The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-06-10
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (46,214 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
Portland City Council convened on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, with roll call showing the body present, following which rules of decorum were read. The session opened technical budget items (agenda items 1–7) related to state shared revenue certification and acceptance, a tax levy ordinance, an interfund loan between the Parks SDC fund and the Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund, and the adopted budget ordinance for fiscal year 2025–26. Staff described procedural steps toward budget adoption, with final votes expected June 18. Public testimony was heard across multiple panels on state shared revenue, the tax levy, interfund loan, and extensively on the FY2025–26 budget, covering police and parks funding balances, urban forestry and tree code regulation, rideshare driver resource center funding, Portland Children's Levy mentoring grants, permitting and code enforcement staffing, homeless shelter and behavioral health services, arts funding, and neighborhood coalition allocations. The council then took up budget amendments, approving a council carryover package and, after extended discussion involving city budget and finance staff and multiple bureau directors, amendments shifting parks levy funds from tree regulation to parks maintenance and relocating tree regulation staff to Portland Permitting & Development, with an implementation date no later than October 1, 2025. A further amendment reducing external materials and services spending to fund housing, arts, and operational capacity items, revised through floor discussion to exempt public safety-related bureaus, was also considered. Votes occurred on each amendment; outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger. The meeting recessed to reconvene the following day at 9:30 a.m. to continue budget deliberations.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
Procedural episode · turns 0–7
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
0 Good afternoon. It is 103 on Tuesday, June 10th. I am calling our council meeting to order. We have a number of a number of agenda items that we are going to open today. Most of which we are not going to do a lot with today. But this is where we start to do more of the technical pieces of the budget. We're going to go through some of those technical pieces of the budget right now, and then we will hear public testimony, and then we will have time to do a little bit more with amendments on the budget. We will pick up where we left off tomorrow. Keelan, could you please call the roll?
1 Canal here?
2 Mr. Ryan here. Koyama Lane here. Maria, here. Novick here. Clark, here. Green. Here. Zimmerman. Here. Avalos, here. Dunphy. Smith. Here. Pirtle-guiney here.
3 And, robert, could you please read us our rules of decorum?
4 Thank you.
5 Welcome.
6 Everyone, to the Portland city council to testify before council in person or virtually, you must please sign up in advance on the council agenda at w-w-w-what. Council agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on 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. Presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should please address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, please identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should please unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
7 Thank you, mr. Taylor. Keelan, could you please read agenda items one through? One through six. There are seven things here, and my script says one through six.
8 The first approval.
9 Got it. Okay. Could you please read agenda item one?
10 Yes. Item one. Agenda approval. Council will vote to approve the agenda, to reorder items on the agenda, or to add an item to the next meeting's agenda.
11 Thank you. Colleagues. Are there any requests to amend or reorder the agenda? Okay.
12 Item two conduct a proposed use hearing on state shared revenue. Item three certify that certain services are provided by the city to establish eligibility for state shared revenue. Item four approve accepting funds from the state of Oregon under the state revenue sharing program for fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026. Item five adopt the annual budget of the city and establish appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026. Item six approve levying taxes for the city for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026. And item seven authorize a temporary interfund loan not to exceed $50 million from the Portland parks and recreation system development charge fund to the fire and police disability and retirement fund to provide interim financing for fiscal year 2025 through 26. Cash flow deficit. Due to the timing of property tax collections.
13 Thank you. Keelan. So, colleagues, before we start taking on each of these agenda items, which we will do some brief work on today here, some public testimony on, and then spend most of our time on agenda item five. Budget director levine is going to go over our process in a little bit more detail. Director levine, could you please do that for us?
