The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-06-11

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (37,488 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Good morning everybody. I am calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland city council. Keelan. Can we do we take the roll? Yeah. Please take the roll.

Good morning Kanal.

Good morning.

Present pirtle-guiney.

Brian here.

Koyama Lane. Here. Aye, Morillo. Here. Novick.

Here. Here. Here.

Zimmerman. Avalos.

Present.

Smith.

Here.

Dunfee here. And can we please read the rules of decorum?

Good morning.

Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance and the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found at the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted. When your time is over, the presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, we have far more to do today than we will ever possibly get through. There are 17 remaining amendments or budget notes that we did not get to yesterday. And when we left off, we were in the middle of debate on Kanal Koyama Lane ten. Well, maybe not the middle. Towards the end of the debate, I'm going to have us move back into that. That item has been moved and seconded, and we are in discussion of Kanal Koyama Lane ten councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Okay.

Thank you, council president. Good morning. Yesterday, 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, I think was pirtle-guiney Novick 1234 Green Morillo one. Clerk two I believe. So I because there may be a possibility of a compromise being worked out yesterday that had something to do with this amendment. Two 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 two big amendments, and if there was anything that came out of it. And I don't know who to ask, because I don't know who was involved in the conversation.

Here. Councilor are we in the middle of?

It's relevant to this amendment, because I want to understand if there's other things that may fund the rescues, and I think it might be helpful for everybody to know that. So I'm just curious because yesterday we did this councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: I don't believe that there is anything that is going to be funding the rescues.

Okay. Of the pre-filed amendments. Council president, is there anything else that funds the rescues? No.

There is nothing else pre filed that we have not voted on besides Kanal Koyama Lane ten that is currently before us that funds the rescue units.

Okay, this is the last chance to fund the rescues then. And I want to note that we have looked at places to fund the rescues all over the place. I believe there was conversation in councilor Greene's amendment from the may, the may budget that would have funded the rescues. There have been amendments from me that would have funded the rescues in may. Their amendments now from councilor, Koyama Lane and I that will be in front of you. There have been, I think, six different funding sources proposed for it. I 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, but we've exhausted every other funding source, and we're now left with two. And they're both in this amendment. One is whether or not to allow the expansion of urban alchemy's temporary alternative shelter site in north Portland. The other is whether or not to take a just shy of of a 10%, I think about 8% reduction in the impact reduction programs. Budget allocation for this year. And to specifically earmark that in the the context of only reducing campsite removal, not reducing trash and solid waste removal as well. I will note that there are colleagues up here who have claimed over and over and over again to support public safety. This is the time that you show it. Public safety to me does include the fire department. It does. Always has, always will. And I think it's time to to put up or shut up. Now, I do understand that some of you may have different views of the relative things. And so we've created an opportunity in how it's written that you can divide it if you'd like to fund one one rescue through a certain way or two rescues through another way. You have those options. And I want to make sure that everybody knows they're available because at this point, I think it's funding source five and funding source six. So I encourage you to please find one that you're okay with, because otherwise we're going to be in a situation where we don't have that service going forward. And when minutes matter, when seconds matter, additional benefits to response time matters. And having three units in, I will note districts one and districts three. Available for people who are in medical distress will be the difference between life and death for some of those folks. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. Councilor Kanal. If you vote down the other options, then you can say this is our last chance. We had a chance to restore one rescue simply by cutting council office budgets. Councilor pirtle-guiney and I had a proposal to restore rescues with a package that we don't understand why people did not support, because we thought that it was included things that everybody liked. It just didn't include things that everything that everybody liked. And also 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. And 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. So 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.

Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: What I heard councilor Kanal say is that the reason that people are voting no for things is because of the source. So that's exactly the point. So I don't understand your point. What? We just. Please don't interrupt me. I'm speaking. Thank you. What you are saying is that people didn't want to vote for taking council office budgets. Let me recall, it's not just peacock because I know everything's about peacock and not. It's not just peacock that doesn't want to take council office budgets. So that's clearly not a source that people find viable. This is a different source. So we're discussing that. We all clearly care about funding the fire rescues, but we disagree on the source. This 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. That's kind of the whole point as it relates to ems training. My view on that is that the police have a lot of money. They have a lot of other options to be able to fund that. And so when other things are getting cut that they don't have any other options. That's what I'm prioritizing. So I'm not going to prioritize ems training when I know that there are ways that the police can fund, that they've got lots of various funds that they can pull from if needed. But the people that don't have the funds are the fire and the parks and all these other programs. And so that's what we're trying to prioritize. I think that the police have been able to overall keep their budget pretty held harmless. We are losing. We're losing all of the components that make up public safety, that support police. And that's what I want to support. So I plan to support this. I'm going to reject that argument. And I think the council budgets thing that needs to end here, because it's very clearly does not have support and continuing to bring it up feels futile. Thanks.

May I direct respond?

Mr. President.

I did not ask a question. So no, you cannot respond.

Olivia Clark: Councilor I will come back to you. I'm going to go to vice president Clark first.

Thank you, council president. I 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. It was not robbing against future funds. It was using money that won't be utilized, that will go into the general fund eventually. So I just want to remind people, I think councilor Avalos is right, that we're debating the source of funds, and it's very important to me that we don't take any more money from the sources that we've identified in this this amendment. So just remind people. I think you're absolutely right, councilor Avalos. It's about source. It's not about the end product. You had two opportunities to vote for my amendment on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Thank you, mr. President. Councilor Avalos. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney and I very deliberately crafted proposal that used a source that appeared to be acceptable to peacocks, but the PCEF interest. And you rejected our proposal, which used your source so that you cannot use the argument that you've only been presented with sources that you don't like.

Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Kanal.

Steve Novick: So I think we've we've beaten to death the the merits of cutting council offices. I think the particular example of using it for for rescues that we've already also indicated is the inefficiencies associated with it, where you cut $1.2 million to restore one $550,000 rescue. It's not a good use of money, in my opinion, but 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 Morillo yesterday with that particular funding source. Setting that one aside, though, there's two two different ideas that have been brought up here. One is, and actually they're both defunding democracy. One 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. The other is undermining a voter approved ballot measure. That, and specifically defunding police accountability, defund police, which I the intent. You don't have to even say anything more than that. You can just see what it does. I put up a couple ideas. They didn't work. They weren't acceptable. That's fine. I think we owe it to portlanders to find a third idea, then a fourth idea, a fifth idea, a sixth idea. That's why I'm coming back with another one. Don't want to defund bybee lakes and grand recovery, okay? Don't want to defund council security, okay? Don't want to defund you. Name it. I'll come up with another idea. And at some point, the question becomes, is it actually about the source or is it actually about saying no to everything? And the only way, everything that's not a defunding of democracy, I apologize. I recognize that there's some frustration about yesterday with the pcf interest conversation, and I think that's fair for all five of the folks to have that frustration. I really do, because I do think that that's good. People can disagree on, on, on those two amendments, but that's not what's in front of us right now. And so I will ask, you'll have three opportunities here to say, is it more important to you to maintain 100% instead of 90? I want to say 92% of the impact reduction programs budget? Or is it more important to have a rescue? Is it more important to have the 90 unit temporary alternative shelter site expanded 212 units instead of 175? That's the difference going from 90 to 175. If this amendment passes going from 90 to 212 if it doesn't pass, or is it more important to retain a rescue? Those are the choices before you. And by the way, the urp thing actually funds two of the rescues.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. I just want to kind of bring it back to the actual amendment and councilor Kanal kind of did that in his last statement. So, you know, impact reduction was 15. It's going to be about 7.1. This would be another hit at it. I 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. And so we may not like the impact reduction that cleanups, part of the homeless camp cleanups is part of our reality, but it is part of our reality. It's part of a basic core service of city. And we all wish it wasn't. But it is. That takes investment. In 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, and the city is looking to increase some of our shelters where we can. I think that that goes okay. I appreciate I actually don't disagree with councilor Kanal in like, take a shot, keep trying. I do. There's a, there'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. But I think it's shadowing, frankly, this conversation in a way that's not healthy and really was a problem with our break yesterday. We should have driven through because I think we were on to a pretty good process, and conversation and debating of ideas should be what is sacred around this dais. I, I appreciate the councilor Kanal and I are going to agree on it, but the gamesmanship is not happening in Kanal Koyama Lane ten. I don't see it. I'm fine with it. Let's debate. Let's have disagreements. So 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. I think impact reduction is an unfortunate but necessary core city service. I don't vote to to pull that down. I've said time and again that public safety and livability were front of mind as we went into this budget, and that means that I am approaching it from two parallel tracks. And you try to weigh as you go through. That 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, and I'm going to keep my eye toward that. So thank you, councilor Kanal, for bringing it back to this amendment. And 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. Yesterday was very clear what amendments were coming and which they were going to come, and how that was going to be built. And for all of you who put those forward, I thank you for that, because I understood how one vote related to the next. This half blindness is not a helpful way for this debate or for the rest of the day.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Colleagues, I will note that we have been on this one for 20 minutes already, and we have 20 more items to get through. So, councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, council president. I'll keep my comments directly on this amendment. I appreciate the intent here, but I cannot support a cut to impact reduction program. Impact 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. You 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. So I'm not willing to to take that risk. I vote no on this.

Thank you, councilor Ryan, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, to the amendment. Thank you. Councilor Kanal you've laid out a path where if folks are not comfortable cutting further into irp, I get it. You've made your case on the merits. I understand that this is a debatable motion, and I think that I would make the appeal that, yes, it does involve some reductions 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. They're unresolved questions with urban alchemy, and it's bad enough to have a site with 100 pods going to 200 some odd pods is I don't think you're going to get much uptake there. And so, so I think this is an opportunity where the cost, the the opportunity cost, so to speak, is quite low because you can fund a rescue truck, I think. Is it one rescue truck if you divide it? And that's in my view, worth more to the community in terms of public safety than that marginal capacity and shelter capacity, because I don't know that it's going to serve the population anyway. And so I would move to divide the question to to split Kanal Koyama Lane ten into ten a and ten b.

Okay. Councilor Green has moved to divide the question, can we do that at this point or do we have to? We've called after we're moving to a vote.

Yeah, yeah, you can do it now.

Okay. Great. Counselor has divided the question and that's councilor Kanal and Koyama Lane. How do you want that? You I mean, councilor Green proposed a division, but.

I'd like to. I'd like to ask that we vote on it a, b, c but I'd also ask if we can still discuss them together, just for ease of time.

Absolutely. Okay. Councilor Green are still in the queue for that. Okay. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you, council president, I 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. I 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. I 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. I would love to not have north Portland get so big. I 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. So my choice is a larger north Portland or fewer shelter beds. And 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. We'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. So I, I don't like the way this is being framed as we talk about reducing the number of shelters, shelter beds there. And 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. Thank you.

I don't know, we'll try.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue, keelan, can we please move to a roll call? Vote on Kanal Koyama Lane ten a.

Moved by Kanal. Seconded by Koyama Lane. Sorry.

Was there a vote on the that we were going to separate it?

Yeah. The the the motion was to. So we're going to divide it into three sections a, b and c.

We don't.

Know that right now. And we're going to vote on a.

No, we don't vote on a division. A division just happens.

Division just happens. Yeah. Oh yeah. So we are now going to move to just vote on the a section of this amendment.

Kanal just for clarity, this is the one from the north Portland task site.

Okay.

Thank you. Part a I.

Pirtle-guiney no. Ryan, no. Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick no.

Clark no.

Green. I Zimmerman no. Avalos. I Smith no.

Dunphy I.

The amendment part ten a fails with a vote of six eyes and six nays.

Please call the roll on ten b and councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: This is $550,000 from the impact reduction program. Yeah.

Moved by Kanal. Seconded by Koyama Lane. Yes.

Kanal I.

Pirtle-guiney no.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick no.

Clark no.

Green I.

Zimmerman no.

Avalos I. Smith no.

Dunphy I.

The amendment ten b part ten b fails with a vote of six eyes and six nays.

Thank you. Can we please call part c?

This is the other $550,000 from the impact reduction program for the third rescue.

I move by Kanal. Seconded by Koyama Lane Kanal. A pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan, no. Koyama Lane Morillo.

Rescues are really needed.

I Novick no. Clark. No.

Green I.

Zimmerman no.

Avalos I.

Smith.

No.

Dunphy. I the amendment part ten c fails with a vote of six eyes and six days.

Okay, colleagues, moving down to our next item. We're moving to Zimmerman. Seven councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I thought that was rapid. Wow. Okay.

It's going to turn the pages, colleagues, so I can catch up with council president here and get to the right page. Zimmerman seven amends the budget to realign $1.4 million within Portland 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 grant for 1 million, that creates an excess of funds. The funding, the additional 400,000 would be part of the additional flex and severe weather bed capacity that the Portland solutions can use across the system. In my conversations with Multnomah county, I know that they have some concern about our ability to flex during the emergency shelter, weather events, 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. And in a world where opening shelters requires the other enhanced services that go along with the impacts that they have. And I have always said, the closer you are to residential, the more of the enhanced services you have to place around them. I don't see that accompanying going with the river district navigation center. And 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. I'd appreciate your consideration, everybody.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. And are you formally moving this? Okay. Councilor Zimmerman has moved. Zimmerman seven, is second. And councilor Vice president Clark has seconded colleagues to the amendment.

Councilor Kanal thank you. Just had a question on this, and it's given the comment we just had in the in the previous conversation about concern about the county falling down on the job with relation to its shelters, what is anticipated to happen to river district navigation center? Should this should this pass?

It will close.

Okay, so maybe offline at a later time. I'd love to ask how that's not the same concern you raised earlier, but that's helpful information because.

So fair point. But in order to run navigation, the navigation center, the city is going to close its own shelter in order to do it. If it was just us extending to pick up their capacity, I think that's an argument, but that's actually not what's happening. The city is saying close to go pick up what the county has already closed. It makes no sense.

Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Yeah, thank you, councilor Zimmerman, your points about locating near residents. I'm well aware of that challenge. And yes, it is much better when you're a bit removed. Boy, do I understand that. So my question to you is what? Where will this money go? And does sky need to come up and let us know?

It keeps the city team shelter that the county excuse me that the city is already funding at 1 million. It keeps that up afloat.

Because that was proposed to close. Yes. Where's that located?

Grand.

That's the one in industrial close in southeast? Yes. Grand. Okay. And that's your point about residential and where? It's okay. All right. Got it. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan, can we move forward with a roll call vote on Zimmerman? Seven oh, extending a courtesy to mayor wilson.

I just want to explain the logistics of the shelter system that we have, with the limited funding and the reduction of 30% of the shelter funding, we had to be as focused on the geography as we could. We are closing the northrop shelter in northwest Portland. In turn, the county is closing the river district navigation center, and we're going to then sponsor that shelter. So in other words, the county's closing a shelter. The city's closing a shelter. So we have two shelters closing in northwest Portland. We're going to simply open up the river district navigation center. So in northwest Portland it's going from 2 to 1. However, on southeast grand, we have two city operated shelters right next door to each other. Grand recovery and city team. They are right next to one another in the different blocks because of funding. We're going to close the city team shelter, but we'll still have a southeast grand shelter. It's just being judicious with our funding. If we close both the northrop shelter in northwest Portland and the county closes, we're losing two shelters. And if we take that funding and put it on two grand, we'll still have two shelters. They're putting a majority of our shelters on southeast grand. Instead of distributing the care throughout the city. While 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. But the capacity both will be reduced by about half. But we'll still have shelter for souls in northwest and in southeast.

Thank you, mr. Mayor. Vice president Clark.

Thank you, council president. I just like to ask council councilor Zimmerman a question about this. References the severe weather. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure. One of the benefits to the mayor's overnight program is that it has reduced the need during during severe weather events for us to turn on a bunch of shelter beds across the city. But 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. We're often asked to surge in certain locations. The additional 400 000 being able to to be used for that use is, is the intent here. The 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. And 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, I think that we should never anticipate that one year will be just as boring as the next. I've worked those extreme shelters in the ice, in the snow. So this is intended to help with that, that Portland solutions can use as necessary for surging.

Thank you. That's helpful.

Thank you, vice president Clark. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: A quick question. Do we have any northwest like old town shelters remaining if this closes?

On time.

We don't have time for staff. Point of order, council president.

Time to ask a question of staff.

No, no, a nod or shake. But we have 17 things left. So if there's anything we can do to very quickly. Please.

No.

Hi, sky. Wait. So she can't answer a question?

The answer was no.

The answer.

Was no.

Yeah.

What's going on here?

Point of order.

So since when we can't ask folks.

I'm just trying to we're welcome to ask more questions.

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

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Councilor Ryan, did you want to ask anything further? No. Okay. All right. Colleagues, let's come out. Fair enough.

Thank you.

Keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote?

Eric Zimmerman: This is a roll call vote on Zimmerman. Seven moved by Zimmerman, seconded by clerk Kanal.

Yes.

Pirtle-guiney absent. Ryan.

Awkward vote I've taken in a while. Yeah.

Koyama Lane.

Yes. Aye, Morillo I.

Novick no.

Clark.

Yes.

Green yes.

Zimmerman.

Yes.

Avalos. Absent. Smith.

Yes.

Dunphy.

Aye.

The amendment is approved with a vote of nine eyes, one a and two absent.

Congratulations.

Can you read the the that again.

The vote tally. Yes. Nine eyes one. Nay two absent.

Okay.

Thank you. Council councilor Koyama Lane to Koyama Lane nine.

