is our last chance.

14:14Um, we had a chance to restore one rescue simply by cutting council office budgets.

14:19Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and I had a proposal to restore rescues with a package that we don't understand why people did not support.

14:28Because we thought that it included things that everybody liked.

14:32It just didn't include things that— everything that everybody liked.

14:35And also, our understanding is that some people voted against it because they didn't like the idea of having well-trained police, that having money for police training was a nonstarter.

14:47And if that's true, that that was a nonstarter for people, that is bizarre, because I can't understand why anybody would be for having poorly trained police.

14:54I think it's because they don't want to pay for it.

14:55So we've given people opportunities to fund the rescues, and the fact that people rejected them doesn't mean that we have some obligation to vote for the latest idea that's proposed.

15:07Thank you, Councilor Novick.

15:09Councilor Avalos.

15:11What I heard Councilor Kanal say is that the reason that people are voting no for things is because of the source.

15:17So that's exactly the point.

15:18So I don't understand your point.

15:20What we just— please don't interrupt me.

15:21I'm speaking.

15:22Thank you.

15:23What you are saying is that people didn't want to vote for taking council office budgets.

15:28Let me recall, it's not just Peacock, 'cause I know everything's about Peacock and not.

15:31It's not just Peacock that doesn't want to take council office budgets.

15:33So that's clearly not a source that people find viable.

15:37This is a different source.

15:38So we're discussing that we all clearly care about funding the fire rescues, but we disagree on the source.

15:44This is yet another option that I will obviously be supporting, but I think it's just a false narrative to claim that we have not been trying to provide other options.

15:53That's kind of the whole point.

15:54As it relates to EMS training, my view on that is that the police have a lot of money.

15:59They have a lot of other options to be able to fund that.

16:02And so when other things are getting cut that they don't have any other options, that's what I'm prioritizing.

16:07So I'm not going to prioritize EMS training when I know that there are ways that the police can fund that.

16:12They've got lots of various funds that they can pull from if needed.

16:16But the people that don't have the funds are the fire and the parks and all these other programs.

16:20And so that's what we're trying to prioritize.

16:22I think that the police have a been able to overall keep their budget pretty held harmless.

16:28We are losing PS3s.

16:29We're losing all of the components that make up public safety that support police.

16:34And that's what I want to support.

16:35So I plan to support this.

16:37I'm going to reject that argument.

16:39And I think the council budgets thing, that needs to end here because it very clearly does not have support.

16:45And continuing to bring it up feels futile.

16:48Thanks.

16:48May I direct respond, Mr. President?

16:50You cannot.

16:50I did not ask a question.

16:51So no, you cannot respond.

16:52Councilor, I will come back to you.

16:53I'm going to go to Vice President Clark first.

16:57Thank you, Council President.

16:59I agree with Councilor Avalos on the point that this is about sources, because last week when this entire process began, I offered up a source for these programs that was not robbing a contingency.

17:17It was not robbing against future funds.

17:19It was using money that won't be utilized.

17:22That will go into the general fund eventually.

17:24So I just want to remind people, I think Councilor Avalos is right, that we're debating the source of funds.

17:29And it's very important to me that we don't take any more money from the sources that we've identified in this amendment.

17:38So just remind people, I think you're absolutely right, Councilor Avalos, it's about source.

17:42It's not about the end product.

17:45You had 2 opportunities to vote for my amendment on that.

17:48Thank you.

17:48Thank you.

17:49Thank you, Vice President Clark.

17:50Councilor Novick.

17:52Thank you, Mr. President.

17:55Councilor Avalos, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and I very deliberately crafted a proposal that used a source that appeared to be acceptable to peacocks, the PCF interest, and you rejected our proposal, which used your source.

18:12So that you cannot use the argument that you've only been presented with sources that you don't like.

18:18Thank you, Councilor Novick.

18:18Councilor Knoll.

18:21So I think we've, we've beaten to death the, the merits of cutting council offices.

18:27I think the particular example of using it for, for rescues that we've already also indicated is the inefficiencies, uh, associated with it, where you cut $1.2 million to restore one $550,000 rescue.

18:41It's not a good use of money in my opinion.

18:43But I also think it's important to understand that we owe not only our values and our work ethic to our constituents, but some creativity and coming up with different ideas, which by the way, I do recognize that Councilors Novick and Pirtle-Guiney were being creative, as were Councilors Green, Avalos, and Murillo yesterday with that particular funding source.

19:01Setting that one aside though, there's 2 different ideas that have been brought up here.

19:07One is, and they're, well, actually they're both defunding democracy.

19:10One is taking away the investments in the people that actually help Portlanders navigate our systems, that respond to emails, that ensure that lobbyists do not dictate policy here.

19:20The other is undermining a voter-approved ballot measure, uh, that— and, and specifically defunding police accountability to fund police, which I, I— the intent, you don't have to even say anything more than that.

19:31You can just see what it does.

19:33I put up a couple ideas.

19:35They didn't work.

19:35They weren't acceptable.

19:36That's fine.

19:37I think we owe it to Portlanders to find a third idea then, a fourth idea, a fifth idea, a sixth idea.

19:42That's why I'm coming back with another one.

19:43Don't want to defund Bybee Lakes and Grand Recovery?

19:46Okay.

19:46Don't want to defund council security?

19:49Okay.

19:49Don't want to defund— you name it, I'll come up with another idea.

19:53And at some point, the question becomes, is it actually about the source, or is it actually about saying no to everything?

20:01And the only way everything that's not a defunding of democracy.

20:05I apologize.

20:07I recognize that there's some frustration about yesterday with the PSF interest conversation, and I think that's fair for all 5 of the folks to have that frustration.

20:15I really do, because I do think that that's— good people can disagree on those 2 amendments, but that's not what's in front of us right now.

20:24And so I will ask, you'll have, you know, 3 opportunities here to say, Is it more important to you to maintain 100% instead of 90— I wanna say 92% of the impact reduction program's budget, or is it more important to have a rescue?

20:45Is it more important to have the 90-unit temporary alternative shelter site expand to 212 units instead of 175?

20:54Yes.

20:55'Cause that's the difference, going from 90 to 175 if this amendment passes, going from 90 to 212 if it doesn't pass.

21:03Or is it more important to retain a rescue?

21:06Those are the choices before you.

21:07And by the way, the, the IRP thing actually funds 2 of the rescues.

21:11Thank you.

21:12Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

21:13Councilor Zimmerman.

21:15Thanks.

21:16I just wanna kind of bring it back to the actual amendment, and Councilor Kanal kind of did that.

21:23In his last statement.

21:25So, you know, impact reduction was 15.

21:28It's gonna be about 7.1.

21:30This would be another hit at it.

21:33I do not wish to return to a Portland that existed before impact reduction was a program that was up and running in our community, because 2022 was a tough year to go anywhere in any neighborhood In Portland.

21:51And so we may not like the impact reduction that cleanups— part of the homeless camps cleanups is part of our reality, but it is part of our reality.

22:00It's part of a basic core service of city, and we all wish it wasn't, but it is.

22:04That takes investment.

22:07In the same year that Multnomah County is closing hundreds of shelter beds, this conversation cannot be had without consideration that the sheltering agency in our community has largely pulled back from what they do.

22:18Thank you.

22:19And the city is looking to increase some of our shelters where we can.

22:25I think that goes okay.

22:27I appreciate— I actually don't disagree with Councilor Kanal in like, take a shot, keep trying.

22:32I do.

22:33There's a fervor that kind of came into this room today, and I think that's because a couple of you have struck some sort of deal on something else that nobody is aware of.

22:43But I think it's shadowing, frankly, this conversation in a way that's not healthy.

22:47Thank you.

22:47And really was a problem with our break yesterday.

22:50We should have driven through because I think we were onto a pretty good process and conversation, and debating of ideas should be what is sacred around this dais.

23:00I appreciate that Councilor Kanal and I are going to agree on it, but the gamesmanship is not happening in Kanal, Koyama Lane 10.

23:07I don't see it.

23:08I'm fine with it.

23:09Let's debate.

23:09Let's have disagreements.

23:10So I'm not going to vote for this because I don't want to see a program that's already been halved go even further.

23:17I think impact reduction is an unfortunate but necessary core city service.

23:21I don't vote to pull that down.

23:24I've said time and again that public safety and livability were front of mind as we went into this budget.

23:29And that means that I am approaching it from 2 parallel tracks and you try to weigh as you go through.

23:36That being said, I still think that there are other options that we can find for the rescue services and fire and police and training, et cetera.

23:44And I'm going to keep my eye toward that.

23:46So thank you, Councilor Kanal, for bringing it back to this amendment.

23:51And for those of you who have some other gamesmanship happening in hallways, by all means, let the cards out because it feels like half of us are trying to anticipate whatever chess game, Monopoly game, Chutes and Ladders that you all are playing, and it's not welcomed.

24:05Yesterday was very clear what amendments were coming and which they were going to come and how that was going to be built.

24:11And for all of you who put those forward, I thank you.

24:13Thank you.

24:13For that because I understood how one vote related to the next.

24:17This half-blindness is not a helpful way for this debate or for the rest of the day.

24:25Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

24:26Colleagues, I will note that we have been on this one for 20 minutes already and we have 20 more items to get through.

24:30So, Councilor Ryan.

24:32Thank you, Council President.

24:34I'll keep my comments directly on this amendment.

24:36I appreciate the intent here, but I cannot support a cut to impact reduction program.