14 Sure. Thank you. And for the record, ruth levine, the director of the city budget office. Good afternoon. Council president, city council. So as council president mentioned, we're here today for the next steps in adopting the budget for fiscal year 20 2526, following today and tomorrow's proceedings, the budget ordinance will pass a second reading, and council will vote on all of the budget items on June 18th. There are a number of procedural steps we need to go through, and as keelan read into the record, we have six items in front of you that are part of this process. The first three items relate to the acceptance and use of state shared revenues in our budget. Revenue shared by the state of Oregon primarily consists of cigarette, liquor, and retail marijuana taxes. So first council will hold a proposed use hearing on the state shared revenue. Then you will consider a resolution certifying that the city meets the eligibility requirements of state shared revenue. And then you will consider an ordinance accepting the state shared revenue. The fourth and fifth items, number six and seven, on the agenda that council will consider today and tomorrow are or today are the ordinance levying taxes and an interfund loan between the parks capital fund and the fire, police and disability and retirement fund, which addresses technical timing issues with the revenues, and the sixth and final item, which is item number five on the agenda that council will consider is the adopted budget ordinance. And that will be obviously the focus of your time today and tomorrow. So with that overview, we can begin with our first item, the state shared revenue hearing. Council president, you can open the state shared revenue hearing.
15 Thank you. So we actually have all six of these open. So we are going into a hearing colleagues to discuss proposed uses of state revenue sharing. This hearing is being held by the city council in compliance with the provisions of state revenue sharing regulations, which are in ors 221.770 to allow portlanders to comment on the possible use of the funds in conjunction with the annual budget process, as proposed for council adoption for fiscal year 20 2526, the budget anticipates receiving $21 million from state revenue sharing under ors 221770. As has been the case in prior years, it's proposed that this revenue be allocated in equal parts to support fire prevention and police patrol services. Director levine, could you provide an overview of the eligibility for state revenue? State shared revenue resolution?
16 Certainly, council will consider a resolution to certify that the city meets the eligibility requirements for state shared revenue. State law requires that we provide a number of services to be eligible for this revenue, and this resolution certifies that we do so. The services certified by the city of Portland are police protection, fire prevention, street construction and maintenance and lighting, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, planning, zoning and subdivision control and water. The third and final step in accepting the state shared revenue is for council to consider and vote upon the ordinance to accept state shared revenue. Once you've had a hearing and certified that the city is qualified, you need to take action to accept the revenue.
17 Thank you. And director levine, because this is a new process for a number of folks up here. Could you just give us a brief overview of what the shared revenue comes from, what those sources are, that the state collects these funds from?
18 Sure. It's just state revenues from cigarette liquor and cannabis taxes. So these are these are statewide revenues that are shared out based on population. And Portland gets our share.
19 This is separate colleagues from the expenditures that we've talked about in the general fund from revenue that comes from the state. These are very specific funds that are collected from the purposes director levine named that are then distributed based on population across the state with limited uses. Keelan. Has anybody signed up to testify on the state shared revenue hearing, resolution or ordinance?
20 Yes. One person has signed up. Loretta guzman.
21 Great. And colleagues, these are agenda items two, three and four that we're talking about right now. Keelan, could you please call Loretta up?
22 Yeah. Loretta guzman.
23 Thank you for a long time.
24 Oh, okay. Are you signed up for the budget adoption one?
25 Yes. You signed up.
26 For the budget? I think there's some confusion. There was some confusion with the sign ups.
27 Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think that makes sense. We'll make sure you get called for the budget adoption.
28 Yeah. Oh, geez.
29 That completes testimony for those items.
30 Okay, colleagues, these agenda items will come back up when we hear the budget on the 18th. But for now, we are going to. I'm making sure we're also closing agenda item four, which is an ordinance. I'm looking to you, ruth. Are we closing all three of them?
31 That's right. You're continuing them to June 18th, and then you're going to close the state shared revenue hearing.
32 Right. So for now, we are closing the state shared revenue hearing. And we are going to move. We're going to skip agenda item five colleagues, which is our annual budget, and move on to agenda item six, which is the tax levy ordinance. This is the action that allows us to levy property taxes that accrue to the general fund, the parks local option levy fund, the recently renewed children's investment fund, and the fire and police disability and retirement fund. It also includes property tax levies for general obligation bonded debt and our six urban renewal areas. Keelan has anyone signed up to testify on the tax levy's ordinance?
33 Let me check here. We have two people signed up to testify on that item. Karen, ray and matt nicholson. Karen shearer, matt nicholson.
34 And karen and matt. If either of you had meant to sign up for agenda item five, please let our clerk know and she'll make sure to move you over to the other testimony list.
35 Oh. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Council president matt nicholson is online. Let me go ahead and.