Thank you, council president. Colleagues.

I'm introducing a technical amendment to change the funding source for the Montavilla park picnic shelter. The original amendment that we passed drew 755,000 from the parks levy contingency. As I explained last previous meeting, that project. This project exists in an odd quirk. It's neither a new project for the purposes of city of sdcs at this moment, nor is it a maintenance project for the purposes of the parks levy. So this amendment revises the funding source to the parks unrestricted general fund. The amendment also changes the amount earmarked for the project to half of the cost, 377,005 hundred. The remainder will need to be fundraised through community partnerships, including works with the parks foundation. They are ready to help funding from other jurisdictions or through revised project eligibility. When we revise sdc funding methodology next year, this is an invitation to the community to come together to make this happen. Director shimanski and director levine, first, thank you so much for your help with this. And they're both available to answer technical questions. I'd like to move Koyama Lane nine. Can I get a second?

Second councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane nine. Counselor, vice president, clerk seconds. Colleagues to the amendment. Counselor. Ryan. Legacy. Okay, vice president. Clerk.

Thank you, council president. I just want to applaud my colleague for her creativity and actually mirrors the 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. So I'm very pleased to see this and I really appreciate your effort.

Thank you. Vice president, clerk, counselor Zimmerman.

Very similar comments. It was a pleasure to work with you. Councilor Koyama Lane on this. I think that you found a good solution to a very strange in purgatory, kind of between multiple layers of bureaucracy. So it was it was fun to work with you and parks on this. Thank you for, for bringing me along.

Thank you, counselor Zimmerman. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. I 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. We've got we've got a multi hundred million dollar parks maintenance, deferred maintenance deficit. And I think that any expenditure of this amount needs to be part of a comprehensive look at what are what are our highest priorities. I think this is a great project, but I can't support it.

Thank you, councilor Novick. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue, keelan can we please move to a roll call vote on Koyama Lane nine.

Moved by Koyama Lane. Seconded by clerk Kanal. I pirtle-guiney absent.

We're voting on Koyama Lane nine. Montavilla.

Yeah.

We're voting on the.

Dang it. I had questions on this. I'm sorry. Very briefly, does this put the parks levy money back in the parks levy? Pass?

I sorry, Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I aye, Morillo. I Novick. No clerk. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and one nay.

Congratulations, colleagues. Councilor Kanal to Kanal eight eight.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, council president. So Kanal eight. I have not been great at predicting what's going to be controversial or not, but this restores one boec call taker. Of the three positions that are being reduced in the mayor's budget, there are two call there, two telecommunicators and one senior who are being reduced, and this would restore one of the reduced telecommunicators. It would do so by taking the money that was created through the passage of Dunphy four back in may. It 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. That's a that looks like $37,419. And then it takes of the $114,502 that was placed into general fund contingency created by that amendment in may. It takes $105,000, pairs it together, sends it to boec, restores one call taker. This should be a way to boost our response times from the people who actually respond. When you call 911.

Thanks and councilor Kanal, are you formally moving this?

Yes.

Of course I move Kanal eight.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal moves Kanal eight. Is there a second? Second counselor Green seconds colleagues to the amendment. Counselor Zimmerman legacy. Hand.

It was. But it's good timing. I would I wanted to make sure it seems fine. There were a lot of funds that you're referencing councilor in terms of what Dunphy for did I believe Dunphy four was the. No increase, no salary increases or something along those lines? Terrible idea. But now that the money is there, is there a boec representative who can say this money was going for nothing else now that it was allocated? I want to just get a sense of the trade off here.

Doesn't appear so.

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

They have to make their way to the room.

Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, I understand, but I'm assuming that because of Dunphy four 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.

Yeah. I think on the general fund side, that is what's happening on the boec side. They also have a small contingency that they use for their training pipeline to have to support limited term positions. So this would use a portion of that. And I don't know the split between what was returned through Dunphy four and what was preexisting. There was some already in the proposed before Dunphy four passed. Okay. But it would just be there supporting.

I'm willing to hold on an answer as a person comes. I'd like to understand the training piece. If this is getting in front of something like that, I would want to know. But I think as we wait, we can move on to someone else.

Okay.

I will come back to you, counselor Zimmerman. Thank you, counselor pirtle-guiney.

Thank you, council president councilor Kanal, can you remind us what cuts boec took? I'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 we have limited funds, and I want to make sure that this is actually the highest use of funds.

There's one.

Yeah. So there are two reductions I can I don't have the decision package list pulled up right now, but there are two reductions to call takers and one reduction to a supervisor. I'll just note that this $37,000 in the fund cannot be used outside of boec. And I have a question for ruth later, but it's your time. So.

Okay. And I think we have folks from boec up here. So I there were three reductions in the budget. This restores which one of those.

Stores, one of the telecommunicators, one of the.

One of the two call takers was reduced. And in terms of the amount of time somebody waits on the phone, because when we talk about response time, there's two pieces. There'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? In terms of the amount of time somebody is waiting for the call to get picked up, that varies. I understand. I'm asking you to talk in averages here. What should we expect the difference to be if we restore or don't restore this position?

Yeah, that's a really tough question to answer because of course called spikes, we never know what each day is going to bring. Having 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.

So you think if we have a reduction of one, we can stay pretty even with where we're at, if we have a reduction of two, you worry that we will actually see more spikes in wait time.

Potentially, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, counselor.

Pirtle-guiney councilor Zimmerman. I'll come back to you since we have our guests here.

Thanks. There was a little bit about the training aspect. I want to just get a sense, because it always sounds good to add a 911 responder to the list. I want to get a sense, though, if there's an aspect we're not seeing here for your intended training budget or what you need to make sure that those of you have on staff are up and ready to do the job and do it well. And I'm just appreciate your your look at this and what you see and what you'd be giving up, if anything.

As far as the training budget goes.

It was mentioned that potentially some of this money was going to be used for training and now would go to a personnel specifically or an fte. And I want to just get a sense of like what that might mean for the the rest of the group. Who's there?

Yeah. There's a reduction in our training budget. We typically do two in-service trainings each year, and now we're going to reduce that down to one. So our staff, they have a they're required to maintain their certification. That requires 24 hours of training each year. And we'll have to find a new way to get them those hours of training. We'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.

Okay. And in the world of 911 and how much I think you all have grown over the last six years, I would imagine that this in the way that seniority works, if somebody I'm assuming somebody is getting a layoff notice, if this does not pass.

There are two positions that will not be filled. Currently they're vacant.

Okay. This is helping us continue to hiring aspect.

It helps us with the training pipeline. Training pipeline. So, you know, it takes two years 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. So it's a two year training period. So losing those positions now certainly hurts. It's going to hurt us more potentially in two years.

Got it.

Thank you for that. Ruth. You stepped up assuming it wasn't for nothing.

Yeah. Sorry, I have to correct myself. This is the this amendment, the portion of it that comes from boec is solely from Dunphy. For it doesn't change anything with respect to the training pipeline. Apologies.

Okay. The training budget that they've got for that.

Yeah. From the. It doesn't change what was in the proposed.

Essentially there's already a cut happening. Got it. Okay. That's clear. Thank you for stepping in folks. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councilor. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. My concern with this item is the funding source. One of the things I liked about Dunphy for was that unlike other things we've done recently, it actually restored money to contingency. And I'm just extremely reluctant to cut further into contingency reserves in any way.

Thank you, counselor. Novick. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah, so these are new contingency reserves that were not there before they were created by Dunphy for. 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 in the sense that it it hasn't been allocated to anything at this moment. It's sitting. Yeah. I'm seeing ruth not on that. So there is no reduction in any planned use for it. This is simply planning a use for it. And I think that we have seen the results over years of not thinking ahead for our training pipelines and public safety. And it applies to police. It applies to fire. It applies to to boec as well. They all have a length of time that it takes to get someone fully up to speed. So I, I think it's, it's fair to say that we're choosing to create a position that will not have full impact for two years. But I also know that it's important that we don't go backwards on this. And again, this money is not currently committed to anything else. There is a separate set of decision packages. There were there were nine decision packages related to the bureau of emergency communications separately. They are also taking other cuts. This restores one part of one of the cuts. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal counselor Ryan.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah.

Thank you, council president. I, 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 boec. So I'm well aware what it's like to build that back. And that's why I've been disturbed about the cuts to all public safety, especially police and and boec as well. However, I agree with what councilor Novick said. We just made a smart fiscal decision to to get that contingency back up. And now we're dipping into it again. So I just this just doesn't feel like it feels like monopoly money that we're moving around. And I regret that I won't be able to support this. Thanks.

Thank you, counselor Ryan. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please move to a roll call vote on Kanal eight.

Moved by Kanal, seconded by Green Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan no.

Koyama Lane I. Morillo I. Novick no.

Clark I.

Green I. Zimmerman I. Avalos I. Smith I.

Dunphy I.

The amendment is approved with a vote of ten ayes and two nays.

Okay.

Thank you.

Cully councilor Pirtle-guiney to pirtle-guiney 12.

Oh man, we're here already. I thought there were some other things before this, I apologize.

Sorry, we're running around.

A little. Pirtle-guiney.

Is that right?

Well, pirtle-guiney 12 so colleagues in your original packets, if you have printed out things you had pirtle-guiney 11 which addressed funds that were placed in pmo from staff. I 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. I'm going to run through this too slowly to give folks time to pull it up, and I apologize if you have not seen it. I 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 PCEF dollars to yet another ongoing funding source in the city within pmo. I 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. We had two proposals to get that money back out of pmo. One would defund pmo, and there was some opposition to doing that. One would change the strategic programs within the cip that PCEF dollars went to, and there was some opposition to that. I 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 PCEF money was going to PCEF 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 pmo. And that did not take up the policy decision about whether to change the strategic programs within which PCEF money is spent within the cip. Without a conversation with the PCEF committee, this is the one, the singular space that folks could find, where we could meet both of those goals, pull those PCEF dollars out of pmo, put them back within the rate payer bureaus that they were originally dedicated to. They were dedicated originally to PBOT and to bts. We 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 PCEF dollars are in the appropriate places. I want to be clear that this is not without risk. It is coming from a fund that PBOT is already working to recapitalize, and this makes that work a little bit harder. But it is a fund that is already being worked on. And this would roll into that work. If we feel strongly, which I do, that we should move PCEF 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. I 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, as I would if your name were on it as a co-sponsor. Already we've had some timing issues to see. If there's anything you want to add here.

Thank you. And just to be clear, we are co-sponsoring this. Yes.

I'm happy to have your great.

Mic is.

Off to have your.

It is still off. I'm happy to have your name on it. We. Time is what it is.

And recognizing councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Great. So yes. Thank you. So then I guess this is epg 1 or 12 is there. Do we need to say that I don't know what it is? Does it matter.

Folks will figure out on the back end what to do there.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So as you all know, I obviously have been very adamant and vocal about protecting PCEF dollars. Avalos one was my attempt to do that. That did not pass. And so councilor Pirtle-guiney and I have discussed this. We both agree that this is one, the only real place that we could find the money for it. And I am grateful for councilor Epg or pirtle-guiney for for doing that. And it is urgent. It is important that we return that money. Obviously, one of the big holdups of many councilors was keeping pmo whole. So that's what this does. I think also by it coming out of the general funds, essentially of these, the utilities, they will be able to supplant that. And so this feels like the best option to get this moving. And I'm grateful for the co-sponsorship. I'm happy to support this. And I urge council to support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Avalos. Oh, councilor Pirtle-guiney, are you formally moving this? And 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, I 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, and I would appreciate a second.

Okay.

Councilor pirtle-guiney moves, let's call it pirtle-guiney Avalos one, and councilor Avalos seconds. Are we okay with that? Okay, great colleagues to the amendment, councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Yeah, thank.

You guys for trying to figure out a way to make sure that we're not using PCEF dollars for things that they're not assigned for, like pmo. The only thing I want to flag is that this is taking money out of the PBOT street light reserve fund, and the mayor's proposed budget already took $7 million out of that fund, and this would take another 5.4 million. So that's only going to leave about 5 million in that fund that they've been saving to fix street lights. That is why I preferred councilor Avalos original amendment that just removed from pmo, because, you know, we were all here, especially folks who sat on the transportation committee when we got that presentation about street lights falling down on people in our city. And that's pretty bad. It seems like a core service that shouldn't happen. So. It's hard because I think that this is actually sort of pitting also sff against vision zero in a way, because this is a matter of street light and pedestrian safety. And I really wish that we could have passed. Councilor Avalos original amendment to save sff. So 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 street light reserve fund, that is pretty egregious to me.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Kanal.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you. I appreciate the work that's been put in on this. 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. We talked about a couple of those. For those who are wondering, why do my numbers jump around? I have Kanal seven, eight, nine, ten, 12, 14, 11 was designed to do the same thing too, and the math did math. So we ended up withdrawing that and hoping that somebody else would be able to engage. And I really appreciate the work that's been done on this. I agree with everything councilor Morillo just said. I 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, whether or not pcf dollars go into pmo or not. And so I think that we are up against the spirit of the ballot measure here. So I do think that that's that outweighs and I have to vote yes on this in that way. I do want to note that we have to have the conversation about pmo, and we just haven't. And I'm not going to hold this amendment hostage over that, but I just want to get that on the record. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal vice president Clark.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, council president. It seems like a lot of these amendments are really robbing peter to pay paul all over the place. I, I tend to agree with councilor Morillo that even though we voted earlier as a council to provide additional resources in the future for for PBOT, those aren't coming until later in 2027. That worries me. I don't I don't see the urgency here. So I'm, I am this is new to me. I'm trying to think through it, but I tend to be more. I'm very concerned about PBOT street light reserves. And so I just signal here. I'm I'm wrestling with this. I don't know if there's anybody here from PBOT, but I'm worried about the resources that aren't going to be there. Thank you.

Thank you, vice president Clark. Oh, I see director williams from PBOT coming up to answer that.

Thank you. I didn't see you. I didn't see you in there. Out there.

Snuck in on the side. Good morning council, millicent williams, for the record. Pbot director, could you repeat your question, councilor Clark?

Olivia Clark: Well, it wasn't a question. It was just more of a observation that we we're robbing this fund, and we have critical needs for street light improvement all over the city. There's a vision zero link to this. There's a safety issue. There's also probably an emissions issue related to this in that it governs the movement of traffic and the resources that we all approved for PBOT really don't start coming in until much later in in 2027. So as councilor Morillo pointed out, she's a former member of that committee. We we've already cut that program. So I'm quite concerned about taking more money out of the street light reserves. So it's more of an observation. I don't know if you want to comment on that, but I'm worried. I'm worried about it.

Thank you for voicing your concerns. Councilor Clark and councilor Morillo, as 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 street lights, to repair, street lights, to rebuild street lights, which is part of what that reserve was intended to do. We've been thinking strategically about how to best do that. So 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. We would not necessarily replace that gap with tough funding, because this council also prescribed how it would like for those funds to be used. So we are looking at what the out years will provide for us in terms of a need to fill the gap. It 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. Jeremy patton is here, who can also speak to some of the mechanics of the finances around it as well.

Well, thank you for that, director williams, but this reduces the fund down significantly. It's already been cut.

It does. It's a total of just under 12 million for out of 17.

Right now. Yeah. Right now it's down to 10.8 million. This amendment would drop it down to just over. It's another 5.4 million. That would reduce sorry jeremy with public works.

And the total was 17.

The total initial was 17 to start the year. Yes.

Thank you for that. It's a great concern to me. And thank you for clarifying that this is really not in the tough category. Thank you.

Thank you, vice president Clark. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, director williams. I still didn't get your answer. Is this something that that is going to put a a burden on us? Because I don't I'll tell you, I don't like it. I don't understand the connection. And I have people right now who are in my district and you know, that want to get some led lights and everything else and to take that out of our reserve. This is not an appropriate fund. There are other contingency funds that are in the facilities department. It's $138 million. If you want to take $5 million from somewhere, take it from there. But this only has $12 million. And as you know, our deferred maintenance and transportation is up there towards like 660 million. And we're going to use this for social services. No, no, this is not appropriate in my opinion. So I want to know from you, is this going to put a burden. Is this something that you're supporting. Because I heard councilor Pirtle-guiney say that she's been working with folks to get this together. And I want to know who's she been working with? I mean, are you supporting this?

Thank you for your question, councilor Smith. We'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, to fill that gap.

So you are supportive of this.

It's it'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 everyone around this dais.

I just want to caution you. I just want to caution you right now. Thank you. Hold on just a second. I want to caution you right now. I am the vice chair of the public works committee, and there are so many different needs that we have right now as it relates to this. And I am I don't often do this, but I disagree with you. Thank you. I disagree with you wholeheartedly. And this attempt to defund pmo in this way is wrong. And the makers of this should understand there are other sources of money that you can use. I thought these were restricted funds. I thought they were restricted. And this does not make sense to me. Thank you. Go ahead.

To to answer the.

Question directly, it does have an impact on the street lighting budget and our ability to maintain and replace that long term. This thing does run in cycles for us. There is not a mechanism per se to replenish this fund. So 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. I know we made a conscious decision 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 the city, but we knew we would have to replenish that in some way, shape, form or fashion. This is just digging that hole a little bit deeper for us.

And councilor Smith, if I may add a point of clarification, this is for public works. The funds are not restricted. I just wanted to make sure that we clarify it is a transfer of general fund reserves from the streetlight replacement reserve. This is a general fund bucket, not a restricted fund. Just want to make sure that's.