24:41Impact reduction cuts are cuts to public safety system overall, and particularly affects fire as they respond to human health and fire safety issues in homeless encampments all the time.

24:54You learn this when you go on a ride-along with fire or simply by walking around downtown on 10th and 13th or in our district in Delta Park area.

25:02So I'm not willing to take that risk.

25:06I vote no on this.

25:07Thank you.

25:08Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

25:09Councilor Green.

25:11Yeah, to the amendment.

25:13Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

25:14You've laid out a path where if folks are not, um, comfortable cutting deep further into IRP, I get it.

25:22You've made your case on the merits.

25:24I understand that this is a dividable motion, and I think that I would make the appeal that yes, it does involve some reductions yes.

25:34With respect to sheltering capacity at the North Portland task site or alternative shelter site, my argument there is that is a very large site, and the marginal impact there, I don't know, really makes much of a difference in that capacity because I think people have deep trust issues right now with Urban Alchemy.

25:55There are unresolved questions with Urban Alchemy, and it's bad enough to have A site with 100 pods go into 200-some-odd pods is— I don't think you're going to get much uptake there.

26:08And so I think this is an opportunity where the cost, the opportunity cost, so to speak, is quite low because you can fund a rescue truck.

26:17I think, is it one rescue truck if you divide it?

26:202.

26:21And that's, in my view, worth more to the community in terms of public safety than that marginal capacity and shelter capacity.

26:28I don't know that it's going to serve the population anyway.

26:32And so I would move to divide the question to split Kanal Koyama Lane 10 into 10A and 10B.

26:43Okay.

26:43Councilor Green has moved to divide the question.

26:46Can we do that at this point, or do we after we've called— after we're moving to a vote?

26:53Yeah, yeah, you can do it now.

26:54Okay, great.

26:55Councilor has divided the question.

26:57That's, um, Councilor Kanal and Koyama Lane.

27:00How do you want that?

27:02You—.

27:02I mean, Councilor Green proposed a division, but I'd, uh, like to, um, I'd like to ask that we vote on it ABC, um, but I'd also ask if we can still discuss them together just for ease of time.

27:14Absolutely.

27:14Okay, Councilor Green, you're still in the queue.

27:20Do you have further?

27:21Okay, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

27:24Thank you, Council President.

27:27I want to be clear because we're hearing a lot about the North Portland site, and I've said previously that I have concerns with the response to Urban Alchemy.

27:38I have said previously that I have concerns with the size of that site, but I also have concerns with reducing shelter beds, and we are already reducing pod-type shelter beds, as is the county.

27:51I think that pod-type shelter beds, from the data I have seen, not just my own opinions, are far more successful than many other types of shelter that we are expanding.

28:02I would love to not have North Portland get so big.

28:04I would love to have the funds to keep smaller sites open, but I could not identify cuts I was willing to make in order to keep those sites open.

28:13So my choice is a larger North Portland or fewer shelter beds.

28:18And I just want to be clear that when we talk about not wanting North Portland to be bigger, we're not talking about a trade-off with other beds elsewhere.

28:27We're either needing to make cuts to keep smaller sites open, which I've not found cuts I'm willing to make to do, or we are reducing the number of pod shelters, which the data has shown to me at least are one of the better types of shelters that we have in our community.

28:47So I, I don't like the way this is being framed as we talk about reducing the number of shelters, shelter beds there.

28:55And I can't support a reduction, though I don't like the size of North Portland, because even more than that, I am not willing for us to have fewer pod spaces for people to get back on their feet and get back into housing.

29:09Thank you.

29:10I don't know, we'll try.

29:14Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

29:18Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote on Kanal Koyama Lane 10A?

29:28Moved by Kanal, seconded by Koyama Lane.

29:32Sorry, wasn't there a vote on the— that we're going to separate it?

29:35Yeah, the call was— the motion was tonight.

29:38So we're going to divide it into 3 sections, A, B, and C. And we're going to vote on A.

29:44No, we don't vote on a division.

29:46A division just happens.

29:47Division just happens.

29:48Yeah.

29:48Oh yeah.

29:49So we are now going to move to just vote on the A section of this amendment.

29:58Just for clarity, this is the one from the North Portland Task Site.

30:01Okay, thank you.

30:05Part A. Aye.

30:06No.

30:07Ryan?

30:07No.

30:08Koyama Lane?

30:10Aye.

30:11Murillo?

30:12Aye.

30:13Novick?

30:14No.

30:15Clark?

30:15No.

30:16Green?

30:17Aye.

30:18Zimmerman?

30:19No.

30:19Avalos?

30:20Aye.

30:21Smith?

30:22No.

30:23Dunphy?

30:24Aye.

30:25The amendment, Part 10A, fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.

30:31Thank you.

30:31Could we please call the roll on 10B?

30:35And yeah, Councilor Kanal, could you tell us?

30:37This is $550,000 from the Impact Reduction Program.

30:44Moved by Kanal, seconded by Koyama Lane.

30:46Yes.

30:47Aye.

30:49No.

30:51No.

30:52Aye.

30:56Aye.

30:56Aye.

30:56No.

30:56Councilor Mitch Green.

30:56Yes.

30:56Councilor Steve Novick.

30:57No.

30:57Councilor Mitch Green.

30:59Aye.

31:00Councilor Mitch Green.

31:00Aye.

31:00Councilor Eric Zimmerman.

31:01No.

31:01Councilor Mitchell Green.

31:02Yes.

31:03Councilor Mike Bunch.

31:03No.

31:04Councilor Council Vice President Oliver Taylor.

31:05No.

31:05Councilor Council Vice President Olivia Clark.

31:05No.

31:05Councilor Council Vice President Olivia Clark.

31:05No.

31:05Councilor Council Vice President Olivia Clark.

31:05No.

31:06Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:06No.

31:07Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:07No.

31:07Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:07No.

31:07Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:07No.

31:07Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:07No.

31:08Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:10No.

31:10Councilor Council Vice President Jonas Biery.

31:12Part C. This is the other $550,000 from the impact reduction program for the 3rd rescue.

31:21Moved by Kanal, seconded by Koyama Lane.

31:23Kanal?

31:24Aye.

31:25Pirtle-Guiney?

31:27No.

31:28Ryan?

31:29No.

31:30Koyama Lane?

31:32Aye.

31:32Murillo?

31:34Rescues are really needed.

31:36Aye.

31:37Novick?

31:38No.

31:39Clark?

31:39No.

31:40Green?

31:41Aye.

31:41Zimmerman?

31:42No.

31:43Avalos?

31:43Aye.

31:44Smith?

31:45No.

31:46Dunphy?

31:47Aye.

31:49The amendment, Part 10C, fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.

31:53Okay, colleagues, moving down, uh, to our next item.

31:55We're moving to Zimmerman 7.

31:57Councilor Zimmerman.

32:04I'm going to turn the pages, colleagues, so I can catch up with Council President here and get to the right page.

32:18So Zimmerman 7 amends the budget to realign $1.4 million within Portland's Portland Solutions Shelter Program from taking over the River District Navigation Center from Multnomah County to continuing operations of the current city shelter at City Team Grand for $1 million.

32:35That creates an excess of funds.

32:37The funding— the additional $400,000 would be part of the additional flex and severe weather bed capacity that Portland Solutions can use across the system.

32:51Uh, in my conversations with Multnomah County, I know that they have some concern about our ability to flex during the emergency shelter And I think that to close a current city shelter in order to open up a shelter that the county has already determined they want to close, and we always want to pick it up while closing one of our own, seems like a strange switcheroo, and I don't think it's welcome.

33:18And in a world where opening shelters requires the other enhanced services that go along with the impacts that they have.

33:27And I have always said the closer you are to residential, the more of the enhanced services you have to place around them.

33:34I don't see that accompanying going with the River District Navigation Center.

33:38And so I think it best that we just hold what we currently have and provide ourselves, provide Portland Solutions, provide Multnomah County that additional flex for severe weather events.

33:48I'd appreciate your consideration, everybody.

33:51Thank you.

33:51Councilor Zimmerman, uh, and are you formally moving this?

33:54Okay, Councilor Zimmerman has moved Zimmerman 7.

33:57Is there a second?

33:58And Councilor Vice President Clark has seconded.

34:00Colleagues, to the amendment.

34:01Councilor Kanal.

34:03Thank you.

34:03Just had a question on this, and I— it's given the comment we just had in the, in the previous conversation about, uh, concern about the county falling down on the job with relation to its shelters.

34:15What is anticipated to happen to River District Navigation Center should this should this pass, it will close.

34:25Okay, so maybe offline at a later time, I'd love to ask how that's not the same concern you raised earlier.

34:32Well, that's helpful information because so fair point.

34:36But in order to run navigation the navigation center, the city is going to close its own shelter in order to do it.

34:42If it was I think that's an argument, but that's actually not what's happening.

34:49The city is saying close to go pick up what the county's already closed.

34:54It, it makes no sense.

34:57Thanks.

34:59Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

35:02Councilor Ryan.

35:03Yeah, thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

35:04Uh, your points about locating near residents, I'm well aware of that challenge.

35:09And yes, it is much better when you're a bit removed.

35:13Boy, do I understand that.

35:14So my question to you is, where will this money go?

35:19And does Sky need to come up and let us know?

35:21It keeps the city team shelter that the county— excuse me, that the city is already funding at $1 million.

35:27It keeps that up afloat.

35:29Because that was proposed to close.

35:31Yes.

35:31Where's that located?

35:32Grand.

35:34That's the one in industrial Close in southeast?