36 Can you hear me?
37 We can hear you.
38 Okay. I just wanted to voice my support for the parks levy and. I feel that the community has a strong support for our parks. And I would encourage all councilors to put a robust levy on the November ballot to allow us to fully fund our parks and parks maintenance. Thank you.
39 Thank you so much.
40 That completes testimony for that item.
41 Okay. Councilors, is there any discussion on agenda item six? The tax levy ordinance? Okay. This is a first reading as well. So we will continue this agenda item to second reading on the eight out. Councilor Smith, did you have something here?
42 Yes, madam president.
43 Go right ahead.
44 I need to find out what is the normal process of doing interfund loans and those kinds of things.
45 Director levine, is that something you can help us with? There's a question about the process for interfund loans, and I assume that's as it relates to this tax levy ordinance.
46 Right. And how did we choose parks to get a loan from them versus any other agency?
47 Councilor are you looking at agenda item seven.
48 Let's see.
49 Let's roll.
50 And we can take the question. Now I just want to make sure that folks are all looking at the right thing.
51 I'm so upset.
52 So, director levine, there's a question. Agenda item seven is a temporary interfund loan from Portland parks and recreation system development charge fund to fire and police disability and retirement fund. And there's a question about why that fund was chosen, or perhaps jonas would like to answer.
53 Yeah. I mean, I guess to the process for this specific fund, this is the second year that we've done this this way. And I think we may have talked about this on the 21st a little bit, but essentially the it has to do with the very specific situation in the fire and disability disability retirement fund, the way it's created in charter and the timing of the tax revenues. So they don't get their tax revenue in until October, November, and they need to start paying out claims in August. And so they need the cash. And so this is just the simplest and cheapest way to do it for the city. And yeah, happy to turn it over to jonas as well.
54 Great for the record. Jonas bieri, dca budget and finance and chief financial officer ruth is correct that this just addresses a cash flow mismatch between the language in the charter around the fire and police disability retirement fund, who collects those levy that levy receipt in November. So this bridges the payment requirements between the start of the fiscal year and November. I would add in the past, in prior years, we've achieved this objective by getting an external borrowing, either by issuing a short term bond or note, or having a loan from a bank and paying interest on that to an external party, an investor. This strategy utilizes that available balance in the parks. Sdc fund fully replenishes the fund from that tax levy in November, and returns the interest back to an internal partner at the city via that parks fund.
55 Thank you jonas.
56 Any other questions, counselor? Counselors? Does anybody else have a question about agenda item number six? Keelan. Did you send me a note that we have our second testifier available now?
57 Yes. They arrived.
58 Let's give them an opportunity.
59 Great. Thank you. Karen. Shira.
60 Can you hear me?
61 We can hear you.
62 Okay. My name is karen sherer. I'm a resident of district three, business owner in district four. I'm writing to express my strong disapproval of the proposed ordinance to levy taxes for the fiscal year beginning July 1st. While I understand the importance of funding city services, I believe that this ordinance is raised several concerns that warrant reconsideration. The financial burden on residents, the proposed tax levies represent a significant financial burden on residents, especially in a time when many families are facing economic challenges. Increasing property taxes constrain household budgets, making it difficult for families to meet their basic needs. There appears to be a lack of transparency regarding the budget process. The ordinance states that the budget was adopted on June 18th, 2025, but as of June 10th, 2025, it has not yet been approved. This discrepancy raises concerns about the legitimacy, legitimacy of the proposed tax levies and the decision making process involved is crucial to ensure that tax revenue is allocated effectively and efficiently. I'm concerned that the funds raised through these tax levies may not be utilized in ways that directly benefit the community or address pressing needs. I urge the city council to explore alternative funding solutions that do not place an additional burden on taxpayers. This could include reevaluating existing programs, identifying areas for cost savings, or seeking additional state or federal funding. I respectfully request. Thank you.
63 Thank you so much for being here. Keelan. Is that the end of public testimony?
64 It does.
65 Thank you. Okay. Thank you colleagues. I am not seeing anybody else with comments. So I am going to. Close today's hearing on this bill, on this ordinance and move us to agenda item seven. So we are going to open our discussion on agenda item seven, the fpd and our interfund loan ordinance, which is where this funding that councilor Smith was asking about takes place. Keelan has anybody signed up to testify on this agenda item.