And thank you for clarifying that. Do you see a donna paul. That's that's good to know. But the the bigger issue is taking the money from a, from a fund that is very specific to infrastructure. And I have often said, we know what our book of business is. We're going to have to have a bigger conversation about how to fund some of these other things that are non infrastructure. But this is a bad idea. Bad idea. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Sorry I lost track of my own councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. In reading this amendment it returns if I'm reading it correctly, 4 million and some change to the bureau of environmental services. Is bes here. I'd like to know what they're going to do with that money.

I would like to call director liu to the table to talk about how those resources will be used for b s.

Because 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.

Thank you for the question. My name is liu, public utilities director. So for this transfer we are looking to a holistically how we can look into the opportunities for the outer years to fill the gap for this $4.1 million, because it's a five 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 is some additional funds support that PBOT work with us, other work that will be able to connect and working through that.

Okay.

So the way you're answering that though, director kind of sounds like you're losing money. Are you losing money in this? Are you losing the 4 million?

It's the piece of funding to the bureau that's 4.1. But we are for the with the five year.

Because I think in previous years colleagues bes was funded by pcf because they are responsible for cleaning the bioswales. Is that an accurate statement? Correct. Cleaning the bioswales is a bts responsibility, and pcf made the direct connection that a dirty bioswale is having an impact. That was why bes was funded to do that work, I think.

Yeah, with the climate impact and improvement, but it's meeting the stormwater permit. Stormwater side of it. Yeah, right. Previously that was funded by the rates.

By what?

By the sewer and stormwater rates.

Right.

So then pmo was asked essentially by bes to continue that work. And 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 PCEF funds being used. I just want to kind of highlight the silliness of this amendment. It is, I think, a fair debate on whether or not PCEF should clean sidewalks, but there was no issue when bes was cleaning the bioswales, which is what pmo was getting funded to do here now. Does this $5.4 million that's going to go to pmo. Have to be used? No. Pmo has a street tree lighting program. Does 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 the bioswales and the runoff. Mayor, you weighed in on my $1 million amendment. By 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, and I don't think that the administration agrees with this amendment.

I can. Mayor, if you would like me to answer that.

Pardon me.

Would you like me to take that on?

Well, I'd just like to. Something that's been missed and councilor Morillo is right. We did use the reserve, but it's a reserve that's going to be utilized in ten years. And so we really try and address the crisis response. Right now, the five year stabilization program. This just takes money from that. But it's going to hurt. Now it's double jeopardy. We're spending today money that we're going to need tomorrow. So it's just one more cautionary

Tale of we're in crisis response. We're just trying to stabilize the city right now without creating double jeopardy in the next fiscal year. So.

I find that. Bes is still going to have to clean the bioswale areas, part of the stormwater runoff program. And PCEF is funding them to do part of that, which we can debate if that's an appropriate supplant of utilities. So whom are you going to hire to do that work?

On the bioswales? I mean, for for the piece of funding that's that's a holistic program. There's a watershed monitoring, there's a bioswales and others. Right now, we use contractors for the bioswale, along with the internal team members as well. When there's additional capacity needed.

Okay. Thank you, director. For 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. They just asked pmo to take it on so it could be a little bit more rounded out and some really targeted areas. So I think that's unfortunate. I'm still waiting to hear what it is pmo will be able to do with the $5.4 million. I haven't gotten that answer yet, though.

Councilor, if I may, the pmo recommendation that came to our bureaus was specific to two different funding sources or two different programs. For PBOT, it was the lighting program for bts, I'm not sure of which the bioswale program. So there were differing amounts for PBOT. It was 1.3 1.7 million for be as it was the remainder. And what this proposal is recommending is that instead of bts reducing any of its work, it continued to do its work with the pcf funding as intended. What 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. I'm not entirely sure of the definition of the work program, but that's what's intended so that our baseline work, because there is a lighting item that's in the piece of allocation to PBOT that will remain whole by us going to our reserve to ensure that we don't commingle.

I would also like to add for the bts portion of it, there will, you know, there's going to be no gap or loss at the moment. What we're thinking, we're working together with pcf to move $4 million from the future year to fund the current year. The work continues, and then we can figure out what to do with the final, like final year funding. So I think that is a workable solution that we work together with bts and cbo to figure out that solution for b for bes.

Okay. I think that our bioswales have come a long way, right? A few years ago, they were just cesspools of awfulness and they are really looking good. But that is a big effort. That is contractors. That's central city concern. That's that's clean start. That is contractor after contractor after contractor, city after city after city worker. And so this idea of being uncomfortable with the service that some councilors are, 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. The street tree lighting program across all of the business districts neighborhoods is looking great. And so this feels like an interruption for the sake of feel goodness. And I hope that it fails.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president, I 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. Like many of you, I don't love taking from this funding source, but I do think that the programs that are being funded in pmo are important. And I do think that the programs that PCEF has historically funded or has of late funded under this cip in these bureaus are important. We were sent a budget that pit those two things against each other. Do you want to continue the work that PCEF was directed to fund in these bureaus? Do 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 funding because it kind of fits within the strategic program, even if there's disagreement about whether some of it fits within the core mission of cf. I wasn't willing to accept that trade off. I 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. I think it is absolutely critical that cf 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. The amendment before you does not change the program work on the ground. In fact, the amendment before you allows us to retain that program. Work within all three bureaus that are in play here. But because those were pit against each other and a move of cf dollars that received significant pushback about whether or not it met the intent of cf, 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. As I said in my intro, it is not without risk. And we've heard that. And 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. So I'm not looking for you to say you love this. I know you were pushed a little bit on that. But it is legal and it could work. So I think the question before us is, do we want to maintain the programing within all three bureaus that are in play enough that we are willing to take this risk, or is this risk not worth it? In which case, what are we willing to cut and where are we willing to have cf fund? And how much are we willing to push that outer edge on cf? 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. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Request to limit debate to those in the queue, please.

Okay. I'm limiting debate to those in the queue. Councilor. Any further? Okay. Counselor Avalos, last word.

Thank you. I really appreciate the conversation. I agree this is really difficult, but like councilor Pirtle-guiney said, there trade offs and it was more unacceptable that we continue to diminish the work and integrity of cf. Yes. You know, agree that the bureaus, they don't love it, but they said that they could make it work. This seemed like the best place to take it. We had heard from some other funds, and 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. So I understand where people are coming from. This is a last ditch effort, as is many of the amendments we're bringing forward today. I respect people's positions, and of course, we'll still ask that you support this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues.

Councilor Dunphy, may I share something? And perhaps dc donald paul will kick me under the table, or the city administrator may shoot me an eye as.

Quickly as possible.

I must share that the opportunity that we have is significant in this moment. 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. This amendment allows us to legally make the shift that needs to happen to ensure that we are meeting the goals of the cf agreements that we have in place, and meeting those expectations, and creates the opportunity for the bureaus to be creative as they move forward in filling the gap. The administration has expressed that I. I will share, though, that as a 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, and that is what has been proposed. I 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 come to this conversation with.

Thank you, director williams. Keelan can we please call the roll on? I think we called it pirtle-guiney Avalos one.

Moved by pirtle-guiney, seconded by Avalos.

Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney I. Ryan no. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.

Novick regretfully no.

Clerk. No greene. I Zimmerman absent. I Smith. No Dunphy I.

Councilor Zimmerman remarks no.

Eric Zimmerman: The amendment is approved with a vote of seven ayes and five nays.

Okay, colleagues, it is 1055. I'm going to give us a 15 minute break programing note for you all. I am going to divert from the previous agenda, because I think there is going to be some consensus on a lot of the budget notes. When 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 through the immigrant and international focused amendments and the amendments focused on sourcing from operations. So please, colleagues, be back here at 11, ten, 15 minute break. Welcome back folks. We are now going to turn to a section of budget notes. I think we can get through a number of these. Just a programing note for my colleagues. We are aiming to be done debate on amendments and notes by 1230, because we have some additional work we have to do on a whole bunch, a series of votes and things like that. So we are going to spend the next hour and 15 minutes barreling through and try to get as much done as we can. Councilor Green to Green seven.

Mitch Green: Thank you, council president. I hope that this is fairly straightforward and quick. In may, we adopted the budget note that was associated with Green one, but we did not adopt Green one. And so that left in place a budget note that referenced an amendment that did not pass. And 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. I 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 bts. I name a number of bureaus that are excluded from this consideration. City administrator lee, with the kind of identifying the 20% management cuts, rbs should definitely be part of the. The list of exclusions along with pwb and also. My intent is to exclude the public safety service area just as a whole, and I think what we did is we missed some tighter language that said, you know, take fire, take boec, take police out of consideration. But then there was this question of whether the public safety service area itself was identified as a target place for these cuts. That was not my intention either. So that's what this amendment does here. There is the scrivener 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. I'm moving this up for a second council.

Thank you. Councilor Green moves Green seven councilor Kanal seconds to the amendment, colleagues, for the budget note councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: My hand.

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

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 on the amendments. So I was trying to get these done before. That's why I'm. And Green seven has been moved and seconded. Councilor any more. Okay. Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president councilor Green, what bureaus will this apply to? There's a list of exclusions. You are adding more exclusions. Where are you hoping to reduce managers?

I'm hoping that the city administrator will look at the enterprise as a whole, with the exception of these bureaus and also bts 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 in the fall and say, here's here's the areas we could cut. So that's, that's what we did. And 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.

I understand that I voted against it. It seems to me that we are excluding all of public safety, all of public works except for parks. Yeah.

It's not rate funded. And I think my, my, my reasoning there.

Is why are we not looking at rate funded? That would have a direct impact on the rate increases that portlanders are subjected to in out years.

You can feel free to amend my amendment.

Councilor, I hear you that this makes a bad thing better. We might all have to vote for it. Because of that, I just I, I don't understand why we're picking and choosing where we look here. If there's a problem, we should be looking comprehensively. If there's not a problem, we shouldn't be. I'm confused. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Three three.

Colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion.

Council president, one thing I would like the council take under consideration is just the timing of this as well. The time frame to come back in the fall with a recommendation of 20% cut, will be a difficult thing to do. So I would like to council to take that under consideration, the timing of it.

Thank you, city administrator. Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, keelan can we please move to a roll call vote on Green seven.

Moved by Green. Seconded by Kanal Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan.

I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.

Novick no.

Clerk. No. Green Zimmerman no. I Smith.

No.

Dunfee.

Recognizing councilor Ryan quickly.

Dan Ryan: Yeah, I've really been pondering what you had said. Kelly no.

Okay.

And I vote I.

Okay, so changing councilor Ryan's vote from I to nay and council president has voted I. The amendment is approved with a vote of seven eyes and five nays.

Thank you colleagues. Councilor Koyama Lane to Koyama Lane 12.

Thank you. Council president, at the request of your office, I'm presenting my three budget notes as one package.

Great.

Thank you. Of governance related actions. These notes reflect the same three ideas we discussed last Wednesday contracting utility rate setting and budget process. After action reports, tcl ten 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. Koyama Lane 11 asks for regular reporting of the utility rate study that is funded in this year's budget and relates to every budget, and tcl 12 asks for a budget after action report with recommendations that can support us as we improve our budget process year after year. I'd like to move Koyama Lane ten, 11 and 12. Is that how you want me to do that?

Sure.

Councilor Koyama Lane is going to move Koyama Lane ten 1112 as a package. Is there a second? Second councilor Smith seconds colleagues to the amendment package. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Will you intend us to vote on them all together?

We can do that however we want to.

I'm asking for your intent.

My intent at this moment was to vote on them at once.

I'm going to move to separate the question. Colleagues, I think you should vote no on 12 and 11 and vote yes on ten. That's all.

Thank you. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Councilor Kanal thanks. I just have a question just to establish legislative intent on. 12. And it's it's around the sentence this report will support council led budget process reviews. I just want to clarify the intent that this pass. It doesn't limit council from having any discussions while the administrative work is going on.

Thank you for that question, councilor. The intention is that this happens, that this is concurrent with work that we do on the council side.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: I think I was just confused because I thought. 11 we weren't going to hear. So are we hearing? We are hearing 11.

Ten, 11 and 12 have all been moved, but they've been separated. So we will be voting on each of them separately.

What I'm asking is I thought there were notes that we had to retract or we're not. Yeah, just. Councilor Koyama Lane on that.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yes. There were some questions about if this makes sense as a budget note or if it should be a resolution. Chair Clark and I have also talked about that and have talked to the city attorney. It 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. I've worked with dca, donna paul and director lou around this and understand that this water utility rate study is already, you know, been budgeted. It'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 increased 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.

Okay. Thanks for the clarity.

Thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president. I had questions about the impact on workload and what wouldn't happen instead on both 11 and 12. I think that councilor Koyama Lane just answered that question on 11. So 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. I see a thumbs up from our dca on 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, or whether this is additional work and what the trade offs are there so that we can make an informed decision.

Yeah, I'm happy to hear from ruth and or jonas. My office worked mostly with ruth, I believe, on this. Sorry. 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. Yeah. Do either of you want to speak to that? And the workload question.

Director and cfo, I know that there will be after action report much 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, that process reform to do reporting. And so I'm hoping you can help me understand how this fits within the broader workload.

Yeah. Thank you, councilor, for the question. For the record. Jonas biery chief financial officer and I'll give a couple of thoughts and then ruth can jump in as well. I think there's a couple of comments I would make. Yes, we are already planning to do an after action. We've communicated that to this body multiple times throughout this budget process. And so this I think the intent of the budget note is consistent with that. I do have a little bit of concern that some of the detail in the budget note will be additional work, and may actually kind of get in the way of making some immediate progress that we've heard from this council is important to. You would also just note that that some of the proposed detailed recommendations are actually things that the administration can't decide. We cannot make recommendations without support and participation from council leadership. And so I just calling out ahead of time, as it's currently written, that is a probably conflict that we're going to have to face here as we have those after action conversations and work with council president to get those scheduled, regardless of the timing of this, of this report. And ruth, I don't know if you have more to add to the details.

Yeah. I mean, I think from my perspective, I'm we're already I'm already working with staff on thinking about after action and moving forward and looking forward to providing recommendations and working with councilors on what things look like, you know, as to some of the things in the list. I can tell you right now, we likely don't have capacity to actually implement some of those things, but I imagine like fairly quick feasibility analysis on some of them to say we would need more money. I can't tell you exactly how much or whatnot at this point, but so I think I'm happy to work with you all on providing recommendations moving forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Smith.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yes, and I just want a little bit more clarity from our legal counsel, because I thought we couldn't do budget notes that had money issues relating to it. So I'm speaking specifically towards the. Towards the rate question on utility rate setting for Koyama Lane 11. I thought that our budget. Notes had to be non money. Based on the on the memo that you sent out.

Thank you. Robert taylor, city attorney. The the budget notes need to be related to the subject of appropriations. They cannot be used to direct the administration to develop policy or set other policy through the budget. Note. Instead, they need to be focused on appropriations, which are spending authority. I would I would tell you, for me, well, first, let me say it's up to the council president to rule on whether a budget note is appropriate that can be appealed to the full council. Three members want to appeal. So ultimately, council gets to make that decision about whether budget notes are germane to the budget and can be included. So that's an important process point for for me, for me on on Koyama Lane 11. It's a close call. It really is a close call. And when I first reviewed this, it sounded to me like it was asking the administration to go and develop policy alternatives on different rates that could be set. And if that's what it was doing, then I think that would be an improper budget note because it was directing them to go evaluate different policy alternatives not related to spending. If all this is doing is there's a current work happening and the council would like the administration to come back and report regularly. I, I.

Why don't we just ask for a work session? I mean, this doesn't have to be a budget note. This this is not a budget note. This is something else.

It could certainly be a work session. It could certainly be something that the public works committee handles. It could be a separate resolution. So there's many different ways for council to get this type of information.

Okay.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, council president. First one is tan in that states that it's about really monitoring what money goes out of the city. That doesn't go to our own ftes, but it's with partners that do contract work. That's you want to know, you want transparency about all the money that goes out. Is that your intention with this?

Yeah. My intention is that we can get data documenting all of our external contractors that are providing staffing and services, and in hopes of that informing our next budget process to have more information.

Okay. And so I think I will look to you, kaylee, to help. You're having a really good conversation there. So hi. It's all good. The number ten is really it's a translation question of how you read this. So this is about tracking all the money that goes out of the city with partners that do contracting work. And so does that include what does that also include our nonprofit partners? Is it every contract? I would assume that, but it doesn't have specifics here.

I would assume that as well. But I'd have to lean on the counselor for her intent of that budget note. But I would consider it being any contract or agreement that we have with any entity.

Okay.

Councilor did you intend it to include both private and nonprofit sector?

Yes. Councilor. And that's so we can just have information to understand what contracts are out there, what are the details and have some specifics on duties, costs, length, length of services. I'm hearing from labor partners that there are other jurisdictions that have that information a little bit more readily, and you can find it, and I'm not sure I'm not able to answer those questions when they come to me. So I'd like to be able to have that.

We do include, in addition to the procurement contracts, we do have really gone up quite a bit the last ten years. So I think it would be amiss if we didn't include all of it and include the nonprofit sector as well.

And that would include PCEF as well to that contracting as well.

Yeah.

And the restricted accounts there, and also that more designated and restricted at the children's levy. Absolutely. Okay. If it's inclusive, I can get behind this. If it was targeted, I would have a longer conversation and have doubt. Thanks.

Thank you counsel.

We're doing this one at a time, right?