35:37Yes.

35:38Okay.

35:39And that's your point about residential and where it's— okay.

35:43All right.

35:43Got it.

35:44Thank you.

35:45Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

35:50Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we move forward with a roll call vote on Zimmerman 7?

35:58Oh, uh, extending a courtesy to Mayor Wilson.

36:02Thank you.

36:05I just want to explain the logistics of the shelter system that we have.

36:09With the limited funding and the reduction of 30% of the shelter funding, we had to be as focused on the geography as we could.

36:19We are closing the Northrop Shelter in Northwest Portland.

36:23In turn, the county is closing the River District Navigation Center And we're going to then sponsor that shelter.

36:35So in other words, the county's closing a shelter, the city's closing a shelter, so we have 2 shelters closing in Northwest Portland.

36:44We're going to simply open up the River District Navigation Center.

36:47So in Northwest Portland, it's going from 2 to 1.

36:51However, on Southeast Grand, we have 2 city-operated shelters right next door to each other.

36:57Yes.

36:58Grand Recovery and City Team.

37:01They are right next to one another in the different blocks.

37:05Because of funding, we're going to close the City Team shelter, but we'll still have a Southeast Grand shelter.

37:12It's just being judicious with our funding.

37:15If we close both the Northrop shelter in Northwest Portland and the county closes, we're losing 2 shelters.

37:22And if we take that funding and put it onto Grand, we'll still have 2 shelters there.

37:26Thank you.

37:26Putting a majority of our shelters on Southeast Grand instead of distributing the care throughout the city.

37:33While I think I understand the funding, we are being very judicious with our funding, but we're still going to have a shelter in Southeast on Grand, and we're still going to have a shelter in Northwest Portland.

37:45But the capacity— both will be reduced by about half, but we'll still have shelter for souls Thank you, Mr.

37:56Mayor.

37:57Vice President Clark.

37:58Oh, thank you, Council President.

37:59I'd just like to ask Councilor Zimmerman a question about— this references the severe weather.

38:06Could you elaborate on that?

38:08Sure.

38:09Um, one of the benefits to the mayor's overnight program is that it has reduced the number of people who are experiencing homelessness.

38:18The need during, during severe weather events for us to turn on a bunch of shelter beds across the city.

38:26But there is an aspect of turning on that has to happen, whether it be extreme cold or extreme hot, and the county makes that determination.

38:33We're often asked to surge in certain locations.

38:37The additional $400,000 being able to, to be used for that use is, is the intent here.

38:44Thank you.

38:46The Grand Avenue shelter costs $400,000 less to run than what the mayor's proposed budget had for the River Navigation, and that's the, that's the $400,000 delta.

38:59And in my conversation with the county, this was an area that they did have concern about, was we got so tight in our sheltering and they've gotten so tight in their sheltering, the ability to We kind of had a, frankly, an easy year this last budget when it comes to extreme weather.

39:16I think that we should never anticipate that one year will be just as boring as the next.

39:21I've worked those extreme shelters in the ice and the snow.

39:24So this is intended to help with that, that Portland Solutions can use as necessary for surging.

39:31Thank you.

39:31That's helpful.

39:34Thank you, Vice President Clark.

39:35Councilor Ryan.

39:36Yeah, a quick question.

39:38Do we have any Northwest, like, Old Town shelters remaining if this closes?

39:49Huh?

39:49We don't have time for staff.

39:51Point of order.

39:51Council President, can you please—.

39:52We don't have time to ask a question of staff.

39:55Oh no, a nod or a shake, but we have 17 things left.

39:58So if there's anything we can do to—.

40:00Sky, very quickly, please.

40:01No.

40:02Anyway, hi, Sky.

40:05Wait, so she can't answer a question?

40:06The answer was no.

40:08The answer was no.

40:09Yeah, what's going on here?

40:12Point of order.

40:13So since when we can't ask folks—.

40:16Oh, I'm just trying to move through.

40:17We're welcome to ask Sky more questions.

40:19Okay, so I, I know you didn't make that call, but my colleague did.

40:22So I want to make sure that the president is keeping this in order and that we are able to call people from the bureaus to get information to help us make a decision on where we're going.

40:33Yes.

40:34Thank you very much.

40:35Okay, Councilor, uh, Ryan, did you want to ask anything further about it?

40:42No.

40:42No?

40:42Okay.

40:42All right, colleagues, let's—.

40:45I'm out.

40:46Fair enough.

40:47Uh, Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote?

40:52This is a roll call vote on Zimmerman 7, moved by Zimmerman, seconded by Council Clerk Kanal.

41:03Yes.

41:03Pirtle-Guiney, absent.

41:06Ryan.

41:09Most awkward vote I've taken in a while.

41:12Um, yeah.

41:18Koyama Lane.

41:19Yes.

41:21Murillo.

41:21Aye.

41:22Novick?

41:23No.

41:24Clark?

41:25Yes.

41:27Green?

41:28Yes.

41:29Zimmerman?

41:30Yes.

41:31Avalos?

41:32Absent.

41:33Smith?

41:35Yes.

41:36Dunphy?

41:37Aye.

41:38The amendment is approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay, and 2 absent.

41:43Congratulations.

41:45Can you read that, the, that again?

41:48The vote tally?

41:50Yeah.

41:519 Ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent.

41:55Okay, thank you.

41:57Councilor Koyama Lane to Koyama Lane 9.

42:00Thank you, Council President.

42:02Colleagues, I'm introducing a technical amendment to change the funding source for the Montavilla Park Picnic Shelter.

42:09The original amendment that we passed drew $755,000 from the Parks Levy contingency, as I explained last Yes.

42:17In previous meeting, that project— this project exists in an odd quirk.

42:21It's neither a new project for the purposes of SDCs at this moment, nor is it a maintenance project for the purposes of the parks levy.

42:30So this amendment revises the funding source to the parks unrestricted general fund.

42:35The amendment also changes the amount earmarked for the project to half of the cost, $377,000.

42:43And $500,000.

42:44The remainder will need to be fundraised through community partnerships, including works with the Parks Foundation.

42:50They are ready to help get funding from other jurisdictions or through revised project eligibility when we revise SDC funding methodology next year.

43:02This is an invitation to the community to come together to make this happen.

43:06Director Szymanski and Director Levine first Thank you so much for your help with this.

43:11And they're both available to answer technical questions.

43:14I'd like to move Koyama Lane 9.

43:15Can I get a second?

43:16Second.

43:17Councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane 9.

43:19Councilor— or Vice President Clark seconds.

43:22Colleagues to the amendment?

43:24Councilor Ryan?

43:25I'll second.

43:26Okay, Vice President Clark.

43:28Thank you, Councilor President.

43:29I just want to applaud my colleague for her creativity.

43:35And actually mirrors a philosophy I think that we've talked about a lot on this dais and in committee about public-private partnerships, about being more entrepreneurial, about engaging our community in matching our limited dollars.

43:52So I'm very pleased to see this, and I really appreciate your effort.

43:57Thank you, Vice President Clark.

43:58Councilor Zimmerman.

43:59Very similar comments.

44:00It was a pleasure to work with you, Councilor Koyama Lane, on this.

44:03I think I think that you found a good solution to a very strange, in purgatory, kind of between multiple layers of bureaucracy.

44:10So it was fun to work with you and Parks on this.

44:14Thank you for bringing me along.

44:17Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

44:18Councilor Novick.

44:19Thank you, Mr. President.

44:21I continue to say that we should not make a major capital investment in parks without seeing it as part of a priority list of other needs within parks.

44:30We've got a multi-hundred million dollar parks maintenance, deferred maintenance deficit.

44:37And I think that any expenditure of this amount needs to be part of a comprehensive look at what are our highest priorities.

44:44I think this is a great project, but I can't support it.

44:46Thank you, Councilor Novick.

44:53Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote on Koyama Lane 9?

44:59Moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Clark.

45:01Kanal?

45:04Aye.

45:06Pirtle-Guiney?

45:06Absent.

45:10We're voting on Koyama Lane 9, the Montavilla shuttle.

45:14Just vote aye.

45:15We're voting on the—.

45:16Dang it, I had questions on this.

45:18Um, I'm sorry, very briefly, does this put the parks levy money back in the parks levy Aye.

45:24It passed.

45:27Aye.

45:28Oh, sorry.

45:29Ryan?

45:29Aye.

45:31Councilor Koyama Lane?

45:32Aye.

45:33Councilor Morillo?

45:34Aye.

45:34Councilor Novick?

45:35No.

45:36Councilor Clark?

45:37Aye.

45:38Councilor Green?

45:38Aye.

45:39Councilor Zimmerman?

45:40Aye.

45:40Councilor Avalos?

45:41Aye.

45:42Councilor Smith?

45:43Aye.

45:43Councilor Dunphy?

45:45Aye.

45:45The amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 nay.

45:49Congratulations, colleagues.

45:50Councilor Kanal to Kanal 8.

45:53Thank you, uh, Council President.

45:55So Kanal 8, I, uh, have not been great at predicting what's going to be controversial or not, but this restores one BOEC call taker of the 3 positions that have been, uh, reduced in the mayor's budget.

46:08Uh, there are 2 call— there are 2 telecommunicators and 1 senior who are being reduced, and this would restore one of the, uh, reduced It would do so by taking the money that was created through the passage of Dunphy 4 back in May.

46:23It created a lot of different pots of money, but it specifically takes 100% of the amount that was put into Fund 202, which is emergency communications for BOEC.