66 Signed up.
67 Okay. Councilors, is there any further discussion on agenda item seven? Okay. This is again a non emergency ordinance. So it will move to second reading on the 18th. Councilor Green.
68 Thank you. Madam president. I just kind of want to put into the record. Yesterday we heard from kevin matches who provided testimony regarding this item. And he wanted us to flag that there is a different yield associated with this interfund loan relative to the previous one that we heard as well. And so I just I know, no action. I just wanted to flag and make sure we brought that discussion out of the finance committee. And before the full council. Thanks.
69 Thank you very much, councilor. Counselor. Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, we are going to send this to second reading on the 18th. The next item on the agenda is agenda item five, which is the adopted budget ordinance. And before we go to public testimony, I just want to take a moment to go over what to expect today and tomorrow for everybody who is listening. So we will start with another round of public testimony on our budget. We've set aside two hours, two additional hours for public testimony today after public testimony, the first thing that we will do is consider an amendment, which I want to get the language right here. So I'm trying to pull up the email that has it, but I may not get there in time. We're going to consider the language which an amendment which will allow us to discuss carryover packages from council operations and council offices. These are the items that also are reflected separately in the overexpenditure ordinance that we have talked about. They've sometimes been called overexpenditure items will then talk about parks, then public safety, community engagement and equity, housing and homelessness. And then there is another category. And we'll take these categories like we did on the 21st, where everybody will have an opportunity to bring forward their most important, an amendment or package. If you have a few things that should be considered together. But we're separated for technical reasons after we get through everybody's most important piece in those categories, we'll go back and consider budget notes, which accept as they have been related to packages we've not yet considered, and then we will open up for consideration of additional amendments. So if you have something new that you have brought forward in a category that we've already considered, or if you have additional amendments that you want to bring forward in categories where it wasn't your most important item, we'll do those at the end. I suspect today we'll get through the council carryover package and the parks section, and probably not much further than that, but it'll just depend on whether we use our full two hours for public testimony or not, and how quickly debate moves. We'll recess at 6:00 and reconvene tomorrow at 930, and we are scheduled from 930 to 6 tomorrow. Obviously, if we get through everything, we could always end earlier.
70 I appreciate.
71 I appreciate the laughs, counselor. Clark, do you have a question on process?
72 Yes I do, I just wondered on the oios are you grouping them or are we going to go through individually?
73 I believe that we have a new amendment which grouped them, as we talked about at our previous work session, to help us move one thing a little bit more quickly. Any other questions on process? Okay. Then I would like to move us into public testimony so that we can hear from portlanders about how they're feeling about the current state of our budget.
74 And council president.
75 Did I miss a piece?
76 Yes. Sorry. We're supposed to talk about the changes to the budget as filed. So it's talking about the changes that are reflected in attachments b and c, and that basically just lets council have like the starting point for further adjustments to the budget.
77 Okay. Here's what we're going to do. I'm going to say to the public who are here, feel free to testify not just on the budget before you, but the amendments that are filed. This is an opportunity for testimony on anything within agenda item five. So amendments as well, please. But before we do that, let's let ruth talk about some of the changes that we have here. I apologize, ruth, director levine, that I missed that part.
78 No problem. So I'm just going to describe at a high level the changes in the adopted budget as filed, which are reflected in attachments b and c, these are primarily technical changes that were made in advance. And they're kind of a couple of buckets of types of changes. Some of them are cleanup from amendments that were voted for in the approved budget hearing. So just making sure those get into the right spots in the budget. A couple of them are updates based on sort of year end projections of revenues and expenditures. And so you'll see that in a couple of different places. There's also the largest adjustment is for the fpd loan that we just talked about. And sort of adjustments between funds, particularly in our public works bureaus, adjusting contingency and revenues based on on that. So those that kind of covers it and essentially. Council you need to. Motion and second to adopt the changes as currently reflected in attachments a through h. And again that just kind of provides you with a clean starting point from which you will discuss further amendments to the budget.
79 Director levine, would it be best practice for us to make that motion before we move into public testimony or after?
80 I think it makes sense to do it just before you move into public testimony.
81 Okay. Councilors, do we have a motion? Thank you, counselor canal.
82 Seconded.
83 Thank you, counselor Koyama Lane. So we are moving and seconding to accept the changes that are noted, in which attachments are we looking at? Director levine?