Yeah.

Okay. Yes. Thank you, councilor Ryan, vice president Clark.

Thank you, council president, just I'm going to hop around here a little bit with each of these regarding Koyama Lane contracting. I thought that was a good conversation. Councilor Ryan. It just seems like a tremendous amount of work. If we're going to look at all of the contracts that each bureau has with all the nonprofits, particularly in the housing arena, there are so many nonprofits that dollars are going through, and I can see some value to that, because I think there is sort of a nonprofit industrial complex out there that we ought to get our hands around. But it just seems like a lot of a lot of work. And I made a comment the other day about budget notes that and we all had budget notes last time, and I feel like some of them were really unfunded mandates. And that's what this kind of feels like to me, an unfunded mandate. And I recall, and maybe this is a question for robert taylor, but I got feedback on my budget notes last time around that, hey, you know what? We can't do all this. Are you okay with us? You know, doing half of it or something like that. And I just think, I don't know, you know, if there's the money to do all these things. And where is the legal line there? I know you tried to explain it earlier, robert, but I actually worked with the bureaus on the amendments budget notes that I had last time that they just couldn't do or they did, you know, a really, really narrow version of it and just recycled information that we already had. So I'm just looking for some clarity here because I think some of these are unfunded mandates.

Yeah. Thank you. Robert taylor, city attorney. Under the charter, the the city administrator must provide reports as requested by council. And under the charter, the the budget must be limited to the subject of appropriation. So those are the two sort of legal, important legal things that inform your question. I do think that. And the other is kind of an enforcement question. So if, for example, council asks the administrator to report on how we are spending on certain categories over the fiscal year, that is an appropriate budget note because it's asking for a report. It's related to the expenditures that you've approved in the budget. And then what if the administrator doesn't have the resources or can't deliver that report on time? How do you enforce that? Right. And really, that is up to the political branches to work that out. And the administrator can ask for grace, maybe ask for an extension. If if several budget notes are passed, that there's no way that there are resources to do all of them. The administrator might come back in the in the fall town and ask for resources to fund that work. That's another way that you could work that out. But really, that kind of the request for a report related to expenditures is allowed. How exactly that gets delivered to you. If there's not resources to do that work? That's a question the administration and council needs to work out together.

And that's part of the reason, as I talked through on Green seven as well, I just want council to take under consideration capacity to be able to do all these reports. If all these budget notes passed by false towel, I don't have the capacity to do and have all these reports done by that same time frame, unless additional resources are added to be able to do this work, to be able to produce some of this work from a budget note standpoint.

Or you come back to us and we talk about scaling them back, which is a decision that the council could make.

Yeah, but a lot of work will be I'll have to start a lot of work immediately to go ahead to get some of this out the door.

Well, I think it's kind of ironic because so many of the budget amendments we were looking at were cutting your capacity in your office. So there's a certain amount of irony here. Okay. Well, that that's helpful. Robert taylor, I appreciate that. Just understanding that relationship and what we can and can't do. But it does worry me about the burden that it's placing on the, on the, the bureaus and the, and the c a's office. But it sounds like something we can negotiate in the future, possibly that we may not be able to get a complete report on Koyama Lane 11 on the utility rate setting. I did talk to my colleague a little bit about this. This is already happening. This kind of work is already going on in the bureau, and I know that I have several colleagues on the public works committee that are very, very interested in rate setting. We've talked a lot about it, and my preference would have been that this would come back to the public works committee, doesn't necessarily have to be the entire council. That's what the committees are for. So I think this kind of preempts the work of the public works committee. It's not mutually exclusive, but these reports will be coming to us, and I suspect that we will be heavily involved in in that discussion. But I just want to put that out there that, you know, a quarterly report, maybe it's up to the councilors to read that report, that we don't take a lot of time in the full council until we get to some kind of resolution just to know that, hey, this is going on, here's how it's progressing, but not some deep dive. Every time this comes to the to the full council, hopefully that works. Going to be done in the public works committee. Let's see on 12 after action. I thought we were going to do this anyway. I guess I'll just I'll leave it there and wait for other people's comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, council president. Yes, I actually believe and hope that 11 and 12 are happening. Anyway, we're happening anyway for Koyama Lane 11 around rate setting. That process is anticipated to be many years to to be take a while. And so throughout that process, I think it's important that we're being very open with the public and saying, we want the public, we want council to be briefed and understand the information and the data. So we have what we need for deliberation in the future. And so while there, there will certainly be a need for work sessions, there's there's this is going to be a large conversation. We're probably going to need to have a lot of conversations around this. Around Koyama Lane 12, the after action report that was also in response to hearing colleagues up here give comments about how we can do things differently next time. Before my office even drafted this, I went directly to director levine and said, should I make this budget note? Would it be a good idea? And I was told by the director, yes, we're going to do this. It would be great to put that out there. I appreciate the comments from the cfo and cbo. There's no intent for this budget note to require additional funds. We worked collaboratively with this cbo to draft this note and anticipate doing so and implementation. And I support the feasibility assessment. I will be honest, Koyama Lane ten is one that is is going to produce more work because it's something that we're not really doing right now and there's not clarity around it. And especially as we're looking to be as we're making cuts in many places, and there will be times and places when it makes sense, sense to have contracts, we need to make sure we're being really thoughtful about what we're doing and that we have the information that we need about contracting. There are circumstances when it's going to make sense, and there's also times that maybe we could be making some different decisions, and I think that's going to be really important, especially leading up to the next budget season, which will start as soon as this one passes. So for Koyama Lane ten, I really would just like us all to be able to understand contract details and justifications. And, you know, at the heart of it, just showing portlanders that how we are spending taxpayer dollars and make sure that we're using funds to support portlanders as best as we can. And that's it for now.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane councilor Kanal.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you. I have a question for councilor Clark about the second one. So I guess 11 the other two, ten and 12 just say council. And we've historically interpreted reporting back to council as meaning any part of council is okay. Relevant committee has been done in the past based on last year's budget notes, but 11 says entire council. And so I'm curious if that word is the holdup and if removing it would change your overall consideration of that of that budget. Note.

Thank you for the question, councilor Kanal. I think it would be great. I understand, though, that what councilor Koyama Lane is trying to accomplish, but I think that the public works committee can bring things back to the full council or actually to the cao when it when it's appropriate. I don't know that we have to have this the budget note exactly, but I. So an amendment would be great, but I would defer to councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: To change.

It, to remove the entire entire.

I can make that happen.

Yeah.

And and anyone who'd like to get in the queue should do that quickly, because I am going to request that we limit debate to those currently waiting for councilor Koyama Lane to get in the queue so she can do this if she wants to. Those currently in the queue. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor Smith. Thank you. And I am limiting debate to those in the queue.

Thank you.

Thank you, council president. There is also I did a report with contracting when I was the chair of the labor, tracy warren, the dca. She has she has a report. It may not be as. Expansive. Thank you. But it'll get you a start. And I would also, if you're talking about contracts, I would start in the bigger places, like let's do transportation and see how those things come out, because that's a bigger that's a bigger bureau that has many, many, many contracts. And we have many, many projects.

So thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, council president.

And take out the city council.

So on. Ten I'm leaning towards supporting it. The irony is, I think we're probably going to have to get an outside contractor to pull it off. So there's that. 11 and 12. Here's my questions are somewhat similar. But when I brought this up, when we were voting on rates, I asked about the process and I was told by some smart person from public works that the state, they were waiting for, the state waiting for the state. We hear that a lot up here, and we're waiting for the state to set some sort of rate, and then we could then receive it. And so that dialog took place. Is this an attempt to do what? To think that we can read the tea leaves on what the state is going to say and not wait for that magic date? Are we suggesting legislation? And then again, this is feels like an agenda topic that you're giving to the public utilities committee is someone there's a smart person coming up to tell me more about the state and how they set utility rates.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. This is a public works, and I have director liu with me as well from the public utilities. Councilor Koyama Lane budget note refers to the utility rates that are set by the city council, and those are set at a city level.

Triggered by the state.

I asked this question. Someone answered it. I really do think this happened. And it was about why we wait so long to get our rate approval. And I was told that we're waiting.

Garbage rates.

That's the metro.

Well, there's a lot of rates and we taxpayers know that. So it was actually the it was it was I was just told the rates on water sewer, like we were waiting for their jurisdiction. Know now I don't know which rate it was connected to. It was when we were doing that rate increases in whole for many, many of our utilities that day.

Yeah. The city public utilities director, we are very interested in the rate study. I'll say from a utility's perspective, there are three benefits I see as part of this rate study and conversation. One is this will provide more consistent assumptions and approach for rate model, which including both water and bts. Because historically we have been separate. This provides a great opportunity for us to look into combined projections in the future to be more scenario based and to inform you all for the future rate projections. The second is, I also look for integrating asset management as part of the rate forecasting in the future. So that will really provide a more holistic and data based, risk based approach to, to looking to our investment as needed. And third, and also very important is this will provide a foundation for achieving affordable and equitable rates. And that will require the council, public works committee engagement and guidance to. So that's where we are very interested in performing and pursuing this effort.

And I also would like to add I received clarification, I checked with our finance teams and our cfo office. Utility rates are set at the city level and not at the state level. There's there's no connection to the state level.

Councilor someone told me that information we were doing, our rate increases. I do think this is supposed to be worked out in the public utilities committee, because this is obviously a complicated conversation. It looks like you want us to talk about all three. Why we're in this queue right now. Sure. Is that true? Is that what the intent of stopping the discussion was? Okay, what's the next one? So on 12 councilor We and committee of a whole agenda planning, we talked about this topic. And so I thought it was in motion in terms of an agenda topic for committee of the whole. So is this a budget note that's formalizing agenda topic then what is it?

Would you like me to clarify? Yeah.

Thank you for that question. And that's important to clarify that those two pieces are supposed to happen concurrently. So while the administration side is, is having one on ones and doing debriefs and putting together what they learned, what they want to do differently, doing their after action report, we also, as counsel during likely committee of the whole are also having those discussions. So the hope is that that comes together in some way and it is collaborative, and there are some collaborative efforts to improve the process. But it's this is making sure that the administrative side is happening and will be happening alongside the council side.

Okay. I was content to know that would happen in the committee of the whole working with the administration, because that's the whole idea of the engagement we have with each other in those committees. So I guess I don't see the need based on the fact that we can get it done in committee as a whole. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, I'm mindful of the time here. I just I'm, I'm going to support all the budget notes, but I just wanted to speak to why I think it's actually important to adopt the utility rate setting budget. Note the council has

Brought forward. It's something that we have talked a lot. And I've, I've sort of I've talked directly with the bureaus as well, that it's a practice we need to develop. And this this is sort of a down payment on that. I think it's important to have that report and that conversation with the full council on a regular basis, frankly, in our annual budget setting process, there's not time to have an adequate deep dive and a full understanding on the rates and getting an opportunity to ask questions on a regular basis is really important that every member of this body needs to needs to know. And I hear your comments, councilor Clark, and I take them. Well, I think that our our committee can provide some leadership on how to then show up and provide these sort of reports and conversations to the full body. And that's where maybe we can offer a value add there. That's not necessarily the budget note, but I think it's going to take a while to mature this capability rate setting, other rate setting entities that that have to get their rates approved by a public utility commission. It's like a two year process. That's frankly a rolling process that never ends. And so it's not like going from what we currently do, which is council gets maybe 1 or 2 presentations on rates and then, you know, hope for the best. Even though I know you guys are all doing the best that you can, it's really on us to understand what it is that we're doing there. So that's I think this is a strong move. I'm going to support that. And I it's it's going to our ratepayers will be grateful for it. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president. First of all, it sounds like maybe the council vice president and the proposer of this amendment are working on something on 11. That would be fantastic to see. I have a question on ten because I understand that there is a fair amount of work there, but I also think it is important for us to have this information, and I'm noticing that one of the things that's asked for is f t for every contract, and some of the note reads like, this is about things where we contract out, somebody go do this. And some looks like it's about contractors who we bring in to do work. And I guess I'm wondering if it is helpful in terms of implementation, if there's clarity here, maybe we don't need fte for every report. Does that add work or does that not add to the body of work at all?

It does add work to it. And some of this is going to be a lot in terms of work, as we work with bureaus to have a better understanding of the scope of work that they have. I know a lot of this work is going to fall in on our operations end of it, so they're going to be really working with bureau heads and their finance people as well to get the full scope. And some of this is going to be a determination factor per se, really by me to really say, was this something that we could have used someone internally to do this work, or it should have been something that should have been sent out on a contract?

Councilor. Koyama Lane. If it would be helpful to the administration, are you open to specifying that we're only asking about fte when this is work for which we have contractors at the city, as opposed to when we let. There's a there's a difference between saying we're bringing on an individual as a contractor to do this work. And when we let a contract and the person who bids the contract determines how they fulfill the work, I'm wondering if that would help, or if saying that there is a certain type of contract and not the contractor here, but like we have contracts at the housing bureau for people to take money and go build housing that we would want to exclude. I'm wondering if there's a way to narrow this to what we're actually really trying to get at so that we don't have staff wasting time, but we do get the really important information that I agree with you. We need I want to be supportive of this. I think it's really important. I'm also hearing about the scope that might be beyond what it needs to be. Can we like in three minutes or less because I'm aware of the time, are you open to figuring out how we do that?

Yes. Thank you. And I think narrowing that makes a lot of sense.

Okay. Mr. City administrator, do you have ideas on the fly for how we would do that, or should I sit down with somebody? I'm aware of the time. I want this to be workable. I want this to pass.

I don't have unless staff has anything on the fly to add to it. We might have to sit down with you.

Kind of.

We have until 130.

On the fly.

And honestly, well before then, because we have to.

Understand if. If not, if we can't get to that, what I would do is bring back to this body clarification as it relates to the budget notes as we go through this, because some of this is just going to take some time for us just to sit down, decipher through it, and understanding the intent and how we move it forward.

Councilor. Koyama Lane. If this passes today, are you open to working with the administration on making it feasible and implementable?

Absolutely.

Okay. I'm happy to help with that, if that is helpful. And I'm also happy to stand out of the way. I'm hearing the intent on the record that we focus this on the things that we're really looking for.

Yes, I welcome your support, and our office is working together.

Thank you. Councilor, I have a point.

Of order question. Do you mean you're limiting the scope with your dialog? Right now?

I am not limiting away from nonprofits, which I think is your concern.

I just.

Want the Elana. Yeah. Understood. Understood. What I'm thinking about is where we let a contract to say, go build housing, we're contracting for that. We don't actually want the number of fte. That may not be the type of contract we're thinking about. We don't need our staff to spend time on things that aren't the work that we need. But I do think there are both private and there are both nonprofit and for profit sector groups that do all sorts of aligned work that we should be looking at. That's not the limiting I'm talking about.

Good. I just wanted to try to stay in the yes vote here.

Absolutely. Thank you councilor.

Thank you councilor.

Mr. President.

Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Also, we also need to make a note that in getting this information that these folks should not be targets of folks who do work with us and. Giving. I mean, I know this this information is public information, but I just don't want if if there are issues that people are concerned about or that they support or don't support, that they don't use these lists to have outside activists to be targeting them for some reason or another. And that's, that's, that's what I don't want to happen with this process because I could, I could see this going really left based on issues that we're having before us.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Koyama Lane. Last word.

I mostly got in the queue because councilor Kanal told me to or gave me that chance. But I hear you, councilor Smith, and I am happy to take your advice on starting where you left off in your committee. And this is is really not should not be about targeting anyone, but is really more thinking about who are the the temporary staff working for the city. Let's have that information and see if that's that can be of use to us. Thank you everyone.

Point of information. While while councilor Koyama Lane still has the floor, where are you going to move an amendment. I think you're the last person in the queue and the last person able to do that.

Oh yes, I okay, so in your inbox, there is an amendment that vice president Clark and I worked on together around Koyama Lane nine, which strikes three words at the end of the second paragraph to city council. So it is just saying there will be regular reporting on the water utility rate. And then the beginning of the last paragraph. Instead of saying the first briefing, it says the briefings.

One of information in the last line of it, does it also remove the word entire?

The entire oh to the entire.

Oh.

Would you like entire?

Yeah.

We should probably.

Do that too.

And it also strikes entire.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Can we. Oh, so councilor Koyama Lane, would you withdraw your previous Koyama Lane 11 and then introduce this new language as a new Koyama Lane 11?

I would like to withdraw my previous Koyama Lane 11 and now move Koyama Lane 11 a or improved.

Great.

Thank you keelan. And thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. There we go. Can we please move to a roll call vote on Koyama Lane ten, then 11, then 12.

Okay. Koyama Lane ten moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Smith Kanal. I pirtle-guiney.

With the intents on the record, I.

Ryan I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.

Novick I.

Clark I.

Green I. Zimmerman I. Avalos I.

Smith I.

Dunphy I.

Koyama Lane ten is approved with a vote of 12 eyes.

Please call roll call vote on Koyama Lane. 1111 a whenever we called it.

Moved by Koyama Lane. Seconded by pirtle-guiney.

Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney I. Ryan no. Koyama Lane I I.

Novick no.

Clark I.

Green I. Zimmerman no. Avalos I. Smith no. Dunphy I.

Koyama Lane 11 a is approved with a vote of eight eyes and four nays.

Please call the roll call on Koyama Lane 12.

Koyama Lane 12 moved by Koyama Lane seconded by Smith Kanal.

With that legislative intent on the record.

I pirtle-guiney.