46:35That's, uh, that looks like $37,419.

46:39And then it takes of the $114,502 that was put into the emergency communications fund, placed in the general fund contingency created by that amendment in May.

46:47It takes $105,000, pairs it together, sends it to BOEC, restores one call taker.

46:53This, uh, should be a way to boost our response times from the people who actually respond when you call 911.

47:01Thanks.

47:02And Councilor Kanal, are you formally moving this?

47:04Yes, of course.

47:05I move Kanal 8.

47:06Thank you.

47:07Councilor Kanal moves, uh, Kanal 8.

47:09Is there a second?

47:13Second.

47:13Councilor Green seconds.

47:15Colleagues to the amendment?

47:16Councilor Zimmerman, legacy hand?

47:21It was, but it's good timing.

47:22I, I would— I wanted to make sure it seems fine.

47:26There were a lot of funds that you're referencing, Councilor, in terms of what Dumphy 4 did, and I believe Dumphy 4 was the no increase, no salary increases or something along those lines.

47:37Terrible idea, but now that the money's there, um, is there a BOEC representative who can say this money was going for nothing else now that it was allocated?

47:46I want to just get a sense of the trade-off here.

47:50Does not appear so.

47:52I think there's a whole room full of them somewhere.

47:54They have to make their way to the room.

47:56Yeah, I understand, but I'm assuming that because of Dunphy 4 passing, the bureau had some additional funds it wasn't anticipating, and so putting these towards personnel Is what I think is what's happening here.

48:08Yeah, I think on the general fund side, that is what's happening.

48:12On the BOEC side, they also have a small contingency that they use for their training pipeline to have to support limited-term positions.

48:21So this would use a portion of that.

48:24And I don't know the split between what was returned through Dunphy 4 and what was preexisting.

48:28There was some already in the proposed before Dunphy 4 passed.

48:31Okay.

48:32But it would just be there supporting—.

48:34I'm willing to hold on an answer as a person comes.

48:38I'd like to understand the training piece.

48:40If this is getting in front of something like that, I would want to know.

48:42But I think as we wait, we can move on to someone else.

48:45Okay, I will come back to you, Councilor Zimmerman.

48:46Thank you.

48:47Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

48:50Thank you, Council President.

48:52Councilor Kanal, can you remind us what cuts BOAT funding?

48:57I'm trying to understand if this is a restore or an addition and how this actually relates to response time, which has had some bottlenecks but not all at BOEC.

49:07We have limited funds, and I want to make sure that this is actually the highest use of funds.

49:13Yeah, so there are 2 reductions.

49:16I can— I don't have the decision package list pulled up right now, but, uh, there, there are 2 reductions to call takers and 1 reduction I'll just note that this $37,000 in the fund cannot be used outside of BOEC.

49:29And I have a question for Ruth later, but it's your time, so.

49:32Okay, and I think we have folks from BOEC up here.

49:36So I— there were 3 reductions in the budget.

49:40This restores which one of those?

49:42This restores one of the telecommunicators, one of the dispatchers.

49:45One of the 2 call takers.

49:47Correct.

49:48And in terms of the amount of time that it takes to respond to In a call, terms of the amount of time somebody waits on the phone, because when we talk about response time, there's 2 pieces.

49:54There's how much time are you waiting for the call to be picked up, and then how much time after the call is picked up are you waiting for whoever was dispatched to get there.

50:02In terms of the amount of time somebody is waiting for the call to get picked up, that varies.

50:08I understand.

50:09I'm asking you to talk in averages here.

50:11What should we expect the difference to be if we restore or don't restore this position?

50:15Yeah, that's a It's a really tough question to answer because of call spikes.

50:21We never know what each day is going to bring.

50:24Having one more person more maintains the level we're at versus increasing, so it kind of keeps us almost even right now with where we are.

50:37So you think if we have a reduction of one, we can stay pretty even with where we're at?

50:41If we have a reduction of 2, you worry that we will actually see more spikes in wait time?

50:47Potentially, yes.

50:50Okay, thank you.

50:51Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

50:52Councilor Zimmerman, I'll come back to you since we have our guests here.

50:55Thanks.

50:55There was a little bit about the training aspect.

51:00I want to just get a sense, because it always sounds good to add a 911 responder to the list.

51:04I want to get a sense though if there's an aspect we're not seeing here.

51:09For your intended training budget or what you need to make sure that those you have on staff are up and ready to do the job and do it well.

51:16And I just appreciate your, your look at this and what you see and what you'd be giving up, if, if anything.

51:23As far as the training budget goes?

51:25It was mentioned that potentially some of this money was going to be used for training, and now it would go to personnel specifically, or an FTE.

51:33And I want to just get a sense of like what that Yeah, there's a reduction in our training budget.

51:43We typically do 2 in-service trainings each year, and now we're going to reduce that down to 1.

51:50So our staff, they have a— they're required to maintain their certification.

51:54That requires 24 hours of training each year, and we'll have to find a new way to get them that training.

52:01So you're saying that you're going to reduce the number of in-service trainings?

52:01Those hours of training.

52:02We'll still conduct one in-service a year, but we'll have to do something else on the job, which potentially takes them off phones answering 911 calls to maintain that training period.

52:16Okay.

52:17And in the world of 911 and how much I think you all have grown over the last 6 years, I would imagine that this, in the way that seniority works.

52:28If somebody— I'm assuming somebody's getting a layoff notice if this does not pass.

52:34There are 2 positions that will not be filled.

52:37Currently they're vacant.

52:38Okay, this is helping us continue to the hiring aspect.

52:40It helps us with the, the training pipeline.

52:43Training pipeline.

52:43So, you know, it takes 2 years, right, essentially, to fully train a 911 call taker to be able to answer calls alone without a coach, to be able to dispatch police without— be able to dispatch fire as well.

52:58So it's a 2-year training period.

53:01So losing those positions now certainly hurts.

53:07It's going to hurt us more potentially in 2 years.

53:09Got it.

53:12Thank you for that, Ruth.

53:13You stepped up.

53:14I'm assuming it wasn't for nothing.

53:15Yeah, sorry, I have to correct myself.

53:17This is the— this amendment the portion of it that comes from BOEC is solely from Dunphy IV.

53:22It doesn't change anything with respect to the training pipeline.

53:26Apologies.

53:27Okay, the training budget that they've got for that?

53:30Yeah, from the— it doesn't change what was in the proposed.

53:32In the proposed.

53:33There's already a cut happening.

53:34Got it.

53:34Yes.

53:34Okay, that's clear.

53:36Thank you for stepping in, folks.

53:37Appreciate it.

53:39Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

53:40Councilor Novick.

53:42Thank you, Mr. President.

53:43My concern with this item is the funding source.

53:46One of the things I liked about Dunphy IV was that unlike other things we've done recently.

53:50It actually restored money to contingency, and I'm just extremely reluctant to cut further into contingency reserves in any way.

53:58Thank you, Councilor Novick.

54:00Councilor Kanal.

54:01Yeah, so these are new contingency reserves that were not there before.

54:05They were created by Dunphy 4.

54:07Um, and I, I'm going to just verify the, what the money that was created in, in May is not— it doesn't exist yet.

54:15In the sense that it hasn't been allocated to anything at this moment.

54:18It's sitting— yeah, I'm seeing Ruth nod on that.

54:21So there's no reduction in any planned use for it.

54:23This is simply planning a use for it.

54:27And I think that we have seen the results over years of not thinking ahead for our training pipelines in public safety.

54:35And it applies to police, it applies to fire, it applies to BOEC as well.

54:40They all have a length of time that it takes to get someone someone fully, um, up to speed.

54:45So I, I think it's, it's fair to say that we're choosing to create a, a position that will not have full impact for 2 years.

54:54But I, I also know that it's important that we don't go backwards on this.

54:58Um, and again, this money is not currently committed to anything else.

55:02There is a separate set of decision packages.

55:04There were, there were 9 decision packages related to the Bureau of Emergency Communications.

55:09Separately, they are also taking other cuts.

55:12This restores one part of one of the cuts.

55:14Thanks.

55:15Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

55:16Councilor Ryan.

55:17Yeah, thank you, Council President.

55:19I, as someone that was a part of the team that built back the severe cuts to public safety over the last decade, we started with BOAC, so I'm well aware what it's like to build that back.

55:30Um, and, and I— that's why I've been disturbed about the cuts to all of public safety, especially However, I agree with what Councilor Novick said.

55:41We just made a smart fiscal decision to get that contingency back up, and now we're dipping into it again.

55:47So I just— this just doesn't feel like— it feels like Monopoly money that we're moving around.

55:53And I regret that I won't be able to support this.

55:56Thanks.

55:56Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

56:01Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote on Kanal 8?

56:08Moved by Kanal, seconded by Green.

56:10Kanal?

56:11Aye.

56:12Pirtle-Guiney?

56:18Aye.

56:20Ryan?

56:20No.

56:21Koyama Lane?

56:22Aye.

56:23Murillo?

56:24Aye.

56:24Novick?

56:25No.

56:26Clark?

56:26Aye.

56:27Green?

56:28Aye.

56:29Zimmerman?

56:29Aye.

56:31Avalos?

56:31Aye.

56:32Smith?

56:33Aye.

56:34Dunphy?

56:36Aye.

56:37The amendment is approved with a vote of 10 ayes and 2 nays.

56:40Okay, thank you.

56:42Colleague, uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney to Pirtle-Guiney 12.

56:47Oh man, we're here already.

56:49I thought there were some other things before this.