84 Attachments a through h.
85 Thank you. Attachments a through h. There we go. So if you're looking at the website I and j are the new proposed amendments. A through h are the changes that have already been proposed. We are discussing and then we'll vote on accepting those changes so that we are starting with a clean slate with any amendments that we bring forward. Counselor Clark, are you in the queue for discussion? Counselors, is there any discussion? Okay. Keelan. Robert.
86 Oh.
87 This the motion? And second for this opens all of those items up, and now they can be amended individually as you move forward. And then at the end of that process, we will have a we will vote on this motion to adopt all the changes as reflected in a through h. So that'll be think of it as a nesting amendment. Now we're moving and seconding to opening a through h. You will then consider all the individual amendments that make changes to a through h vote on all those. And then there will be one final vote on accepting all of the changes to a through h. That's similar to the process you went through with on may 21st.
88 But we need to do that now before we start hearing additional amendments that we have not yet considered.
89 Correct. You do the motion and second, now you don't vote on it. You hear all of the testimony on all of the amendments as filed, so folks can talk about all of the changes that are being proposed. Then you take the individual.
90 You prefer that we vote on these at the end, correct? Okay, great. Then why don't we move now into public testimony and keelan, if you could call folks up. 3 or 4 at a time so that we can hear from as many people as possible, that would be great. Thank you.
91 Thank you. First up, we have Loretta guzman, michelle miller, alan combs, and karen cherry.
92 I'll just sit here. That's okay. Sure.
93 Go ahead. Loretta.
94 Hi. My name is Loretta guzman. I'm the owner of bison coffee house. I live and work in district two. Before this budget is finalized and adopted with these amendments, I'm requesting that we are given the proper funding for public safety to pd so they can better serve our communities and businesses. We have standards as a business. We are held to. Safety shouldn't be compromised, but currently it is. Look around us as businesses are failing. Even big pink is up for sale. How much more damage has to occur before our city starts prioritizing people's lives? Big businesses have left. Small businesses have closed. Whole families have moved. We are. We are a city that we want to believe. It can come back and it will. But how long before this will happen? Yes, I understand that we are forever changed, but as death is all around us, it's not normal. Yes, I have experienced it in the last few years. Death deaths that shouldn't have occurred unanswered. 911 calls and a life and death situation is something I think of every day. Thanks to our city that is crumbling with no accountability. The things that used to work are not an option, and this new form of ideas is destroying and killing people's people. Our streets are not what they once used to be. Public safety. Safety is compromised currently, when in reality it is a fundamental right which we are not given.
95 Michelle.
96 Good afternoon councilors. My name is michelle miller. I'm a parent and public safety advocate in the district four stadium neighborhood, where we've been doing the hard work of organizing, meeting with electeds and also coordinating with law enforcement because the city has left too many of us on our own. So I'm here to strongly oppose amendment three from councilor Avalos, which would strip $15 million from the police overtime budget and place it into a council controlled contingency fund. This is clearly a power grab. Councilor Avalos and her progressive caucus allies are attempting to exert direct control over the police bureau by holding critical overtime funds hostage, and that's a dangerous precedent, and it directly contradicts the will of the voters who passed charter reform to remove operational control from individual councilors and place it under a city administrator. Police overtime is what keeps our neighborhoods covered when staffing is stretched thin. When there's a crisis, a shortage or a public safety emergency, those funds allow the system to flex and respond, and we need that right now. Putting that in a set aside will equate to less safety for the people who need it most.
97 The misuse of your power, Avalos.
98 And I urge you to vote no on Avalos three we ask you to respect the charter, your constituents and stop gambling with public safety. Thank you for your consideration.