I'm sorry, this is on 12. Yes. No.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick no. Clark.

No.

Green I. Zimmerman no.

Avalos.

I. Smith no. Dunphy I.

Koyama Lane 12 is fails with a vote of six eyes and six nays.

Thank you very much. Councilor Avalos to Avalos ten.

Candace Avalos: All right. Thank you. This one is pretty straightforward. It is the exact same note that we approved last year. Does an appropriate any funding doesn't predetermine future budget decisions. All it does is does what it. What we asked last year, which was asking the city budget office and hr to assume a 15% health care cost increase as they begin developing next year's budget and to provide council with a report on projected costs, available reserves, etc. Etc. I'm trying to go quickly for time. I think overall we heard from the employees. They've said it multiple times that without that budget note, their health care would have been cut this year. We heard that from the budget office as well. So I would really urge that we continue to add this note this year so we can protect against escalating costs, because they are going to keep going up. And being a government employee means having good benefits. And so that means we need to protect those benefits. So I move Avalos ten.

Councilor Avalos moves Avalos ten. Is there a second?

Second. Wow.

There's a lot of people.

I'll defer to you, councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: We'll call that councilor Smith a second. Thank you, colleagues, to the amendment. Councilor Koyama Lane, thank you, vice president Clark.

Thank you, council president. I just wanted to ask lee if he had any thoughts about this.

It's something that we can do and we would produce anyway, but I'll defer to tracy to give me any comments on it as well, if she has any.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Council deputy city administrator tracy warren. One comment that I would make is that I would hope that we would be able to continue in the way that we did for this fiscal year, and that we wouldn't be looking to increase costs up to the 15% threshold, because we would be looking to maintain or reach cost savings without impacting care to folks, and then addressing any reserve needs with whatever excess. Okay. Thank you.

So do I understand this is a ceiling, then a ceiling, the 15%. No.

Is it a ceiling? I don't know the answer. What does that mean? Like in what way?

Tracy? An answer, I think she's asking, is there a cap to 15% on that? I believe that is yes.

Yeah. What we would be doing is using the 15% in our forecasting as a planning footprint for benefits into the following fiscal year. What we've seen in health care costs is a continual increase. And we typically forecast that the 8% level, which leaves the delta if it comes in higher. So the goal of this is to forecast at a higher level so that we don't have to make adjustments later on.

To be clear, city administrator accidentally said there is a cap, there is not a cap. So this is a 15% to make sure at least. But if the budget office will be able to determine, for example, if it goes up by 25%, doesn't mean that they can't that they cannot save health care at 25%. It just makes gives it at a minimum, they need to save 15%.

Okay. Yeah. It's for forecasting purposes so.

That we're.

Yeah.

Thank you, vice president Clark, councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I will be supporting this. I thought this was a good idea last year. It is a good idea this year. And the forecast for 2728 actually dca1 is, is there was something I just read in the paper that said it was going to go up to 17 to 18%. So I think this is so important to make sure that our workers have the quality health care that they need and that we're we're footing footing that bill for them. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Seeing no. One.

Councilor Ryan, director.

Warren. Warren, could I ask you a question? When you look at our compensation, our whole compensation, of course, it includes benefits above the salary. What's our percentage above salary right now? Average.

I think we're roughly around 33 to 35%.

Above 33 to 35%. Okay. Thanks. I. This is a tough one because I'm not know if I'm comfortable with this practice continuing another year. The market's so fluid. This is going to really put a lot of strain as we continue to move forward. So I'm this is hard. This is hard. I listen to all my constituents and we have such a. I'll just say we have a privilege that many people don't have, and I, I salute that and I, I like it, but I'm, I'm just kind of uncomfortable with this practice continuing. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Ryan councilor Pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president, you know, we we have a number that is budgeted for. And it's relatively arbitrary. It's used to be lower. Last year it was higher because of a budget note like this. And unfortunately, the way we budget for bargaining, we don't have a pot of money that we set aside to say this will be used somehow, somewhere within bargaining, we kind of come in and say, this is what we include. Anything else requires reductions elsewhere. And so I think we need to have a number that we are budgeting for that is closer to realistic of actual costs, so that we can have a conversation about what our options are. This puts us closer to realistic for actual cost, so I'm willing to support it as we did last year. It is like everything else, not without trade offs, but I do think that we need to have a broader conversation about how it is that we think about what funds are available for our conversations with our employees, about the balance of pay and health care and other benefits and differentials and everything else that needs to be on the table in any given year. Thanks, colleagues.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, keelan, can we please call the roll on Avalos ten.

Avalos seconded by Smith. No. Aye, Morillo. Pirtle-guiney.

Aye, Morillo.

Ryan.

All right, I'll lean in and do I hear a.

I aye, Morillo. I Novick.

No,

Mark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Dunphy.

I clerk can I change my vote to I.

Yes. Councilor Novick votes aye. The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal to Kanal 14.

Thank you. Council president. May I ask if I'm able to move my all of my amendments together the way the councilor Koyama Lane did? Okay. I am going to be moving and I'll explain this Kanal 14 as well as Kanal 12 and 1515. You is not on your list. It is in your inbox. It is an updated version of 12 and I will discuss that in a minute. Let me start by talking about Kanal 14. Kanal 14 is a budget note that prevents the reduction. The permanent reduction of city run restroom facilities. You may recall that in the city administrator's report from earlier this month, I asked a question of, I guess, acting city administrator about the. The reduction in the the Portland loo in old town, the response we got in email indicated that there is a plan to to remove that it happened, and there is a subsequent plan to transfer administratively the management of city run restroom facilities to to protect against the further removal of restrooms, not only in the right of way, but the Portland loo and parks and everywhere else. I propose a budget note Kanal 14, which says that that none of the money can be used to permanently reduce the number of city owned, managed or contracted restrooms. There is a provision allowing for temporary deactivations due to maintenance or replacements to the degree that portable toilets, porta potties, etc. Are made available to the extent reasonably practicable in the time between the deactivation and the reactivation. Cully Kanal 12 is the exact budget note we approved last.

Sorry, I'd like to just do a point of order before you move on. I believe that to be operational, and I don't understand why this would be a note. And before we move on, I'd like to get an understanding of why this is not considered operations.

Because it is the prevention I'll give mine. And then feel free to ask city attorney taylor as well. But it's it is a condition upon the appropriation saying we're not appropriating money for the removals. It's not saying you can't remove them. It's just saying you can't spend money on removing them permanently.

I don't buy that. Okay.

Had a vetted 14. And I'll note that both 12 and 14 were put through the process. 14 was not ruled out, 12 was also not ruled out. But I'll give a note on that in a minute.

I don't know what you mean by ruled out. I've been sitting here as long as anybody else. I haven't heard any rulings happen, so I don't know what that means. But I do believe that that decisions about what facilities stay open and are not open falls into an operational thing. And I have to say, this feels like there's some sort of I mean, it's it's in my district. I'll just say that. So thank you for the help, but no, thank you.

This actually has nothing to do with the one that's already removed.

Right? It's just it seems to be this, this, this hyper focus. And I'm just trying to understand, are we trying to dictate the operations of offices and bureaus with what is being couched as a note?

I'll let the legal piece.

Get answered there. I will say, in terms of whether or not this is a council decision in the idea that it is not a council decision whether or not we are going to be in the in the business of ensuring access to restroom facilities without having to pay at a starbucks or something, the idea that that's not a council prerogative or decision that we can make in general is effectively reducing the role of council to that of an advisory board, to the administration. I'm sorry. I'm saying that when when one is out and about and needs to use a restroom, you have many paid places that you can go. You can go to a business and pay to use it. But in terms of free places to go, those are generally government provided libraries. Portland lose many other options as well. So I'm saying yeah. So I'm saying the idea that that's our sphere, not what starbucks does in the context of the ones that we provide. We're also not getting involved in libraries as county run, but in the context of what we provide, Portland lose are the best example of that. This is saying we cannot spend money in this fiscal year on reducing the number of them in a permanent sense. There's a need for maintenance, there's a need for cleaning, there's a need for whatever, even replacement. One can do that with this money.

So using a different asset, the parks bureau has pickup trucks. I see them all over the place. Sometimes they get old and out of service and it's time to let them go. I imagine that there's an employee whose job it is to turn over fleet. And so therefore we're spending money. But what was described by the city administrator's office and other office folks was that the reason that this Portland loo was decommissioned was that it was at its end of life? And so I consider it kind of like the 1998 ford f-150 is time to be recycled. But if we cannot execute funds to recycle one of our assets, it means they just sit there and as some folks have said, get mothballed. That wouldn't be a good thing either. So that's why I don't understand what it is that you're trying to achieve here, because there are a lot of assets that are going to come to the end of their life. And if we have a policy that says for this one asset, we don't spend money to, to, to close them, that seems strange and certainly unusual in terms of the way you would deal with city assets. So what gives here?

Yeah, I appreciate the question. So it does say that appropriated funds may be used for temporary deactivations due to maintenance or replacement of otherwise permanent restroom facilities. So in that particular event, it's fine to decommission it as long as you're replacing it and putting up porta potties in the meantime.

But but what you're trying to I mean, it sounds like you're really trying to get at is do we want to have a discussion about how many public restrooms we have in the community? And by all means, I think that's good. I'd love to be able to help expand that. But this isn't doing that. It's basically saying, those who are in charge of the public restroom thing, I don't trust you. And so I want to hold that. I want to basically mean you can't spend any money to do your job. Now, the city administrator has assigned the duty of this asset to some group, but again, it seems like it's targeted because of that group versus the idea of like our public restrooms in the right places at the right time. And I can imagine that there are some neighborhoods, since this thing was patented by commissioners long ago, that the need has changed throughout the community on where you want them and where where the next one needs to go. And I hear about that. So why don't we just get to the point of what it is you're trying to do? Or there's some weird hold up about because an old one got closed down. And what we haven't heard is there's no plan to bring one forward. There is a plan to bring one. We've heard nothing, but we're just reacting now.

Yeah.

Because there was no there was no plan that we knew about to decommission that one.

And colleagues, we are actually still in the introductory moment, the moment this has not been moved or seconded yet. We are not yet to debate on.

Which goes to my point. This is such an operational discussion, and it's worthy of having.

Yeah, I agree.

This is this is not a germane to the note, and I don't think that it would be an appropriate budget note. Perfectly good conversation for a policy later on.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Kanal please continue introducing and we will get to debate.

Are we.

Getting a ruling on that.

Or are we done?

I'm happy to check in with our city attorney.

Advisor.

You're a ruler, correct? I'd like to hear the advice.

I believe right now councilor Kanal has moved 14, 12 and 15. I don't know that they have been moved those as a package.

I haven't.

Said I've moved. 14 I'm about to move. 12 and 15 but we're talking about 14 right now. Okay. I'll get to the 1215 thing.

I think before any rulings or advice are given, it would be good if these were moved and seconded so that we knew they were in front of the body.

Absolutely. Okay, so we will I will councilor Kanal defer to you.

Sameer Kanal: Okay.

So I've explained Kanal 14 to the degree necessary to introduce. I'll ask for a second in a moment. I'll just do this all together for the ease of time. Thank you. Kanal 12 is the exact text of a budget note that was approved last year. I have noted that there it was approved last year, and I'll note that I was advised that it is effectively the word prioritize in. It is effectively unenforceable and given advice to do it numerically as opposed to relatively quantitatively comparatively, which is how the last year budget note did. So in order to give the body a choice. I also took that advice and wrote Kanal 15, which is a updated version that is much more specific and much more directional than I originally wanted this to be, but that is what I was advised to do. So I will say both of them have to do with ensuring that pb's stated priorities from last year's budget cycle, which they told us in the context around whether or not a $21 million increase was sufficient or a $23 million increase would be necessary. That said that the things that would be deprioritized were retail theft, stolen vehicle operations investigations, gun violence reduction, street racing, human trafficking and traffic priority projects. And in the discussion, we also talked about sexual and domestic violence and property crime response. So the note last year aimed to instruct pb to prioritize that overtime spending and deprioritize the amount spent on two other types of overtime and report on that on a quarterly basis. Those are the community presence at events piece, and then on responses to demonstrations and crowd control events this past last year. The same thing happens in Kanal 15, except the reporting piece, the that that stays the same. In fact, it's a copy paste from last year, but it also offers a numerical path, which is to say, a cap on the amount of overtime that can be spent on demonstrations and community presence. So that's the difference between the two. My intention is, as a result of this discussion, to withdraw one of those and allow a vote on the other, but I have not had a chance because this is brand new and we're going to move it all together anyway to have that discussion. Thanks. Thank you council, and I'll move them and ask for a second.

Councilor Kanal moves Kanal 12, 14 and 15 as a package. Is there a second? Second counselor Green seconds colleagues to the amendment package. Counselor Green.

Yeah, I wanted to speak in strong favor of Kanal 14. This is an issue that I think a number of my constituents were alarmed to see that lieu removed. They've. Since there's been an explanation furnished about the fact that it was an end of life, which I. Which I think is a reasonable explanation. And so with the budget note does. Here is. It says, of course you can. You can replace these things if they're at end of life. We don't want to see a net reduction because we think this is a good public good. I think it's good to put that in writing as a as a budget committee. So I'm going to support it for that. And then I support the other amendments as well.

Thank you counselor. Thank you, counselor Green. Councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you. I support these and want to specifically talk about Kanal 14 and just appreciate the focus on restroom facilities. I want to highlight that restrooms are not just for people experiencing homelessness. They're essential infrastructure that serve everyone in our community. When you're with a bunch of kids on a field trip and someone needs to use the bathroom, if you're someone with a medical condition, people who are workers, and as someone who has experienced. Growing children in my uterus and experienced the postpartum period, I can personally attest to how important it is to have access to restrooms. It's not just a convenience, it's a necessity. And a lot of people face similar realities due to pregnancy, disability, chronic illness, and other reasons. So when our public restrooms disappear, that burden really falls disproportionately on community members, especially those who are most vulnerable. But there are also other folks who need to be thinking about outside of the unhoused community. So safe, accessible restrooms, they really help our whole city be more welcoming, usable, dignified for everyone. I appreciate that there is specificity on temporary deactivations due to maintenance replacement, and also talks about some short term replacements being available. So thank you very much for this.

Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: So I'll pose the question again. I do believe that it is operational and based on the determination on that, then I'd like to go into on 12 or 15 or whatever we're calling it now.

Looking to.

To mr. Taylor.

Thank you. Good discussion. It is illegal under state law to spend money over an amount that has been authorized, and it is illegal to spend money for a purpose other than what has been authorized currently. And as has been the practice for many, many years, the city budgets at a high level, budgets. It's what at at what is called the major object level. And once that budget is approved at that high level for bureaus, the administration has authority to spend that money. And they can and they can move it around. As long as they don't overspend. The the, the higher level or higher level number that council has provided. Council can, if it wants to budget at a line item level. So not just at the high level, but they can actually budget individual line items. And if council budgets in that line item manner, then those dollar amounts for line items would be a restriction on the the use of those funds for that purpose. And you could not spend more than that or for a different purpose. That's not how we currently budget. We currently budget at the major object level. When you budget at the major object level, you can use a budget note for for two purposes. One purpose would be to. Insert a funding prohibition or a funding restriction to say, we have budgeted a bureau $50 million. Use it how you want. But the budget note can say none of those funds may be used for a. This particular purpose. So you can restrict money that way, and that is your prerogative as as the council using your budget authority. Another thing council can do as part of its budget authority with a note is to say, we have budgeted the bureau $50 million. Spend it as you want, but in the note, you can say of that $50 million, 1 million of it must go to a particular thing, and you cannot spend any other money on that thing, for example. So for Kanal 14, related to the restroom, that functions as a restriction on the use of funds. So it would be illegal to use funds for a purpose not authorized by that budget. Note. Kanal 12 and Kanal 15. Present different issues in in Kanal 12 as it was introduced and as it was adopted last year, it included both a reporting requirement and also a direction to generally prioritize spending in a certain way. The reporting requirement is appropriate. That is allowed the general direction to prioritize spending in a certain way that is not appropriate in a budget. Note, if you want to legislate and set policy in that area, council can pass a separate ordinance or code provision. Alternatively, if council wants to restrict spending on a certain item, council can pass a budget note that says, we have given you $17 million to do a certain thing, and no more than 1.7 million can be used on a particular purpose. So for Kanal 12, the the portion of it that deals with reporting, I think that is appropriate. The portion of it that is a direction to prioritize. I don't that is not appropriate for Kanal 15 that was circulated today that functions as a as a budget restriction on the use of funds. And I believe that is an appropriate note.

Okay. So councilor Responding to what I just heard from our city attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, I misheard the very last word you said. It was a Kanal 15 is an it is an a appropriate it's not inappropriate.

It I believe 12 is not allowed as written. That would be my recommendation. And I believe 15 is allowed as written.

Okay.

Councilor it is going to be my recommendation that we move forward with 14 and 15.

I will withdraw.

12 at this time.

Thank you.