56:51I apologize.

56:52Sorry, we're running around a little.

56:54Pirtle-Guiney 12.

56:55Pirtle-Guiney 12.

56:56So colleagues, in your original packets, if you have printed out things, you had Pirtle-Guiney 11, which, um, addressed funds that were placed in PMO from PSF.

57:10I have withdrawn Pirtle-Guiney 11 and replaced it with Pirtle-Guiney 12, which should be what's posted and should be in your inboxes as of yesterday afternoon.

57:19I'm gonna run through this slowly to give folks time to pull it up, and I apologize if you have not seen it.

57:29I heard in May as we were discussing amendments that there was a strong interest across this council of making sure that we were not adding PSF dollars to yet another ongoing funding source in the city within PIMO.

57:47I think there were some different reasons for opposition to that, but I think there was a strong opposition amongst a majority of councilors for doing that.

57:57Um, we had 2 proposals to get that money back out of PIMO.

58:03One would defund PIMO, and there was some opposition to doing that.

58:09One would change the strategic programs within the CIP that PCF dollars went to, and there was some opposition to that.

58:17I asked my team and folks within the administration to help me find a funding source that did not do either of those things, to help me find a way that we could make sure that PCF money was going to PCF-eligible causes and not being put in yet another space within our city budgets, but that did not take up the policy decision about whether or not to pull funding out of PIMO, and that did not take up the policy decision about whether to change the strategic programs within which PCF money is spent within the CIP without a conversation with the PCF committee.

58:57This is the one, the singular space that folks could find where we could meet both of those goals, pull those PSF dollars out of PMO, put them back within the ratepayer bureaus that they were originally dedicated to.

59:14They were dedicated originally to PBOT and to BES.

59:18We could figure out a way to do this that focused solely on PBOT and move other dollars into PMO to continue the work that it was budgeted to do, saving us from those policy discussions that deserve their own policy consideration, but making sure that PSF dollars are in the appropriate places.

59:38I want to be clear that this is not without risk.

59:40It is coming from a fund that PBOT is already working to recapitalize, and this makes that work a little bit harder.

59:46But it is a fund that is already being worked on, um, and this would roll into that work.

59:54If we feel strongly, which I do, that we should move PSF dollars out of PMO, I would suggest to you all that this is the least bad option— dare I say the only option we have found for doing that.

1:00:08I will also note that I've had some conversations this morning with Councilor Avalos about lending her name and her support to this, and so I would look to you, Councilor Avalos, we've had some timing issues to see if there's anything you want to add here.

1:00:25Thank you.

1:00:25And just to be clear, we are co-sponsoring this, yes?

1:00:29I'm happy to have your—.

1:00:30Great.

1:00:31My mic is off.

1:00:33It is still off.

1:00:34I'm happy to have your name on it.

1:00:35We— time is what it is.

1:00:37Great.

1:00:37And I'm recognizing Councilor Avalos.

1:00:39Great.

1:00:39So yes, thank you.

1:00:40So then I guess this is— Councilor Smith, you're recognized.

1:00:43EPG Avalos 1 or 12?

1:00:46Is there—.

1:00:46Do we need to say that?

1:00:47I don't know what it is.

1:00:48Um, does it matter?

1:00:50Folks will figure out on the back end what to do there.

1:00:52Okay, thank you.

1:00:54Um, yeah, so as you all know, I obviously have been very adamant and vocal about protecting PSF dollars.

1:01:01Avalos 1 was my attempt to do that.

1:01:03That did not pass.

1:01:05Um, and so, uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and I have discussed this.

1:01:09We both agree that this is one, the only real place that we could find the money for it, and I, I'm grateful for, uh, Councilor EPG or Pirtle-Guiney for, um, for doing that.

1:01:21Uh, and it, it is urgent.

1:01:23It is important that we return that money.

1:01:26Obviously, one of the big holdups of many councilors was keeping PMO whole.

1:01:31So that's what this does, I think.

1:01:33But also by it, um, coming out of the general funds essentially of these, the utilities they will be able to supplant that.

1:01:41And so this feels like the best option to get this moving.

1:01:46And I'm grateful for the co-sponsorship.

1:01:48I'm happy to support this, and I urge council to support it as well.

1:01:51Thank you.

1:01:52Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:01:54Oh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, are you formally moving this?

1:01:57And then— With my gratitude to both my staff and all of the staff in the administration, Including but not limited to the budget office and the service area for extensive work over the last 48 hours trying to figure this out.

1:02:12I would move whatever the name of this amendment, which is posted in your materials as Pirtle-Guiney 12, but now also has the co-sponsorship of Councilor Avalos, is going to be called.

1:02:21And I would appreciate a second.

1:02:23Second.

1:02:24Councilor Pirtle-Guiney moves— let's call it Pirtle-Guiney-Avalos 1.

1:02:29And Councilor Avalos.

1:02:31Seconds.

1:02:31We okay with that?

1:02:32Okay, great.

1:02:33Colleagues, to the amendment.

1:02:35Councilor Murillo.

1:02:37Yeah, thank you guys for trying to figure out a way to make sure that we're not using PCF dollars for things that they're not assigned for, like PMO.

1:02:45The only thing I wanna flag is that this is taking money out of the PBOT Streetlight Reserve Fund, and the mayor's proposed budget already took $7 million out of that fund, and this would take another $5.4 million.

1:02:59So that's only gonna leave about $5 million in that fund that they've been saving to fix streetlights.

1:03:05That is why I preferred Councilor Avalos's original amendment that just removed PSAP from PMO because we were all here, especially folks who sat on the Transportation Committee, when we got that presentation about streetlights falling down on people in our city, and that's pretty bad.

1:03:22It seems like a core service that shouldn't happen.

1:03:27It's hard because I think that this is actually sort of pitting also PSF against Vision Zero in a way, because this is a matter of street and pedestrian safety.

1:03:39And I really wish that we could have passed Councilor Avalos's original amendment to save PSF.

1:03:44So I'm just naming those things and kind of wrestling with this in real time because I think this is a really bad Of all the funds that we're going to draw from, drawing from the PBOT Streetlight Reserve Fund, that is pretty egregious to me.

1:04:00Thank you, Councilor Morillo.

1:04:01Councilor Kanal.

1:04:03Thank you.

1:04:03I appreciate the work that's been put in on this.

1:04:05I, I want to just note that there are several folks who've been working on this in some way, and a lot of those other ideas didn't work out.

1:04:13We talked about a couple of those.

1:04:14For those who are wondering why do my numbers jump around, I have Kanal 7, 8, 10, 12, 14.

1:04:1911 Was designed to do the same thing too, and the math didn't math.

1:04:23So we ended up withdrawing that and hoping that somebody else would be able to engage.

1:04:28And I really appreciate the work that's been done on this.

1:04:30I agree with everything Councilor Murillo just said.

1:04:34I also know that for me, it was a pretty significant— it is a very significant factor on whether I vote yes or no on the entire budget.

1:04:43Whether or not PSF dollars go into PMO or not.

1:04:47And so I think that we are up against the spirit of the ballot measure here.

1:04:54So I do think that that outweighs, and I have to vote yes on this in that way.

1:05:00I do want to note that we have to have the conversation about PMO, and we just haven't.

1:05:05And I'm not going to hold this amendment hostage over that, but I just want to get that on the record.

1:05:09Thank you.

1:05:10Thanks.

1:05:11Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:05:13Vice President Clark.

1:05:15Okay, thank you, Council President.

1:05:19Um, seems like a lot of these amendments are really robbing Peter to pay Paul all over the place.

1:05:25Um, I, uh, I tend to agree with Councilor Murillo that even though we voted earlier, uh, as a council to provide additional resources in the future for PBOT, those aren't coming until later in 2027.

1:05:47That worries me.

1:05:48I don't see the urgency here.

1:05:53So I am— this is new to me.

1:05:54I'm trying to think through it, but I tend to be more— I'm very concerned about PBOT streetlight reserves.

1:06:00Councilor Smith.

1:06:02Um, so I just signal here, I'm, I'm wrestling with this.

1:06:05I don't know if there's anybody here from PBOT, but I'm worried about the resources that aren't going to be there.

1:06:12Thank you.

1:06:14Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:06:15Oh, I see Director Williams from PBOT coming up to answer that.

1:06:23Thank you.

1:06:23I didn't see you.

1:06:24I didn't see you in there— out there.

1:06:25Snuck in on the side.

1:06:27Good morning.

1:06:28Uh, Council, Millicent Williams, for the record, PBOT's director.

1:06:33Could you repeat your question, Councilor Clark?

1:06:36Well, I—.

1:06:36It wasn't a question, it was just more of an observation that we, um, we're robbing this fund and we have critical needs for streetlight improvement all over the city.

1:06:48There's a Vision Zero linked to this.

1:06:50There's a safety issue.

1:06:52Um, there's also probably an emissions issue related to this.

1:06:57Uh, in that, um, it, it governs, uh, the movement of traffic.

1:07:02Um, and the resources that we all, uh, approved for, uh, PBOT really don't start coming in until much later in, you know, in 2027.

1:07:13So as Councilor Murillo pointed out, she's a former member of that committee, we, um, we've already cut that program.

1:07:21So I'm, I'm quite concerned about taking more money out of the streetlight reserves.

1:07:27So it's more of an observation.

1:07:29I don't know if you want to comment on that, but I'm worried.

1:07:32I'm worried about it.

1:07:34Thank you for voicing your concerns, Councilor Clark and Councilor Murillo.