99 Alan.
100 All right. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, councilors and mayor. My name is alan combs, Portland resident for over 25 years, and I live in district three. I'm here today because I'm angry and disappointed that seven councilors, including all those from district three, voted to shift $2 million from Portland police bureau to the parks based on a false choice and a lack of imagination that public safety must be cut to fund park maintenance. I support justice, equity and sustainability. Indeed, cities are key to realize these goals, but none are possible if the city isn't safe and livable. Portland has underfunded public safety for years and now has one of the smallest police forces per capita of major u.s. Cities. The mayor's requested budget for PPB is excessive. It's essential. What happens if you continue to defund the police? It means Portland street response will suffer. Psr needs police backup to expand safely into evening or indoor spaces. Recruitment and training will stall just as PPB is making progress on recruiting and training a younger, diverse force. And that will solve your overtime concerns. By the way, targeted missions to address sex trafficking, car theft and retail crime will be cut. Traffic enforcement will stall, despite being one of the most effective ways to reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities. So how do you afford both parks and public? A little imagination? Yes, and by doing the hard work of identifying lower priority spending, I urge you to work with the mayor and city administrator to find a solution. Don't settle for simple false choices. Thank you.
101 Thank you all.
102 Karen is joining us online.
103 My name is karen ray. I'm the owner of the convenience store stadium superette in district four and a member of stadium hood. And yes, vice president. I have testified multiple times regarding the budget, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. As a business owner in this community, I am deeply concerned about the recent challenges we have faced over the past two weeks alone, our security log has had over 25 new recorded incidents, including three arrests, repeated vandalism, employee threats, thefts and even drug deals. This level of criminal activity has taken a devastating toll. In the last two years, we have seen 18 businesses close or relocate from our neighborhood, and at least three more confirmed to leave by the end of the year. We are in a doom loop in our stadium hood neighborhood. These closures mean lost jobs, lost investments, and a loss of the community hubs that our neighbors rely on. We are in a dangerous, dangerous downward spiral, and I fear for the future of our small business district and residential district if drastic action is not taken. This is why I'm pleading with you. Do not let another business leave our neighborhood. We need more robust public safety budget to empower the police to work hand in hand with the community on solutions. Community policing, where law enforcement and residents collaborate toward the common goal of safety and livability, is the only way forward. When I call the police to report suspects from my store, I am doing my part to be a partner in public safety, but I need the police to have the resources and support to respond effectively with your commitment to funding. Thank you.
104 Next up we have vadim mazursky, brian orndorf, marissa wolfe, joe jackson.
105 Sir.
106 Just a second. Just a second, please. Go ahead.
107 Hello, counselors. I'm here to urge you to vote no on Avalos three and to restore the 1.9.
108 Million that was cut from the mayor's public safety budget request. Recently, the tribune noted that mayor. That the mayor believed that the funding cuts would hinder efforts to recruit officers and address critical missions like combating fentanyl and human trafficking. This was corroborated recently in a seven page memo from the next public safety administrator. But the mayor struck an optimistic tone. Thank you, mayor. Noting that he was hopeful that city council will restore the 1.9 million when it considers the final version of the budget. I, too, am hopeful that city council will work together to restore the public safety and oppose drug dealers and human traffickers. I'm hopeful because common sense leaders like councilor, Zimmerman, Smith, Ryan Clark have noted that the city does not have to choose between parks and police. We have options to fund both. I'm hopeful, because the Oregonian editorial board advocated for restoring that same police funding. I'm hopeful because three recent citywide polls, one funded by city council, one funded by the business community, one funded by a nonprofit show that the majority of portlanders are against cutting the police budget. A vast majority felt that even non-emergency police services were essential or very important, and a large majority would actually support doubling the police force. I'm hopeful because many people in this room are taking time off from their jobs and their families to advocate for restoring that funding. I know sometimes politicians heed the loudest voice in the room rather than the two often silent majority. But I'm also hopeful that this council will act differently and listen to what people are asking you to do in your districts and citywide. Thank you very much, brian.
109 Brian, thank you. Mayor, city council, president, councilors live and work in district four. Rebuilding Portland requires a commitment to public safety. Law and order rooted in the rule of law is the cornerstone of any thriving society. It ensures treatment safeguards against individual rights, deters crime, and maintains the peace and stability that our community needs to prosper. In Portland, we're facing a stark reality our city has half the number of police officers as other comparable cities. Despite a $318 million police budget, that funding only delivers 50% of the officers that we need. This shortfall has real consequences for residents, businesses and visitors. Portland's revitalization and its ability to generate revenue. Essential services for parks, roads, fire department depends on restoring public safety. The Portland police bureau strives to be a leader in policing that is respectful to all layers of our community. Entrepreneurs will not invest in neighborhoods plagued by break ins and vandalism. Workers and visitors will avoid areas of high drug use. District one experiences the highest crime yet. Councilors Dunphy and Avalos, representing that district, voted to cut an already lean budget by another 2 million. That decision directly undermines efforts to make our community safer. We need leaders that support effective law enforcement, not those that spread misinformation about police or whose ideological agendas interfere with practical needs of our city. Portland's problems are not due to lack of revenue. They are stemmed from bad policy decisions and misplaced priorities. Reducing the police budget now risks driving away more businesses, more residents and more taxpayers. We will remember who stood before the public safety and who voted to erode it. With district three and district four councilors up for reelection next November. Accountability is coming. Let's stop the decline, restore funding, restore order. Restore Portland. Thank you.