Okay. So thank you, I appreciate that. A few years ago, there was a city employee who contracted a whole tremendous amount of porta potties to go all over the city. This. So naturally, that program eventually expired. And this would say that we couldn't have ever brought them in. That's what this note does, because what it doesn't say is in the normal course of the program, it doesn't say that to to run a program. It says once it exists, no money by the city can be used to to d you know, to bring the program down to close the program. So a public restroom, by this definition is any event we go, we put up a porta potty. Now we can't spend any money to bring it back. If by some chance they didn't actually contract for when it was going to come down. So sometimes the question isn't can we? The question that's overarching is should we? And the clear answer to both 15 and 14 is no, we should not moving into 15, as much as it can be said that we are using words like prioritize instead of direct, I want to remind all of you colleagues how many questions that seemed quite indicting by councilor Kanal did we have go to police officials all year long with. But I had a budget note that said you were supposed to use overtime for this thing. Now, if he had actually crafted it in a way that says we prioritize it and we're setting some values, then it would have been, gosh, I wish you would have prioritized in the way that we said we prioritized, but you didn't. Can you explain why you didn't? But that's not how it got reframed. So I'd encourage you to think back to the last year of the inquisition's, that we've seen him put certain members of our police force through about how they did or didn't use overtime spending, and he always referenced his note, and I was agreeable to it in some degree last year. I think this year I'll be a firm no, because I think it was used inappropriately. I think it was used for the purposes of talking points and shaming. And both of these fall in the category of yes, we probably can. And no, we certainly should not.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman, councilor Novick and colleagues, I'll just note it is 1230, and my initial intention was to be done by 1230 to move to the final business. We are going to push until 1:00, and then we are going to try and rush through all of the formal things that we have to try and get through. So, councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: I just wanted to ask chief day, if you wanted to come up and speak very briefly on this issue, or if he thinks it's only but only if he thinks it's necessary. Very briefly. 45 seconds.

Last two years, Portland police bureau has reduced its overtime by 22%. If you take out unplanned events, if you add unplanned events, it's a 14% reduction. A 14% reduction was done in the wake of a national election and inauguration, and an unprecedented federal surge of oppression on the city of Portland, of which the police bureau relied heavily upon. I mean, the city relied heavily upon to keep the national guard and other behaviors out of the city that we weren't pleased with. I appreciate the bold projection and numbers assigned to these various projects, but as we've said many times on this dais, crime is unpredictable and the ability to say and commit that this will be what we would spend in this particular category. The nuance is really is unachievable. And finally, I would say around the area of public order and community engagement, we continue to demonstrate a high level of responsibility in both of those. I recently took a group of officers to the irco gala. This could limit the opportunity for them to have exposure to things like that. I recently was at an event Tuesday night at warner pacific. I was at an event last night with east precinct. Those are all things that I try to bring officers along to, to engage in and be a part of. It's good for their wellness. It's good for the community to hear and see them in non-enforcement ways. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president. I want to start with.

Kanal 14 and then I'll have some questions about. Kanal 15. I am not sure who can answer questions about this. I am wondering about how this would work in practice. I am wondering about what happens when a restroom reaches end of life. If we don't have the budget to replace it. I am very pro public restrooms. I am very pro public Portland loo. I think we need more of them. But I also don't want to pass policy that inadvertently prevents us from being able to run the city. So, mr. City administrator, do you have anybody who can speak to how this would work in practice?

That's my question as well. I'm trying to see if we have someone that can speak to how this would actually work in practice of not actually being able to replace.

That's concerning as well. We'll come back to this. We're running short on time and there's more I hope we get to today. Oh, okay.

Quickly. Skylar barker, director, Portland solutions for the record, councilor Zimmerman referenced the porta potty program. I'll just say briefly, I think this budget note may impact our ability to do that replacement process. If we don't have funding associated with those restrooms. I think we're unclear. In conversations I've had with Portland parks and recreation and the dca for public works on how much money we would need to ensure is there to refurbish, for example, loo, and then you need to replace it with a porta potty. There isn't currently funding for that porta potty program anymore. That was ARPA funded, so just need to make sure what funding streams are there to ensure that we would be adhering to that budget.

Note okay. Councilor Kanal, I, I appreciate the intent and where you're going with this. I don't think that without a way to ensure we have funding to carry this out, that I can support the budget. Note, I am very interested in thinking about how we can ask the mayor to make sure that we are increasing our Portland loo funds in next year's budget, if that's available. I'm very interested in the number of people around this dais who want to do something here. I'm worried that what we end up with is mothballed facilities or porta potties, that we don't have funds for. I'll move on to Kanal 15, and I colleagues supported the version that looked like Kanal 12 last year. I agree with the prioritization that's here. Unfortunately, we've had that prioritization taken away and hard dollar caps. I don't think our the sponsors preference and certainly wouldn't be mine. Can you help me understand with a hard dollar cap? What happens? How do you manage to that? Do you what does this what does this look like? And how did the preference that we passed last year work in practice? Was that helpful? Successful? What can you tell us about the idea of prioritizing where our police officers spend their overtime, and how we make sure that our budget is being used on things that are really critical to the safety of our city?

Yeah. Thank you councilor. So the police bureau has three primary goals. We transform the dynamic between the police and the people we serve. Those are both internal and external service. We reduce crime and the fear of crime. And we are focused on organizational growth and development. I want to remind council that regardless of this amendment, the police bureau still looking at a massive cut in resources this year, including a $1.7 million reduction in overtime overall. So the hard cap is, you know, highly limiting in the sense that we just can't predict the future. I will say that when councilor Kanal brought the amendment forward last year, the budget note forward last year, I heard that I pay careful attention to the comments in the statements that were made from the dais here. I also spent a considerable amount of time with portlanders hearing the same thing, and I have received hundreds of emails and appreciations for the way that we have shown up and managed both public order events and community engagement events. So my concern is that this would limit our ability to effectively provide that high level of service to portlanders demand, because not only have we reduced overtime at a moment when we've had unprecedented public order, but we've also reduced crime. And up to April, the end of April this year, we only had four homicides in 2025. We had 12 from 2021 to 2024. We had 29 in that same time period. So we had four this year. Sadly, we've had six since then. So the unpredictability of what we need to focus our attention on, but know that it all is related. And I hear council's concern around public order specifically and community engagement specifically. But my passion and belief is that those hard caps would make it incredibly difficult to meet the demands that portlanders have, as well as the expectations I have for the bureau.

Heard. Would you have the same concerns if this was. We can't do this as a budget note, but we heard that there are other paths. If there was a preference put forward, please direct as much of the overtime as we can to these things as opposed to those things as we put forward last year. Would you have the same concerns, different concerns, fewer concerns, more?

My primary concern is the loss of discretion that I need to have to be able to effectively manage the challenges that come before me on a daily basis. So that's my primary concern, is that, you know, we fulfill these bureau director positions for a reason to be able to manage the constant. And in my bureau, particularly the constant, ever changing landscape that comes before me. So whatever bureau's whatever council's direction is, I, I, you know, certainly understand and appreciate. But at the end of the day, having that latitude to be able to move within the budget that has been provided to me is critical, because we don't know what the next you don't know what tomorrow is going to bring, let alone the next six months or the next year. And as we look at this holistically, I want to emphasize again, you know, there's been a lot of energy placed on the term community engagement. Everything we do is community engagement, 220,000 plus calls for service last year were community engagement. And I am looking for ways when I think of community engagement as a way to take the foot off the gas so that our members don't have to work at this extremely high level and only face crisis, but where they can spend time with portlanders. In all of my hiring ceremonies, I emphasize to officers into the bureau the importance of spending time in the city, spending time with portlanders, being here not only as law enforcement, but as community. And that's the motivation and the intent. And occasionally, given the inconsistency of officer schedules, sometimes we have to pay them overtime. Tonight I'm going to be at an event. I'm taking a sergeant that I believe is somebody that we're developing and a future leader in the organization, and I want him to come to this event. And it's a last minute deal, and we're going to have to pay him overtime to join me tonight. I need to have that latitude to be able to do that.

Understood. I think at a time when we have a limited number of officers, a lot of work to be done, concerns about call response and and concerns about budget. I hope that the bulk of our overtime dollars are going to the core work of the department. I understand that you need flexibility, and there are other things to. But I think at this time we do need the bulk of the dollars going to the core work of the department. Councilor Kanal I'm unsurprisingly uncomfortable with a cap and the. The way that that limits us. I did support the direction last year. I'd be interested in figuring out how we can give some preference of. Where council wants to make sure we're not cutting. I see it not as a don't do these other things, but heck, if we've got to have some limitations, let's make sure we're not limiting in these spaces, right? Let's make sure that we're getting the work done that we need to hear and that that's not where we're limiting. And I'm interested in thinking about how, chief, we can make a clear statement to you that there are spaces we want to make sure we're not limiting, even as we have to look at tight budget times. I think councilor Kanal, I can't do that through a dollar cap today. That feels too stark. In a time where we need all of our bureaus to be able to do the work that comes before them. But I'm happy to keep a conversation open around what we can do here moving forward. That we might not be able to do in the budget process. I know that's not helpful for today. Thank you. Council president.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. Colleagues, it is 1240. We have 20 minutes. We have five additional amendments to try to get to after we vote on Kanal 14. Kanal 14 and Kanal 15. And there are currently five other colleagues in the queue. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah, given what was just said, and given that there hasn't really been a path to any of the conservative members of the council other than councilor Pirtle-guiney voting on this, I'm going to save time and ask to to limit debate to this. On it. I would like to speak on 15. On 14. I do want to just talk a little bit. Yeah, making sure the numbers are right. 14 I just want to talk a little bit about what was said here. After. And I'll just I'll put this on the table because these are both about discretion. I think that's a really fair thing to bring up here. And I'll note that it was director brocker knapp who came up to answer questions about the Portland loo, which might be surprising because it's a Portland parks program historically, and I received information after the last city administrator report that it's going to be transferred to pmo. And so we know and I will just say there will be fewer Portland loos in the public right of way as a result of this transfer. That is a known fact because of that transfer. So we have to do this to avoid the reduction, because this is in terms of the right of way ones, I will say the the ones that are related to the parks, I didn't get an exact statement on that, but I believe those are staying in the Portland parks bureau. Is that accurate? Yeah, I'm seeing a nod there. Thank you. So I'm concerned about that. And so the the idea was to protect against that. I will correct the record. It does not say that if one installs a a porta potty, that that has to stay forever for a temporary event. In the second half of it, it explicitly says, I think it says typically, sorry, otherwise permanent restroom facilities. That's for the replacement part of it. And then for the first part, the reduce does not mean it is from the level it's at now or at the time of passage, not from any theoretical future increase. And I did want if there is a way to to make that clear for colleagues who may be uncomfortable with it, I'm very open to that rewording, but that's the the clear intent behind it. As I mentioned, when I laid it out, I am concerned that we are going to have fewer restrooms available that do not cost money. And I think we have become a society, you know, nationwide where one needs money to do many of the basic things that you do as a human being. And I think if someone directly needs to use the restroom, that shouldn't be something that we charge for and we're going to move in that direction. If we don't do this now because of the administrative transfer, we can't do anything about the administrative transfer here in this budget. But what we can do is say, you cannot use money to reduce the number of restrooms permanently. You can do so temporarily as needed. So that that's just to clarify that piece. And I, I will say I as it relates to. 15 I would have preferred not to do a cap either. I had a long conversation with attorneys about it yesterday and had to kind of change the, the approach. They had given some information earlier than that. I don't mean to imply that they had only done so yesterday, but we hadn't had a chance to connect and get into information on on what was shared. For robert taylor. I have a question. Sorry to interrupt. You had mentioned that this is something that the policy choices that are implicated in Kanal 12 could be done through a code change or ordinance. Given the interpretation of how a budget note was interpreted last year and the application. This is effectively asking for information and asking for a prioritization. Would a resolution also work?

Depends on what you're trying to do with the resolution. If the. If the. The. If a resolution is used to express council's wishes. Desires. Demand. A report. Express council's statement of values. They're not binding in the same way that an ordinance is or the code is. So if what you want to do is ask for. Ask the city administrator or the police chief to prepare a report explaining how these decisions are made with how overtime is used. I think a resolution could be used for that.

Thank you. I will note, based on cir figures, that $800,000 of overtime was spent at the ice facility in the month of June 2025, and that that number went down to an average of $240,000 a month from June to November 2025. Sorry, July to November 2025. I will also note that when the human trafficking unit came to the community and public safety committee, they talked about not having overtime dollars available, having literally $0 available for human trafficking. I think we've all seen in the news the good work of that unit, and I would like to make sure that they have the resources they need. It's a question of where what are our priorities? And I think it's pretty clear that discretionarily going to the ice facility at a higher level versus and other locations, by the way, should be a lower priority than, than human trafficking. I think that's pretty clear, and I'll leave it at that. Thanks. And I did request to.

Thank you, councilor Kanal colleagues. There are three more in the queue. And then we're going to move to a time limiting debate to those in the queue, councilor Clark Morillo Ryan, and we will move to a vote. Councilor vice president Clark, I'm not going to be able to recognize them.

Okay. Thank you, council president. I'll be very brief. And thank you, robert taylor, for your opinion that these are restrictions. Be that as it may, I think they're very irresponsible. Both Kanal 14 and Kanal 15. Just let me say briefly that if we were concerned about Portland lose, then we should be putting more money into getting more lose out there and not restricting. We need to we need more lose. We don't need to restrict or tie the hands of the bureau or whoever is managing this. I trust their discretion and. And I know they do the right thing. But let's. We should be talking about more more lose, not restrictions on Kanal 15. I don't remember how I voted on this, but I'd like to believe that I'm a lot smarter than I was last year, having gone through a year plus of of this job. And a lot has changed since that time. And I live near the ice facility and I'm concerned about unpredictable events. I do not want to tie the hands of our police bureau because of those unplanned events. And in fact, colleagues, we are really we really should be talking about more resources for our public safety bureaus so that they can do all these things, these these things should not be competing with each other. They're all important, but we need more resources. That's the issue that we should be talking about, not restricting, you know, robbing peter to pay paul on these things. This is nuts. I don't want them to lose their discretion. I trust that they make the right decisions. And I'm a no on both of these.

Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you. I think something that I repeatedly heard that I also don't have the answer to is who is currently administering the program for the Portland loos that I should be directing my questions to. Is it udca donna paul or you? Skyler.

Councilor aye, Morillo. This is dc of public works. Currently it will be the Portland parks and recreation bureau, and then eventually it will be transferred to pmo. So we are happy to answer questions on Portland.

Sameer Kanal: Gotcha. Okay. I have a few questions for you. On the Portland lose. I feel really strongly about public restrooms, so I'm really glad that councilor Kanal brought this forward for this discussion. Why were the loos move to pmo in the first place? I don't think I ever really understood why.

I'm going to invite skye and also director shymansky to help answer those questions.

Thank you.

And as quickly as you can answer them. Thank you.

Okay. Director. Portland solutions. It hasn't transferred yet, so this is aimed for this next fiscal year. We're still in the process of discussing that. There's folks on the pmo team who have worked on the loo project in the past for that team in different bureaus. It's been worked on by a project manager who's splitting his time 50% with pmo and with parks. So he's been managing some of that project management. So I can go into deeper details. One thing just to clarify is we did remove a loo recently or parks did to be refurbished. There is a plan to add a new loo that would kind of replace that one, but in a slightly different location. Trimet is currently buying the property where the current loo is located. So just to clarify.

Yeah. Can you actually go into deeper detail on why that decision was made.

For the transfer? My understanding is, is because of the staff that is managing that project, and we could take it over because we had somebody in our program who had previously managed that project.

I can add a little bit. This is sonja shymansky, interim director of parks and recreation. I think that's part of the answer. I think part of the answer is about the fact that we've got so many different parts of the city managing rights of way and public spaces in different ways, and we are always in some degree of flux figuring out who's got capacity, human and otherwise, who's got expertise, who's best positioned to go to that work. So what sky said is correct. And I think that is also a piece of it, and I want to correct myself. I nodded when you asked the question about what was transferring. What is contemplated to transfer is the eight loos that are downtown, both in the right of way and in parks. No other loos will transfer management.

So what was the difference? Why were the Portland loos for downtown transfer to pmo but not the others, or why they're going to be? I don't understand.

I think it's related to what I'm guessing about to a degree, which is capacity and kind of where teams are doing work and who's best situated to do the work. I wish victor were here, and we're happy to follow up with you with more information. I'm sorry, we don't have more now.

Gotcha. And do we currently have a capital plan long term for our loos, or is that something that council has to figure out within the next budget cycle?

There is a patent on the loo which folks might know. So we get money from other cities when they purchase the loo. So it's actually kind of a self-sustaining program, which is great. So I would say, yes, there's a plan and it's pretty unique given the fact that it has a patent.

Okay. And. Do we know how many we plan to install and replace in the next few in the next five years or so?

I only know about the one that's just taking place right now, but we can check with that project manager.

Okay.

Where they would be likely to be added within parks is where we're developing new parks. And I suspect it's not many.

Okay. Yeah.

I also would like to use the opportunity to add that there are no plans for removing any other loos in the downtown area.

Okay, sonja, can you elaborate a little bit more on or. I'm sorry, director shymansky, can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And have the neighborhood associations been consulted for this sort of placement of loos, the removal of them, that type of thing?

Yeah. I think many of you know that park planning processes are deeply community informed and community driven and a lot of ways, including on questions of amenity. What's most important for your neighborhood? What do you most want to see and use in your park? We also we do a lot of other bathroom business, so we're always putting out portables and taking them down and kind of doing match up to make sure that their facilities where they're needed.

Yeah. Well, you know, I care about bathrooms.

I love bathrooms.

Yeah. Got to work together last year to fund some bathrooms in district three. And that was really important. And this matters a lot to me as someone who was unhoused and had to deal with not having regular access to public restrooms and the impact that that has on people day to day, I think that really matters. Does chemo have a plan to pay for the ongoing maintenance and installation of these loos?