1:07:40As we've worked to ensure that we have the ability to provide the levels of support and assistance to communities regarding street lighting and ensuring that we're able to replace streetlights, To repair streetlights, to rebulb streetlights, which is part of what that reserve was intended to do.

1:07:59We've been thinking strategically about how to best do that.

1:08:02So the fund that was established to ensure that we had the funding is a standalone fund, separate and apart from the transportation utility fee funding.

1:08:14We would not necessarily replace that gap with TUF funding because this council also prescribed how it would like for those funds to be used.

1:08:26So we are looking at what the out-years will provide for us in terms of a need to fill the gap.

1:08:34It is a significant one at this point, but we are now working diligently to determine how we can best move forward with, A, what we have, and identifying what we need to be able to provide the long-term consistent service.

1:08:49Jeremy Patton is here who can also speak to some of the mechanics of the finances around it as well.

1:08:55Well, thank you for that, Director Williams.

1:08:56But this reduces the fund down significantly.

1:08:58It's already been cut.

1:09:00It does.

1:09:01It's a total of just under $12 million for— out of $17 million.

1:09:08Right now, yeah, right now it's down to $10.8 million.

1:09:10This amendment would drop it down to, Just over—.

1:09:13It's another $5.4 million that we reduced.

1:09:15Sorry, Jeremy Patton with Public Works.

1:09:17And the total was $17 million?

1:09:18The total initial was $17 million to start the year.

1:09:21Yes.

1:09:22Thank you for that.

1:09:24Um, it's a great concern to me, and thank you for clarifying that this is really not in the tough category.

1:09:32Thank you.

1:09:34Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:09:36Uh, Councilor Smith.

1:09:39Thank you.

1:09:40Um, Director Williams, I, I still didn't get your answer.

1:09:44Is this something that, that is going to put a, a burden on us?

1:09:50Because I don't— I'll tell you, I don't like it.

1:09:53I don't understand the connection.

1:09:55And I have people right now who are in my district, and you know, that want to get some LED lights and everything else.

1:10:03And to take that out of our reserve, this is not an appropriate fund.

1:10:09There are other contingency funds that are in the facilities department.

1:10:14It's $138 million.

1:10:16If you want to take $5 million from somewhere, take it from there.

1:10:19But this only has $12 million.

1:10:22And as you know, our deferred maintenance and transportation is up there towards like $660 million.

1:10:29Yes.

1:10:29And we're going to use this for, uh, social services?

1:10:31No, no, this is not, uh, appropriate in my opinion.

1:10:35So I want to know from you, is this going to put a burden?

1:10:38Is this something that you're supporting?

1:10:40Because I heard Councilor, um, Pirtle-Guiney say that she's been working with folks to get this together, and I want to know who she been working with.

1:10:51I mean, are you supporting this?

1:10:53Uh, thank you for your question, Councilor Smith.

1:10:56We're supportive of ensuring that we can provide the services to the city that we need to be able to provide and to do so in ways that may require us a little bit of extra effort, but that create the opportunity for us to use some of the available funding that we do have to fill that gap.

1:11:13So you are supportive of this?

1:11:15It's an opportunity for us to demonstrate partnership and lean into solving a problem in the moment, recognizing we'll have to work really hard with Uh, everyone around this, uh, dais.

1:11:29I just want to caution you.

1:11:30I just want to caution you right now.

1:11:32Thank you.

1:11:32Hold on just a second.

1:11:33I want to caution you right now.

1:11:35I am the vice chair of the Public Works Committee, and there are so many different needs that we have right now, um, as it relates to this.

1:11:43And I, I am— I don't often do this, but I disagree with you.

1:11:46Thank you.

1:11:47I disagree with you wholeheartedly.

1:11:49And this attempt to defund PMO in this way is wrong.

1:11:55And the makers of this should understand there are other sources of money that you can use.

1:11:59I thought these were restricted funds.

1:12:02I thought they were restricted.

1:12:03And this does not make sense to me.

1:12:07Thank you.

1:12:08Go ahead.

1:12:10To answer the question directly, it does have an impact on the street lighting budget and our ability to maintain and replace that long term.

1:12:21This thing does run in cycles for us.

1:12:25There is not a mechanism per se to replenish this fund.

1:12:31So if when we look at replenishing this fund, it is going to have to look at taking from other areas of the city to make sure that we have the adequate funds to replace street lighting for the organization.

1:12:45I know we made a conscious decision, uh, when we did the mayor's proposed budget to do the $7 million, and that was really taking a huge chunk out of it as well to preserve some services that we had in this city.

1:13:01But we knew we would have to replenish that some way, shape, form, or fashion.

1:13:06This is just digging that hole a little bit deeper for us.

1:13:11Councilor Smith, this is— if I may add a point of clarification, this is Priya Dhanapal, DCA for Public Works.

1:13:17Um, the funds are not restricted.

1:13:19I just wanted to make sure that we clarify.

1:13:20It is a transfer of general fund reserves, um, from the streetlight replacement reserves.

1:13:25This is a general fund, um, bucket, not a restricted fund.

1:13:30Just want to make sure, make sure that's clear.

1:13:31And thank you for clarifying that.

1:13:34Um, DCA Dhanapal, that's, that's good to know.

1:13:38But the, the, the bigger issue is taking the money from a, uh, from a fund that is very specific to infrastructure.

1:13:48And I have often said, we know what our book of business is.

1:13:52We're going to have to have a bigger conversation about how to fund some of these other things that are non-infrastructure.

1:13:59But this is a bad idea.

1:14:02Bad idea.

1:14:03Thank you.

1:14:04Thank you.

1:14:05Thank you.

1:14:05Councilor Smith.

1:14:08Sorry.

1:14:08Oh, I was tracking my own schedule.

1:14:09Councilor Zimmerman.

1:14:11Thank you.

1:14:13In reading this amendment, it returns, if I'm reading it correctly, $4 million and some change to the Bureau of Environmental Services.

1:14:24Is BES here?

1:14:25I'd like to know what they're going to do with that money.

1:14:29I would like to call Director Liu to the table to talk about how those resources will be used for BES.

1:14:34Because in the same document, then it has that exact same figure looking like it's an inter-transfer either to or from Portland Clean Energy Fund.

1:14:46Thank you for the question.

1:14:46My name's Ting Lu, Public Utilities Director.

1:14:50So for this transfer, we are looking to holistically how we can look into the opportunities for the outer years to fill the gap for this.

1:15:00$4.1 Million because it's a 5-year program that we are looking to, we have some time to look into the future on how to holistically addressing whether it's watershed or whether it's, there are some additional funds support the PBOT work, other work that we'll be able to connect and working through that.

1:15:25Okay.

1:15:26So the way you're answering that though, Director, it kind of sounds like you're losing money.

1:15:31Are you losing money in this?

1:15:33Are you losing the $4 million?

1:15:36It's the PSF funding to the Bureau.

1:15:38That's $4.1, but we are for the— with the 5-year program.

1:15:44Because I think in previous years, colleagues, BES was funded by PSF because they are responsible for cleaning the bioswales.

1:15:53Is that an accurate statement?

1:15:55Correct.

1:15:55'Cause cleaning the bioswales is a BES responsibility, and PSEF made the direct connection that a dirty bioswell is having an impact.

1:16:03That was why BES was funded to do that work, I think.

1:16:07Yeah, with the climate impact and improvement.

1:16:10But it's meeting the stormwater permit requirement.

1:16:13Stormwater side of it.

1:16:14Yeah, right.

1:16:15Previously, that was funded by the rates.

1:16:18By what?

1:16:18By the sewer and stormwater rates.

1:16:21Right.

1:16:22So then PIMO was asked essentially by BES to continue that work.

1:16:28And so we didn't have an issue when BES cleaned the bioswales, but because we changed the t-shirt of the employee who was cleaning the BES bioswales, now we have this issue about PCF funds being used.

1:16:41I just want to kind of highlight the silliness of this amendment.

1:16:46It is, I think, a fair debate on whether or not PCF should clean sidewalks, but there was no issue when BES was cleaning the bioswales, which is what PMO was getting funded to do here.

1:16:58Now, does this $5.4 million that's going to go to PMO have to be used— now, PMO has a street tree lighting program.

1:17:13Does it have to be used just for that because of where it's coming from, or is this still going to go to supplant what should be coming out of BES, which is cleaning their, their, um, the bioswales and the runoff?

1:17:32Mayor, you weighed in on my $1 million amendment.

1:17:35By all means, jump in if you have a strong opinion, because your director here is having to do a dance with whether or not she agrees with this.

1:17:42And I don't think that the administration agrees with this amendment.

1:17:47I can— Mayor, if you would like me to answer that.

1:17:49Pardon me, would you like me to take that on?

1:17:52Well, I'd just like to— something that's been missed, and Councilor Murillo is right, we did use the reserve, but it's a reserve that's going to be utilized in 10 years.

1:18:01And so we're really trying to address the crisis response right now, the 5-year stabilization program.

1:18:06This This just takes money from that, but it's going to hurt now.

1:18:09It's double jeopardy.

1:18:10We're spending today money that we're going to need tomorrow.

1:18:13So it's just one more cautionary tale of we're in crisis response.

1:18:17We're just trying to stabilize the city right now without creating double jeopardy in the next fiscal year.

1:18:23So I, I find that BES is still going to have to clean the bioswale areas, part of the stormwater runoff program, and PSEF is funding them to do part of that, which we can debate if that's an appropriate supplant of utilities.