Yes. That has to do with the patent and kind of the sustainable funding model, but we can also get you that information.

Okay. Can you share a bit of that now, since it's going to be pretty critical to this vote?

I don't have that information. Other than that, we have the patent. And I specifically said that Portland solutions and pmo didn't have additional funding to put toward this program, and I was worried about that. And so the team brought me a plan that they had outlined for how the program is self-sustaining with its own funding.

Okay. And so since there is no sustainable funding within pmo, is that going to be adding additional pressure to the general fund overall or.

No, that program will be self-sustaining within and of itself. So we're providing the personnel. So that's something that I can provide the folks to manage the program. But the program itself will be funded by that patent.

Okay. And so just to be clear, the general fund is now going to be the source of maintenance for all of our loos.

No, the patent that pays for the program will be the source of the funding for the program.

It's an enterprise function, although it's not an enterprise fund. The city holds the patent on the loo itself, and as it's sold, we get revenue in very broad terms. The amount of revenue that we get year to year is about what we pay on maintenance. Both of those things will transfer over.

Okay. And how much funding would it cost to get one loo per district if we had to do that?

I can probably get that very quickly, but I don't have that offhand.

Okay, well, I think that's all for now. Councilors. I would say that this is a really important budget note. I think that our public restrooms and access to them is part of a public health matter, really, when we're talking about who has access and who gets to use the restroom, and also how that impacts our house neighbors as well. So although I know that the loser for everyone I know, councilor Pirtle-guiney, has also talked about the importance of them for families who are out and about and need to use them. So thanks councilor Kanal for bringing such a rich discussion. I will be supporting this.

Thank you, councilor Morillo colleagues, we have six minutes until we are. We have to be done with amendments, and we must move to the closing votes on tax levies and everything else. So, councilor Ryan, you are our last word and then we are moving to a vote.

Thank you, council president. I'll just say this unplanned work session on lose has been interesting. I'm really not interested in dictating my policies on honey buckets. I mean, I mean, sorry, they I do wish the maintenance would improve because I did use one about a month ago and it was not good. Thank you for the transparency chief day on the data. It was so helpful to really listen to how you think as a leader and how you were able to apply this, and I really appreciate that you're showing up to community events and it's not it doesn't matter that I appreciate it. I hear it constantly from portlanders that you're out there in the community and that more and more of the police bureau is out there in the community. And that's one reason why the police bureau is being well received by portlanders, much different than it was when I got here in 2020. So thank you. But dictating how the chief should run his bureau is complicated. Operation as it relates to overtime is just far too micro. Our chief deserves to lead with his professional discretion, experience and authority we have granted him. So note amendment 12 that morphed into 15. Yeah.

Thanks.

So thank you. Yeah. Cool. Okay. Can we can we please move to a roll call vote on Kanal 14 and 15?

Moved by Kanal, seconded by Green. Is that correct? Okay.

Can I separate?

You dropped one.

What? Are we voting on them together?

Did we separate? Does anybody separate the question on this specific.

All dropped Kanal.

15 withdrew 12 actually. So 14.

And 15. I mean they're wholly unrelated.

Can I move to split the amendment?

There we go. Okay. Please call the roll. And we are going to split the split the the.

Divide the question.

Divide the question. Thank you. Can you please call the roll on 14?

Yes, councilor Morillo confirmed. Yes. The request. Thank you. Okay. Kanal 14. Move by Kanal. Seconded by Green Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. Ryan. No. Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo. I Novick no. Clark.

No.

Green I. Zimmerman no.

Avalos. I Smith.

No.

Dunphy. I Kanal 14 fails with a vote of six eyes and six days.

Can you please call the roll on 15?

Can all 15 move by Kanal seconded by Green Kanal.

I know Ryan.

Koyama Lane I.

Morillo I.

Novick no.

Arc no.

Green I. Zimmerman no. Avalos I.

Smith.

No.

Dunphy.

No I.

Don't Kanal 15 fails with a vote of five eyes and seven days.

Okay, colleagues, we are at 1258. Unfortunately, that is all the time we have for amendments and budget notes.

I'd like to suspend the rules. Yesterday you took a break. You could have passed the gavel. We should have gotten through these yesterday. I think we need to get through all of the business today. We have amendments and notes still to go through. I would recommend we suspend the rules and stay here.

Second.

Okay. Councilor Zimmerman has moved to suspend the rules and continue, and councilor Smith has seconded the motion. Is this a debatable motion? How does this work?

A motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. It requires nine votes to be adopted.

Okay. Councilor Zimmerman is moving to suspend the rules and continue debate on the remaining amendments.

Point of information?

Yes.

Just want to understand the implications here. We would be, if this were to pass, we'd be going through all the pre-filed amendments and then ending.

The second.

What would be the what would be the impact of this in terms of what would we be continuing to do?

May I speak to the intent? The intent is that I think we're quite close to the end of the list that you published. Council president. We left a lot of hours on the table to yesterday's day, I don't think. And you have not shared with us for the reason of a hard stop today, and you did not share it with us yesterday. And so if you cannot preside, I think that we have a council vice president for that reason. But we have just a few items left and we have wasted some time yesterday. I don't think we should just cut ourselves off arbitrarily at 130 today. So the.

Just to clarify.

Just to get through what we were intending to get through.

Just what's on that page.

Additional five.

New special secret.

Pirtle-guiney eight and nine Koyama Lane.

I've learned after 18 months of serving with you. Councilor Kanal not to say yes to that because I know you got something cooking.

No, I don't, and I don't have anything additional.

I think we should get through the the amended and anybody else is bringing the amendments. So I'm not going to limit myself to that statement that you're making. I'm just saying to get through this item, this budget item, this item.

And councilor, the reason why we scheduled this until 130 today, we have about 30 minutes of back and forth we have to do. And we have a 2:00 executive session.

So I have been through many of our executive sessions. I think that we can spend time here.

Okay. Well, we're moving to a vote on whether to suspend the rules. The vote requires nine votes to suspend the rules.

Point of information. Just to clarify. Voting yes means what? And voting no means voting.

Good question. Voting yes to suspend the rules means that we will continue debating amendments. Voting no to suspend the rules means that the rule of the chair stands, and that we will be moving to. Conclusion.

Just the prefiled amendment.

Just the prefiled amendments that are on this list.

I didn't say that.

Okay.

I'm staying in this in this agenda item.

Oh, understood. Okay. So counselors intention is not to not not specific to the list, but to continue.

And may I be heard, please. Just to hopefully avoid some confusion. There's a motion to suspend the rules to allow us to continue. That's appropriate. That takes nine votes to pass this issue could come. A similar question can come before the body. If there's an attempt to adjourn this meeting, there could be an objection. There would need to be a motion to adjourn that was adopted, that would take a majority vote to adjourn the meeting. Alternatively, if the council president makes a ruling on an issue, that ruling can be appealed by three members of the body and then voted on by the body. So I just because this is a rule suspension and nine votes, I wanted to let the body know of these other things that could happen.

Thank you, council president. I'm not trying. There's no gamesmanship here. It's just that we have a few items left. I think we can do it. We can get this done, folks. We can get it done.

Okay, so there's a non-debatable motion has been moved and seconded. Can we please move to the vote on whether to suspend the rules?

Motion to suspend the rules. Moved by Zimmerman. Seconded by Smith. Kanal.

No.

Pirtle-guiney. I Ryan I. Koyama Lane no. Morillo.

No.

Novick I Clark. I Green.

No.

Zimmerman I.

Avalos. No.

Smith.

I Dunphy. No motion to suspend the rules. Fails with a vote of six eyes and six nays.

Thank you. Point of order. Council.

President councilor.

Pirtle-guiney.

You said we were working on amendments until 1:00. I was in the queue at 1258 with no other business on the table to move an amendment. Why was I not recognized?

We were working on amendments until 1:00.

And I was in.

The queue.

To move an amendment before then.

Debate was scheduled until 1:00 is what is what.

Correct? And I was in the queue before then to move an amendment, I would like to be recognized.

We are out of time, councilor, I apologize, colleagues. President councilor.

I would like to be recognized to move. Pirtle-guiney Novick five.

Heard and I am.

Point of order. Can we please return to debate?

We are out of time.

I object to the council president's ruling on this.

Okay, great, great. Let's let's just do a bunch of roll call votes. Okay. So we have an objection to the ruling of the chair. So we are appealing the ruling of the chair that was moved by councilor Zimmerman, that was seconded by councilor Smith. The ruling of the chair shall. The question is, shall the the ruling of the chair stand and requires majority or nine votes.

It requires a majority vote. The ruling can be appealed by. Three members need to join it so it can.

I would join as the third. Is this a debatable motion?

It is. It's a briefly debatable. On the appeal, the president can explain his decision. Each member can speak one time, briefly. President can respond to questions, and the president can end with a description. It requires seven affirmative votes to overturn the president's ruling. A yes vote means that the president's ruling will be upheld, and council pirtle-guiney will not be allowed to make her motion. A no vote would overturn the president's ruling, and councilor Pirtle-guiney would be allowed to make her motion.

Thank you, city attorney colleagues. Brief description of or brief explanation for my ruling on this is that originally scheduled to debate amendments until 1230, and assuming that we would possibly need up to an hour for final work, and we have a tight timeline, I extended that debate period until 1:00 at 1:00. We stopped. That is my explanation of why we were moving forward. I am.

We have an executive session.

And yeah, so.

Point of information.

Colleagues to the queue for discussion of that as per one one time per councilor Per robert.

Thank you. President colleagues. I was in the queue before 1:00 to move an amendment. That was the time that we were given for ending. I would like to move pirtle-guiney Novick five. As many of you know, there were many people who said yesterday, let's try to find a compromise between the amendment and the pirtle-guiney Novick amendment. I worked well into the night last night with councilor Greene. I appreciate your willingness to come to the table together to try to figure this out. My staff started working with the administration first thing this morning, and there were negotiations throughout the morning to try to find a compromise. Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached, but I think we deserve to have additional conversation in this area. I want to be clear about what we are talking about here. We are talking about labor positions in the mix being held up between minor disagreements. There were red lines that were nonstarters in both the amendment and the pirtle-guiney Novick amendment. So we were proposing on both sides to peel back those red lines and get to a place where there were just things on the table that people could agree on, some positions that probably shouldn't have been realigned, that everybody agreed were mistakes, some time to ensure that there aren't other positions that shouldn't be realigned, that there aren't other mistakes, some time for turnover of duties, where work is being realigned to ensure that our city employees can do the work that is being asked of them, respect for staff who are being laid off because these budget cuts wrap up their work and their lives, and they are in whiplash until the last minute. On whether they will continue to be employed and money to ensure they have time to plan their next steps while their families still have health care. That is what is in the mix here. Colleagues making permanent ten positions that were realigned, that should not have been saying to our employees, we're going to take a couple of months to make sure that everybody knows what's happening here, and there are not other mistakes, that the work turnover goes smoothly. Respect for our employees who are being laid off with very little time left on their health care. Because we are in tight budget times, we can balance a budget and treat our employees respectfully. This was so close to a compromise, colleagues, and I think we can.

How is this germane to the topic?

I think we can work it out. So I am asking for us to debate one more amendment.

I think we.

Actually try to work it out.

With you this. Councilor Morillo you hid from us and didn't answer.

Any of aye, Morillo you're out of work.

Please councilor Pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor Morillo please.

Angelita Morillo: Councilor. I had no calls or texts this morning. I was taking my child to the dentist, and. As soon as I heard. That councilor Greene was looking for me, I called him.

Colleagues, please.

Thank you.

Point of order. When did we get to the point where a new amendment could be introduced?

We are in debate of whether to overturn the rule of the chair, which will require nine votes.

Will require.

Seven votes. Thank you. That was the previous councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I'm going to pause because I think robert taylor is about to jump in.

Yep. It takes seven no votes. Thank you. To overturn the chair.

Thank you, I misspoke, I apologize.

I want to I am not speaking with what was just proposed the amendment. I'm speaking because we have placed what I would consider an arbitrary stoppage point for reasons that have to do with either time management or desire to get to a executive session. Last I heard, nobody's getting cpr in the executive session, so I think it's okay to take a little pause here. Multnomah county went until 1 a.m. To do this type of work yesterday. We stopped at 130 and in my editorializing, wasted half of a day. But that gavel could have been passed. So I'm sorry. We have a couple of things to get through. I, of course, am being selfish here because Zimmerman five and six were put at the bottom of councilor Dunphy's list, but they're the last to come up. Of course, I would like a time to hear them, but at the same time, if there are others and it sounds clearly like there is, this work matters to stay here and do it. It's not that much longer, and the reasons we have been given are not earth shattering enough for a reason to get up and say arbitrarily, we've hit 130. Therefore we we can't. I don't think that the intent was to stymie discussion, but I do think the outcome of being so lived to a timeline is allowing for bad decision making. And now we're on day two of that, and I think we should reject that. Again, I'm not speaking to whatever is going to be proposed by others, but I don't think that we have, as last year we had hundreds. We got to a point where it was probably not achievable even to go an extra couple of hours, but I think we actually can see the end, and we're deciding to stop at the last hurdle, even though the next ten meters is just a quick sprint. So I would appreciate a no vote so that we can continue this work. If Multnomah county can go to 1 a.m. We can.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I will be supporting this because I think it's so important that we finish the the agenda as you have given it to us, and it doesn't matter. We understand that these budget conversations are going to go over and we can bring up. We don't have to go on this list. We can bring up at the dais new amendments like councilor Pirtle-guiney did. So that's not that's not an issue. But I would really like to get this work done. We can we can recess to go to the executive session, come back and finish this. So that that is my also, I, I expect that because we need to do this work.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor. Morillo.

Well, if we're allowed to introduce new amendments, then I'd like to bring Green Avalos. Morillo two back to the table to save all the city employee jobs because to say that an amendment takes anything less than an hour to get through is ridiculous. We are not just over the hurdle. So if we can introduce new amendments, then let's go. Let's bring Green Avalos Morillo two, and let's save all the city employee jobs. And maybe the police union will have the courage to come and say publicly that they support it the way they've been saying it behind the scenes, because they were too cowardly to do it in person. Because last night we had conversations with some of these councilors to try to come up with a compromise. There were agreements that people would be working on certain things to bring it forward. Then we were ghosted, then we were ghosted this morning. Then we weren't getting calls, texts or answers about what that amendment would look like. And now we're being ambushed with what is a pathetic, paltry amendment that will not save the number of jobs that we actually need to save to keep our system functioning the way that it should. So I will be introducing greene Avalos Morillo two as well. I welcome a second.

Thank you.

Councilor Morillo. We are in a motion. We can't move anything right now.

Okay.

Well, I'll be doing it right after that. And I can stay here all night to.

Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah. I first, I, I'm very sympathetic to the arguments from councilor Zimmerman and philosophically aligned with those I, we have amendments that are also, by the way, restoring other jobs that are on here. And as I understand the motion, would let that line get cut. I can't support this motion.

Thanks.

We. There's a there's a line here, an order that was laid out. And I've been told in how what the impact of this motion passing is that councilor Pirtle-guiney would get to cut that line with a new amendment that hasn't been done. That was what we heard there. So I'll be voting to uphold the chair's ruling in that scenario.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. I'll be supporting the motion to overrule the ruling. The chair I just want to note that Novick six, which would have rolled back the increase in council office budgets in order to pay to restore janitorial services, cut in the mayor's budget. These are the people that we see every day that work in the Portland building and city hall that was supposed to be scheduled for yesterday under block two. I actually think that should not be controversial. I have hopes that people would be willing to agree that we don't need an increase this year in office budgets, when we can buy back janitorial services with them. So that's I, I would that's, that's a major reason why I'm supporting overruling the rule of the chair.

Thank you, councilor Novick. Councilor. Koyama Lane.

I am sympathetic to the folks that are in this line that have pre filed amendments to, to wanting those to be able to have a chance to be heard. I do not want this to extend indefinitely. And us continue to sit here on the dais with the public watching when there there hasn't been the right compromising and workshopping that we need to do before bringing something here. So to spend a ton of time and then end up six six is not it doesn't feel okay at this point. It does not feel like the right move. And I don't think it's good for our entire body. I would love for us to quickly get through the last few things that did not get to get moved. I don't know if that is possible, but I have been sitting here for hours being like, let's stop talking. So I will be going with the chair unless there's some way that he decides that we can do this quickly and get through the things that have been pre filed and not just waste time.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, council president, I will be voting no to extend the meeting. I have a couple caveats. I think I think we all need a time out. I can't be the only one getting a little angry up here. And we could come back in the afternoon. I also think we're being disrespectful to staff that have been sitting here for two days, that have permitting issues and such that we need to go through, so maybe we should. When we come back, we should actually focus on those because we're killing staff capacity when we are disrespectful like that.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, a reminder we are voting on whether to overrule the the decision of the chair we need seven affirmative votes. Is that right? We are.

The question before the body is, shall the chair's ruling be upheld.

Upheld, upheld.

The chair's ruling be upheld?

Yes.

Me vote no.

Okay.

Screw this up.

Okay. Please call the roll.

Kanal.

Yes.

Pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane.

Yes.

Morillo.

Yes.

Novick.

No.

Clerk.

No.

Green.

Yes.

Zimmerman.

No.

Avalos.

Yes.

Smith.

No.

Dunphy.

Yes. Chair. Ruling is upheld. Six months.

So the chair is ruling is upheld with a vote of six. Yes. And six.

No.

Thank you. Colleagues. I would entertain a motion to conform adaptive adopted budget amendments attachments with the amendments made this week, making adjustments to attachment a through g as filed. This formally adopted, adopts and incorporates all amendments into the into the budget. May I have a motion?

So moved.

Councilor councilor Kanal moves. Councilor Avalos seconds keelan. Can you please call the roll?

Kanal I.

Pirtle-guiney no.

Ryan. No Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. No clerk.

I Zimmerman. No Avalos. I Smith.

Can you call the question? I don't think people understand it. We have.

The motion is to conform the adopted budget attachments with the amendments we made this week, making adjustments to attachment a through g as filed. It incorporates and adopts all of the amendments into the budget.

So is it the ones we did yesterday?

We did yesterday and today incorporating them into the.

So what are we going to do about the ones that are still hanging?

We are moving on.

So no, I don't want that. If anybody needs to change, they they vote. They need to change it.

Okay. Dunphy I.

The motion carries with a vote of seven ayes and five knees.

Okay.

Councilors, I'm now moving the fiscal year 2627 adopted budget to its second reading at a time and date certain of 6:15 p.m. June 17th, 2026. We are now in consideration of item nine, the tax levy ordinance. Colleagues before us is now an ordinance to levy taxes for the city of Portland for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026, which directs the city budget director to submit said tax levy and other certifications to the county assessors of Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties. This action includes the levy amounts for property taxes accruing to the general fund, children's investment fund, the parks local option levy fund, and the fire and police disability and retirement fund. It also includes property tax levies for general obligation bond debt and three urban renewal areas we have already taken testimony on this item. Is there any further council discussion on this item?

Yes.

Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: I have just a question for the city budget staff. I note that one, four, one, three and four under part a is dollar amounts per thousand of assessed valuation. But number two is not. Can you just let us know is the tax rate the the the taxing rate for the fpd are what the what the dollars per thousand is on that.

Yes it is. Sorry, I think it's one second. I have it somewhere. 3.19 per thousand of assessed value.

3.19 okay. So permanent tax rates for 57 and 7/10. And this is $3.19 for fpdr.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you councilor Councilor Smith did you have questions?

Loretta Smith: Yes.

I feel like this is really incomplete. I'm feeling a little like and it's not the feeling. It's very true. We have a lot of business to do and we didn't do our business and nor did we take care of the concerns of our workers or the community. And. I don't think we had enough time scheduled. I really don't, mr. President. And that is your responsibility to make sure we have enough time not to get done quick enough so others can be finished by June 30th. We have until June 30th, and we need to have enough time on the schedule to discuss the amendments that are before us.'e this more than any of y'all. I've done it nine times, and I have never known that we leave something on the table without saying yes or no. And so this is your fault, sir. You got five folks on here that voted no, that wanted to complete the work and do the work. Why you did not set aside enough time for us to hear everything I do? No, not I don't know why. So for me. I'm not going to be voting for this at all. And for those folks who think it's important to leave without doing the work, shame on you.

Councilor Smith. Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: You know, when we were trying to make compromise amendments to save city employee jobs, we considered positions that you guys would like, and we worked pretty extensively with you, councilor Smith, to make sure that that happened. Our amendment was the only one that funded parks. Our amendment funded ps three. Our amendment also funded fire. Our amendment did a lot of things that it needed to do. And if I recall yesterday, someone left for a vast majority of the votes that happened. So I'm not quite sold on the idea that people are that invested in the time that we have for debate here, when there was an opportunity to work together and to have discussion. We were ghosted and we were not talked to, and that is a real problem. So I just have to say, you know, I'm glad for the the work that was done here. For the most part, I think it's absolutely devastating that we didn't do more. But to say that that it wasn't tried on our side, I think is absolutely absurd. And I'm just like, can't allow that to stand on the record. So I hope we leave soon so we can eat and then go to the executive sessions. And I'm sorry to the employees that we failed because people couldn't, I don't know, pick up the phone.

Thank you, councilor Morillo. And a reminder that we are in consideration of item nine, the tax levy ordinance councilor Green. Councilor. Novick.

I just have to respond to councilman Rios point. Earlier this morning, I understood that my staff was talking to councilor Green staff, and they were discussing, you know, down to down to a few points and a few a little amount of money to get an agreement. And then I was told that councilor Green staff walked away. So I don't understand what councilor was talking about.

Councilor. Morillo.

Thank you. Yeah, you had some hard lines that made compromises impossible, as you tend to do, or you tend to flip last minute. I will remind folks that last year, under a council president pirtle-guiney leadership, dozens of amendments were left on the table. We had double the amount of discussion that we had last year, and this year we were able to actually go through all of the amendments through work sessions because of councilor Dunphy's leadership and get our heads wrapped around most of this beforehand, which is what gave us time for discussion. So that's it.

Okay.

Seeing no one else in the queue, councilor Ryan, there we go to the tax levy ordinance promise.

So, councilor Dunphy, is the arts tax on this?

I don't know. No. I'm seeing from our cfo that.

This is only ones that the voters approved. I just didn't hear you list.

That I was not listed. So I.

Yeah, councilor, for the record. Jonas biery chief financial officer this is just certifying the property tax levy and the arts tax is not property tax levy.

Thank you. Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you jonas. Sorry. I just want to make sure. So this is a this is an emergency ordinance item 15 right.

It is not an emergency ordinance. It is a passing to a second reading.

It is emergency.

Is it?

Yeah. That's what I see on the website.

Oh, okay. My script is wrong, I apologize.

So what would be the consequence of failing to adopt the emergency order that approves the levy for the city of Portland? And in your best judgment, as our chief financial officer?

Thank you. Yeah. And I'll just state, I'm not aware of a precedent in the state where that has occurred. So we're a little bit maybe uncharted territory, but ruth can maybe talk procedurally about what would happen.

Yes, we filed this as an emergency ordinance because it's not a budget ordinance, as city attorney explained yesterday, which means it would take 30 days to implement, and we have to certify our taxes before that to the other counties. This is we do this every year. It just got passed to a second reading so that you all vote, vote them as a package. But it has to be an emergency ordinance.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Green. So just to clarify, the the direction in my script here is that we are going, even though this is an emergency ordinance, we will be voting on it next week at a time certain with the other items that we'll be voting on in sequence.

Yeah. That's correct. I just want to be I just want to reiterate what you said. The budget specific ordinances automatically take effect. Other ordinances do not automatically take effect. So have to carry the emergency clause in order to become effective by the end of the year and continue city operations on July 1st.

Thank you. Okay.

Point of information. Does that mean that we're not voting on this?

We're not voting on this right now because I am going to pass it to, in fact, council, I'm going to pass this to a second reading with a time certain of 615 on June 17th, 2026. Colleagues, we are now in consideration of items ten and 11, the overexpenditure ordinance and a related short term interfund loan. Budget director ruth levine is here with a technical amendment and a brief explanation.

Sure. So. So the underlying ordinance here is the oeo. This makes the. This is the last opportunity to amend the current fiscal year's budget. These are all very technical things like led assessments and bond revenues coming in, making adjustments to contingency for capital projects and non-general fund funds, and some very minor adjustments in other funds. The technical amendment is just something we didn't identify until after we had filed. We made a just a human error in entry in something in the spring technical adjustment ordinance. We should have entered it as m f for the office of management and finance, and we entered it as f m for fund and debt management. So we just need to correct that and move it to the correct bureau. That's what the technical amendment is that we need you all to vote on now. And then the underlying ordinance can pass a second reading next week.

Thank you. So moved.

So councilor Ryan moves the technical amendment. I will second the technical amendment. Colleagues, we've already heard public testimony on this item. Broadly. Do we is there a discussion of the amendment, the technical amendment? Seeing none. Keelan can we call roll on the technical amendment.

Moved by Ryan, seconded by Dunphy.

Kanal I.

Pirtle-guiney I sorry I.

Ryan I.

Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick I Clark. I breen. I Zimmerman. I Smith. I Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with a vote of 12 eyes.

Thank you.

Colleagues. Is there any further discussion of this item? Item ten is an emergency ordinance and is carried over to a time certain of 615 on June 17th, 2026. Item 11 is a non emergency order ordinance now passed to second reading at a time. Certain of 615 on June 17th, 2026.

Sorry, just councilor.

Of information. You said item ten is an emergency ordinance and carried over. But item 11 we didn't get a chance to.

They were open together. Would you like to discuss more?

I have a question.

Okay, councilor. I'm happy to recognize you.

I apologize. Didn't didn't catch that. I have two questions. One for the city administrator. They're in the. This is for item 11, the oh oh. Can you give us a little bit more information or tell us who should. It says $993,000 is coming from the grants fund. And also that one of the alternative shelter grants was found to have $1.2 million less than what we allocated to it. It says that the rest of the deficit is covered by other grants and Multnomah county interest funds. And so there's a gap between the 993 and the 1.2. And I was hoping someone could speak to what exactly happened there.

I have staff come up and address that.

The other question is about the pbh grants. Just a flag for whoever might need to come up with that.

Aye, Morillo councilor Scholar director, Portland solutions for the record, my understanding, but I will defer to finance folks is that grants. The grants team thought there was more money in that fund than there actually was. So we got kind of an updated number. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I'll defer first to nya griffins, who's the financial analyst for solutions.

Thanks.

So just for the record, my name is nia griffiths. I'm the principal financial analyst for Portland solutions. So generally when we budget grants that cross fiscal years during the annual budget process, we approximate how much we estimate will be the ending fund balance on the grant and then budget that amount. And then during the fall, how we will do kind of like a reconciliation, figure out what the actual ending fund balance is. And then during the fall to do that adjustment, there was some kind of manual error. And so we found that later. But this is a very typical process that we go through. It's nothing kind of it's not like we spent the money and it was, you know, it's a very typical process that we go through. And it's typically found in the volatile.

Well.

Thank you for that answer and thanks for. I know you've been here the whole time. I had a question around is the delta the 206,000 or is the delta 1.2 million between what was originally expected and what happened?

I believe the 206. But go ahead.

The delta for the grant was the 1.2 million.

Okay. So what happened was we budgeted to a number that was $1.2 million higher than the actual amount that we had, which is because a grant came in $1.2 million less. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. And at this point, we're being asked to true up that fund as opposed to reducing services to make that happen, because we're talking about the current fiscal year and that money's already spent.

Yes, that's my understanding, councilor. I think, according to brandi westerman, who runs our shelter services program, I believe they thought this specific fund had more money in it and so budgeted to that amount. When it turned out that was not the case. Therefore, they're using money from a different fund source because there's a braided funding model within the shelter services program.

But but.

Effectively we spent money. We don't have $1.2 million. This trues it up. And now we're okay as long as we do that by June 30th.

That's my understanding.

Okay. I'm concerned about that. And I would like to to just bring that to light here because and this is this, this, I feel like there is another option of coming back to council and talking about that and adjusting downward the expenditure. And I imagine that it's because of what this is spent on that that wasn't brought up. And I'd love to follow up with the mayor's office about that. The other question I have is around what the $198,152 in grants received by Portland police is about. And there's there's a line in there as well. One grant that was executed in may 2026 that would not be appropriated by ordinance in time to be budgeted for spending in fiscal year 2025 2026. Just like a little more transparency on what these are, if they're the same thing or if they're two different things.

So anthony lock, for the record, cbo analyst, supplemental budget coordinator. These so typically grants are budgeted to planned expenses. And so these grants have already been awarded. And they're expected things a little bit higher than projected expenses. So they're allocating it from the grants to close out the end of the fiscal year.

So let's okay. These grants have already been awarded to us, right. This is money coming in. So we're expecting that what is what is higher than projected. Exactly.

The expenses connected to those specific grants. I don't have the specific grant information in front of me at the moment.

Okay. So we get a grant for 198 or is that the delta? Is that the amount that that was overspending?

My understanding is that these these represent projected additional expenses.

Okay. So so there's a grant that came in, there's expenditure for whatever the grants for and the expenditure is higher by this amount. And so this over expenditure ordinance puts $198,000 into Portland police to add to the grant to make up the expenses. Is that accurate?

Right.

Okay. Well, it was this grant for.

That was.

I don't have the specific grant information in front of me at the moment, but I can see if there's someone from police who's available to answer the questions.

I recognize that you were finance staff, so I'm not putting it on you specifically, but I do think we should know what this is.

We're having PPB and staff come up, and I believe they're on their way back.

Okay. Because the entire text is this package adds budget for grant revenue and expense. The grants are already awarded in cross fiscal years. This trues up planned spending for fiscal year 2526. One grant that was executed in may 2026 that would not be appropriated by ordinance in time to be budgeted for spending in fiscal year 2526, which is not a complete sentence. So I don't really know where that goes. So yeah, just trying to understand what's going on here. And it does break it down in terms of 25 k for capital outlay, 92 k for external materials and services and 80 k for personnel.

I'm working with financial staff to see if there's someone from police who walked to the other side of the building who can get information for us.

Is this.

Another emergency ordinance that will be carried over to next week?

Yes.

Okay. So it could theoretically be amended next week without delay or adding a new voting hurdle?

Yes.

Okay. I won't take up time here. I'll just ask if I can get more information on that, and I'll ask specifically if this is related to one of the grants we approved when we approved six of them a few months ago in a package. Thanks.

Thank you.

Councilor Kanal councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, council president. That was going to be my my question because I wanted to see if this was the ODOT grant. I know you don't know that we had received that we were going to lose. And I was told by someone in the grants department that they were going to expand the program. And I asked them to if they were going to expand the program. They didn't put that in their original request, and if they got a grant for it, they should give us back our general fund and put that back into the general fund. So I hope this is not the pb grant for the driver's training that we were awarded a couple of months ago.

Thank you.

Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Councilor Kanal yeah, just one suggestion for the future. It would be great if this was not at the same time as the budget, so that there's time to dig into this one more. Thanks.

Thank you.

So item 11, a non emergency ordinance now passes to second reading at a time. Certain of 6:15 p.m. On June 17th, 2026. Keelan can we please move to item number 12.

Item 12, document 2026-152 amend Portland permitting and development fee schedules to improve cost recovery to ensure an adequate level of service.

Colleagues.

This is the second reading of an ordinance. We are going to vote on this. Is there any discussion of the ppe and fee schedules, councilor Smith? Oh, sorry, councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Yeah, I just wanted to add, I brought this question up last week. I was confused why the rates were so wildly different based on the function, the bureau, the I was asking questions last week, as you recall, of why the rates were so different. Most of them besides three are under 10%, so they're single digit, but several are between 26 and 42%. I just think those increases aren't okay. I understand the integration of permitting from bureau silos is challenging, and I think we are passing along that challenge to our customers. I would rather see our bureaus work together to solve this first. That is proper customer service. So I will be a no on this just to make that point.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, is there any further discussion? Okay. This is the second reading of an ordinance keelan. Can we please call the roll on item 12?

No. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan no.

Koyama Lane I Morillo.

Absent Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos. I Smith.

Sorry I.

Dunphy aye.

The ordinance passes with a vote of ten ayes one no and one absent.

Council president. Point of order.

Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I would like to suspend the rules to reopen agenda item eight in order to allow councilors to move any amendments which have been filed with the clerk and have not yet been voted on. Councilors did not have the opportunity to move items outside of your direction through this whole process, and I believe that there are a number of important items which have been filed with the clerk which deserve attention. Councilors should have the opportunity to move them.

Is that not the same motion that we already voted on, though?

I'm moving to suspend the rules to reopen item.

Eight, to reopen rather than to. Okay. Councilor pirtle-guiney has moved to suspend the rules to reopen item eight. Is there a second.

Second, second.

Councilor Smith has seconded the motion. Please remind me if this is a debatable motion.

Motion to suspend the rules is not debatable.

Okay. Thank you. Can you please also explain what the vote would be on this motion? Exactly?

It would take nine yes votes to suspend the rules for this item, which is the budget item. It was already moved to second reading. So this would suspend the rules for purposes of reopening it in this meeting today.

Okay. Keelan can we please take a vote?

Sorry, one more time. What's the vote? Each one.

A yes vote is to suspend the rules and reopen item eight so that we can get back into amendment discussion. A no vote is that we, the rules, stay as they are and we're moving forward towards adjournment.

Point of information can I clarify, does filed with the clerk mean the list that the council president has given us and scheduled? What does that mean? Anything that has been emailed.

I filed with the clerk. What I mean is anything that has been sent to the clerk in an official capacity to be put as part of the record, whether that was pre filed or filed yesterday or at any other time, things that have been things that the clerk is in possession of. So they are formal official amendments. I don't know who has what that's been filed that I may or may not have seen, but that seemed like the least arbitrary cut off that I could think of.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you. Okay. Keelan, can we please call the roll?

I also have a point.

Of information.

Councilor Kanal I apologize, council president, should this pass with the. Would we still follow the schedule in the order that you have it?

That would be my intention. If we are forced if we are reopening this, then I would continue to go on the schedule that we shared previously. Thank you, thank you. Okay. Keelan can you please call the roll.

Motion to suspend the rules moved by pirtle-guiney. Seconded by Smith.

Kanal no.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Ryan I.

Koyama Lane no.

Aye, Morillo. No Novick. I Clark. I Green no.

Zimmerman I.

No.

Smith. Yes.

Dunphy no.

Motion to suspend the rules. Fails with a vote of six ayes and six nays.

Okay, colleagues. Congratulations. That concludes our business for the day, and we are adjourned.