1:18:49So whom are you going to hire to do that work?

1:18:54On the bioswales?

1:18:57I mean, for, for the PSEF funding, that's That's a holistic program.

1:19:02There's watershed monitoring, there's bioswales and others.

1:19:06Right now we use contractors for the bioswale along with the internal team members as well when there is additional capacity needed.

1:19:17Okay, thank you, Director.

1:19:19For the record, PMO also uses contractors for that work, so I think you've created an amendment to make some folks feel good about saying PCF doesn't clean sidewalks, but it's very clear PCF has been funding a program.

1:19:32They just asked PMO to take it on so it could be a little bit more rounded out in some really targeted areas.

1:19:37So I think that's unfortunate.

1:19:40I'm still waiting to hear what it is PMO will be able to do with the $5.4 million.

1:19:44I haven't gotten that answer yet though.

1:19:48Councilor, uh, if I may, the PMO recommendation, uh, that came to our bureaus was, uh, specific to 2 different funding sources or 2 different programs.

1:19:58For PBOT, it was the lighting program.

1:20:02For BES, I'm not sure of which—.

1:20:04Bioswale.

1:20:05The bioswale program.

1:20:06Okay.

1:20:06So there were differing amounts.

1:20:08For PBOT, it was $1.3, $1.7 million.

1:20:13For BES, it was the remainder.

1:20:14Um, and, uh, what this, uh, proposal is recommending is that instead of BES reducing any of its work.

1:20:24It continued to do its work with the PSF funding as intended.

1:20:30What the proposed is suggesting is that the lighting fund would then be used to be shared with PMO to do whether it's the lighting or other programs.

1:20:44I'm not entirely sure of the definition of the work program, but that's— The work program.

1:20:49That's what's intended so that our baseline work, because there is a lighting item that's in the PSF allocation to PBOT that will remain whole by us going to our reserve to ensure that we don't commingle.

1:21:09I would also like to add for the BES portion of it, there will, you know, there's going to be no gap or loss.

1:21:17At the moment, what we're thinking, we'll be working together with PCF to move $4 million from the future year to fund the current year so the work continues, and then we can figure out what to do with the final, like, uh, final year funding.

1:21:31So I, I think that is a workable solution that we work together with BES and CBO to figure out that solution for BES.

1:21:38Okay.

1:21:41I think that our bioswales have come a long way, right?

1:21:44A few years ago, they were just cesspools of awfulness, and they are really looking good.

1:21:50But that is a big effort.

1:21:52That is contractors, that's Central City Concern, that's Clean Start, that is contractor after contractor after contractor, city worker after city worker after city worker.

1:22:00And so this idea of being uncomfortable with the service that some councilors are exuding here because of the office who's cutting the check is unfortunate because frankly the improvement over the last couple of years is stark.

1:22:17The street tree lighting program across all of the business districts and neighborhoods is looking great.

1:22:25And so this feels like an interruption for the sake of feel-goodness, and I hope that it fails.

1:22:31Thank you.

1:22:33Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

1:22:34Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:22:37Thank you, Council President.

1:22:39I want to be really clear, in a budget there are trade-offs, and if the mayor brings forward a proposal that we disagree with, we either need to find other cuts to replace it or other funds to replace it.

1:22:55Like many of you, I don't love taking from this funding source.

1:23:00But I do think that the programs that are being funded in PMO are important, and I do think that the programs that PCF has historically funded or has of late funded under this CIP in these bureaus are important.

1:23:16We were sent a budget that pit those 2 things against each other.

1:23:20Do you want to continue the work that PCF was directed to fund in these bureaus?

1:23:26Do you want to continue the work that PMO has been doing that we couldn't find other funding for in a hard budget, so we took some of that PCF funding because it kind of fits within this strategic program, even if there's disagreement about whether some of it fits within the core mission of PCF?

1:23:44I wasn't willing to accept that trade-off.

1:23:50I think it is important that PMO continue to do the street cleaning work and the street tree lights and all of the other work that PMO does.

1:23:58I think it is absolutely critical that PSF dollars within PBOT and BES that have been used for a number of different programs, including cleaning bioswales, continue to be available for that work within those bureaus.

1:24:13The amendment before you does not change the program work on the ground.

1:24:18In fact, the amendment before you allows us to retain that program work within all 3 bureaus that are in play here.

1:24:26But because those were pit against each other in a move of PCF dollars that received significant pushback about whether or not it met the intent of PCF, I set about trying to figure out how we could preserve all of the program work, which we've heard a lot of people both for and against this amendment talk about the import of, and this was the only way we could find to legally do that.

1:24:57As I said in my intro, it is not without risk, and we've heard that, and I, I would not ever ask the Bureau to say that they are excited and supportive of this what I heard from the bureau is that they could make this work.

1:25:11So I'm not looking for you to say you love this.

1:25:14I know you were pushed a little bit on that, but it is legal and it could work.

1:25:21So I think the question before us is: Do we want to maintain the programming within all three bureaus that are in play enough that we are willing to take this?

1:25:31Risk, or is this risk not worth it?

1:25:35In which case, what are we willing to cut, and where are we willing to have PCF fund, and how much are we willing to push that outer edge on PCF?

1:25:45Um, I assume there will be disagreements to the answer to that question, but I want us to focus on that question because I believe that that is what we have before us right now.

1:25:54Thank you.

1:25:54Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:25:56Councilor Kanal.

1:25:57Request to limit debate to those in the queue, please.

1:25:59Okay, I'm limiting debate to those in the queue.

1:26:02Councilor, any further?

1:26:04Okay, Councilor Avalos, last word.

1:26:07Thank you.

1:26:07I really appreciate the conversation.

1:26:09I agree this is really difficult, but like Councilor Pirtle-Guiney said, there are trade-offs, and it was more unacceptable that we, uh, continue to diminish the, uh, work and integrity of PCF.

1:26:21Um, yes, you know, agree that the bureau's they don't love it, but they said that they can make it work.

1:26:27This seemed like the best place to take it.

1:26:30We had heard from some other funds, um, uh, in the debate just now, and those don't seem to be viable either based on what we've been hearing over the last couple of days.

1:26:39So I understand where people are coming from.

1:26:42This is a last-ditch effort, as is many of the amendments we're bringing forward today.

1:26:46Um, I respect people's positions, and of course we'll still ask thank you, colleagues.

1:26:55Councilor Dunphy, may I share something?

1:26:57And, uh, uh, perhaps, uh, Deputy City Administrator Dhanapal will kick me under the table, or, um, the city administrator may shoot me an eye as quickly as possible.

1:27:05I, I must share that, um, the opportunity that we have, uh, is significant in this moment.

1:27:14Um, from a personal experience, I am aware of the impacts, both personal and professional and organizational, to using funds in a way that is not according to the prescription.

1:27:29This amendment allows us to legally make the shift that needs to happen to ensure that we are meeting the goals of the PSF agreements that we have in place and meeting those expectations.

1:27:44And creates the opportunity for the bureaus to be creative as they move forward in filling the gap.

1:27:51The administration has expressed that.

1:27:54I will share, though, that as a person who went through using funds that we thought was okay to use one way, but it ended up not being okay, and personally and professionally suffering from that, it was important that we identified a legal way to move this process forward.

1:28:14And that is what has been proposed.

1:28:16Thank you.

1:28:16Opposed.

1:28:16I am not suggesting that you take what I shared as anything to influence your vote, but I wanted to let you know that that is the conscience that I come to this conversation with.

1:28:28Thank you, Director Williams.

1:28:30Keelan, can we please call a roll on— I think we called it Pirtle-Guiney-Avalos 1.

1:28:36Moved by Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Avalos.

1:28:39Kanal?

1:28:39Aye.

1:28:40Pirtle-Guiney?

1:28:41Aye.

1:28:42Aye.

1:28:46Aye.

1:28:48Regretfully, no.

1:28:51No.

1:28:52Councilor Smith?

1:28:59No.

1:29:00Councilor Zimmerman?

1:29:06Councilor Zimmerman marks no.

1:29:09The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.

1:29:13Okay, colleagues, it is 10:55.

1:29:16I'm going to give us a 15-minute break.

1:29:18Uh, programming note for you all, uh, I am going to divert from the previous, uh, agenda because I think there is going to be some consensus on a lot of the budget notes.

1:29:26When we get back, I'm going to move to the budget notes that are listed in the order that they are still listed, and then with what remaining time we have, we will get We'll get through the immigrant and international-focused amendments and the amendments focused on sourcing from operations.

1:29:41So please, colleagues, be back here at 11:10.

1:29:4415-Minute break.

1:29:49Thank you.

1:46:28Welcome back, folks.

1:46:29We are now going to turn to a section of budget notes.

1:46:34I think we can get through a number of these.

1:46:36Just a programming note for my colleagues, we are aiming to be done debate on amendments and notes by 12:30 because we have some additional work we have to do on a whole bunch, a series of votes and things like that.

1:46:48So we are going to spend the next hour and 15 minutes barreling through and try to get as much done as we can.

1:46:53Councilor Green to Green 7.

1:46:56Thank you, Council President.

1:46:58I hope that this is fairly straightforward and quick.

1:47:00Um, in May we adopted the budget note that was associated with Green 1, but we did not adopt Green 1.

1:47:08And so that left in place a budget note that referenced an amendment that did not pass.

1:47:13And so the purpose of this amendment here today is just to clean up the language in this budget note to take out references to the underlying amendment that clearly is not in this budget.

1:47:24I also just want to say for verbal clarification, because there was a scrivener's error in this, and I think I've talked to Budget Director Ruth Levine and feel like the intent can be managed on the back end before we get to next week, is my intent was to also exclude BES.

1:47:43I name a number of bureaus that are I think there's a couple of areas that should be excluded from this consideration.

1:47:46City Administrator Lee, with the kind of identifying the 20% management cuts, BES should definitely be part of the list of exclusions along with PWB.

1:47:56And also my intent is to exclude the Public Safety Service Area just as a whole.

1:48:00And I think what we did is we missed some tighter language that said, you know, take fire, take BOEC, take police out of consideration.

1:48:08But then there was this question of whether the Public Safety Service area itself was identified as a target place for these cuts.

1:48:14That was not my intention either.

1:48:15So that's what this amendment does here.

1:48:18There is a scribbler error that we need to true up before we get to next week, which I don't have here today, but I'm just verbally clarifying the legislative intent.

1:48:29I'm moving this.

1:48:30Hope for a second.

1:48:32Councilor—.

1:48:33Thank you.

1:48:33Councilor Green moves Green 7.

1:48:35Councilor Kanal.

1:48:36Second to the amendment, colleagues, for the budget note.

1:48:39Councilor Zimmerman.

1:48:42I put my hand—.

1:48:43Didn't understand why we switched from some of the remaining amendments to notes all of a sudden, or should I just start moving amendments?

1:48:50Um, I am— I had said before we left that I was going to try and get through as much of the common, it seems like easier things to try and get through the budgets, and then we can spend the rest of the day, uh, on the amendments.

1:49:00So I was trying to get these done before.

1:49:04That's why I'm— and Green 7 has been moved and seconded.

1:49:19Councilor, any more?

1:49:21Okay, thank you.

1:49:21Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:49:23Thank you, Council President.

1:49:24Councilor Green, what bureaus will this There's a list of exclusions.

1:49:31You are adding more exclusions.

1:49:32Where are you hoping to reduce managers?

1:49:36I'm hoping that the city administrator will look at the enterprise as a whole, with the exception of these bureaus and also BES and also the Public Safety Service Area, do an analysis across the entire city for the areas that are not on this right now, and then come back to council and say, and then come back in the fall and say, here's the areas we could cut.

1:49:58So that's what we did.

1:50:01And just to be very clear, if we don't pass this amendment, then we will carry forward a worse version of this amendment, which has already been approved by this body.

1:50:10I understand that.

1:50:11I voted against it.

1:50:13It seems to me that we are excluding all of public safety all of public works except for parks.

1:50:23Yeah, it's not rate-funded, and I think my, my, my reasoning there is that—.

1:50:28Why are we not looking at rate-funded?

1:50:30That would have a direct impact on the rate increases that Portlanders are subjected to in out-years.

1:50:37You could feel free to amend my amendment.

1:50:42Councilor, I hear you that this makes a bad thing better.

1:50:45We might all have to vote for it because of that.

1:50:48I just, I don't understand why we're picking and choosing where we look here.

1:50:54If there's a problem, we should be looking comprehensively.

1:50:57If there's not a problem, we shouldn't be.

1:51:03I'm confused.

1:51:04Thank you.

1:51:04Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:51:11Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion.

1:51:15Council President, one thing I would like the council to take under consideration is just the timing of this as well.

1:51:22Uh, the timeframe to come back in the fall TAO with a recommendation of 20% cut will be a difficult thing to do.

1:51:31Uh, so I would like the council to take that under consideration, the timing of it.

1:51:38Thank you, City Administrator.

1:51:41Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote on Green 7?

1:51:47Moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.

1:51:50Kanal?

1:51:52Aye.

1:51:54Pirtle-Guiney?

1:51:55Aye.

1:51:56Ryan?

1:51:58Uh, aye.

1:52:01Koyama Lane?

1:52:02Aye.

1:52:02Morillo.

1:52:03Aye.

1:52:04Novick.

1:52:05No.

1:52:06Clark.

1:52:08No.

1:52:09Green.

1:52:10Aye.

1:52:11Zimmerman.

1:52:11No.

1:52:13Avalos.

1:52:13Aye.

1:52:14Smith.

1:52:15No.

1:52:16Dunphy.

1:52:18Um, recognizing Councilor Ryan quickly.

1:52:20Yeah, I've really been pondering what you had said, CA Lee.

1:52:23Um, no.

1:52:25Okay, and I vote aye.

1:52:28Okay, so changing Councilor Ryan's vote from aye to nay, and Council President has voted aye, the amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.

1:52:40Thank you, colleagues.

1:52:41Councilor Koyama Lane to Koyama Lane 12.

1:52:44Thank you, Council President.

1:52:47At the request of your office, I'm presenting my 3 budget notes as one package.

1:52:51Great, thank you.

1:52:52Of governance-related actions.

1:52:54These notes reflect the same 3 ideas we discussed last Wednesday: contracting, utility rate setting, and budget process after-action reports.

1:53:04TKL 10 asks the CBO and City Administrator to provide us more information about external contractors with the hope that we have more information and maybe can figure out ways that we can possibly have savings or bring work in-house or not, but at the very least have that information.

1:53:24Koyama Lane 11 asks for regular reporting of the utility rate study that is funded in this year's budget and relates to every budget.

1:53:33And TKL 12 asks for a budget after-action report with recommendations that can support us as we improve our budget process year after year.

1:53:42I'd like to move Koyama Lane 10, 11, and 12.

1:53:45Second.

1:53:46Is that how you want me to do that?

1:53:47Sure.

1:53:48Councilor Koyama Lane is going to move Koyama Lane 10, 11, 12 as a package.

1:53:52Is there a second?

1:53:54Second.

1:53:54Councilor Smith seconds.

1:53:56Colleagues, to the amendment package.

1:53:57Councilor Zimmerman.

1:53:59Will you intend us to vote on them all together?

1:54:04Um, we can do that however we want to do.

1:54:06I'm asking for your intent.

1:54:08My intent at this moment was to vote on them at once.

1:54:10I'm going to move to separate the question.

1:54:11Colleagues, I think you should vote no on 12 and 11 and vote yes on 10.

1:54:15That's all.

1:54:15Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

1:54:17Councilor Knoll.

1:54:19Thanks.

1:54:19Uh, I just have a question just to establish legislative intent on 12.

1:54:23Um, and, uh, it's, it's around the sentence, this report will support council-led budget process reviews.

1:54:29I just want to clarify the intent that should this pass, it doesn't limit council from having any discussions, uh, while the, the administrative work is going on.

1:54:38Thank you for that question, Councilor.

1:54:39The intention is that this happens, um, that this is concurrent with work that we do on the council side.

1:54:46Great, thank you so much.

1:54:47Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:54:49Councilor Avalos?

1:54:54Um, I think I was just confused because I thought 11 we weren't going to hear.

1:55:02So are we hearing— we are hearing 11?

1:55:0510, 11, And 12 have all been moved, but they've been separated, so we will be voting on each of them separately.

1:55:11What I'm asking is, I thought there were notes that we had to retract.

1:55:14We're not—.

1:55:16Yeah, just—.

1:55:18Yes, there were some questions about if this makes sense as a budget note or if it should be a resolution.

1:55:24Chair Clark and I have also talked about that and have talked to the city attorney.

1:55:29It could be a resolution, but also through some conversation, I'm allowed to keep it as a budget note because setting utility rates is part of our budget process, and we're hearing more and more constituents express concerns about affordability.

1:55:43Um, I've worked with DCA Dhanapal and Director Liu around this and understand that this water utility rate study is already, you know, been budgeted.

1:55:53It's going to start in the next fiscal year, and this is really to open that door and daylight the expectation that we're expecting regular reporting on the status of the budgeted utility rate study and increase transparency for all of us and make sure that when the public— and for the public too, when it comes to setting our water utility rates.

1:56:15Okay, thanks for the clarity.

1:56:17Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:56:18Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:56:20Thank you, Council President.

1:56:21I had questions about the impact on workload and what wouldn't happen instead on both 11 and 12.

1:56:27I think that Councilor Koyama Lane just answered that question on 11.

1:56:31So unless there's disagreement from the folks at the service area, I'm happy to be content with the fact that this is happening and won't add extra workload.

1:56:38I see a thumbs up from our DCA.

1:56:41On Koyama Lane 12, I know that there will be an after-action report, but this has a lot of specificity, and I'm hoping I can get some information on whether this is an acknowledgment of what will happen yeah, I'm happy to hear from Ruth and/or Jonas.

1:57:08My office worked mostly with Ruth, I believe, on this— Director Levine— and a lot of this is happening already, but also is kind of setting the stage to make sure that we're having collaborative efforts on both ends, administrative side and legislative side.

1:57:29Yeah, do either of you wanna speak to that and the workload question?

1:57:33Director and CFO, I know that there will be after-action report.

1:57:36Much of what's in here I like, but I also know that we have asked you to reform the budget process, and I'm nervous about anything that gets in the way of that process.

1:57:46Process reform to do reporting.

1:57:48And so I'm hoping you can help me understand how this fits within the broader workload.

1:57:53Yeah, thank you, Councilor, for the question.

1:57:55For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer.

1:57:57And I'll give a couple of thoughts and then Ruth can jump in as well.

1:58:01I think there's a couple of comments I would make.

1:58:04Yes, we are already planning to do an after-action.

1:58:07We've communicated that to this body multiple times throughout this budget process.

1:58:11And so this, I think the intent of the budget note is consistent with that.