110 Marissa. Hi.
111 I'm marissa wolf. I'm the artistic director of Portland center stage. We're in district four, and I am here to support and ask you to support motion six greens, motion six, the one time $450,000 funding for Portland center stage, and also want to lift up dunfee's motion number two, 1.5 million for city arts funding. So Portland center stage were the second largest theater in the state of Oregon. We serve 100,000 people, including 9000 students every year. We are a space to gather. We are more than a theater. We are a space to gather which is which has such a great need right now. We are a space for collective imagination to renew the investment in all people's ability to dream into democracy. We are an economic driver in our community. For every $1 spent at Portland center stage, $39 are spent in our neighborhood. When you consider the revitalization of downtown Portland, you must consider the arts and Portland center stage. We drive business to all of the local businesses and the pearl district, and we are a major part of safety in our neighborhood in bringing tens of thousands of people downtown and partnering with local nonprofits around the houseless community. We are in emergency campaign to stay alive. And this this one time funding is absolutely critical as a public private partnership in leveraging private gifts so that we can stay alive. It's a win for this incredible group of new council members and mayor that tens of thousands of people will benefit from this funding for generations to come. Thank you very much.
112 Joe.
113 President pirtle-guiney. Vice president Koyama Lane mayor wilson, members of the council. My name is joe jackson. I have been a rideshare driver in the Portland metro area for ten years. I've driven thousands of trips and amassed hundreds of thousands of miles on these roads. And I need your help to support our to support a fund for our driver resource center. Whether it's a ride to work, the hospital, school, or just getting home after a night out, people depend on us and now we depend on the city to be there for us. We rideshare drivers are fighting for our rights, and sometimes we feel alone out there. Drivers need a place to go to get help. If we have questions or issues with the tnc's, the driver resource center could offer legal help at little to no cost for drivers worried about feeding their families. After deactivation, translation services for the culturally biased, english speaking ai chatbots that dominate the customer service of both of the current tnc giants, and outreach for the massive and diverse driver community with education on labor rights. This $2 per trip fee that goes into effect without supporting drivers that so desperately need support. We understand that Portland has needs, but so do drivers. And without this, without us, this new funding wouldn't exist. So please, councilors, mayor wilson set aside just a small portion of this fee to fund a driver resource center so that we can get the assistance that drivers have needed. We continue to support the city, but drivers deserve to be included in these decisions. Thank you and we look forward to working together.
114 Thank you all for being here today.
115 Next.
116 Next up. Next up we have ahmed craig bethel dilkash ahmed dahir sheikh ahmed.
117 Thank you all for being here.
118 Hi guys. My name is ahmed al-shamrani. I'm uber driver. Ten years I was in fox 12 news for uber karaoke and I was in the page uber for taxi driver in Portland. I have multiple vip ticket with uber. And then guess what? After that all this. I have over 4000 activation in 2020, in the pandemic and no one give me the reason what's going on for all that. And then guess what? I have a $10,000 give me uber for I have over 2000 trips. So all this if you are the driver, how is the regular driver? Is the activation. I'm here to share the story. What's going on for this company? This is a company is a slave driver. Don't care for driver. Don't care for the customer. He just hiring people, firing people. And then after two years, I. I my account back. Guess what. And then I go back again work. And then I work again and some customer have a one stop. And then I told them I can't be stopped. And then I call the support. Same. Okay, next day I find my account deactivation and after that I go to Vancouver. Vancouver have a support for pay for the activation and then pay fare. So guess what? I connect with the driver union and then guess what? My account back again. That's what I'm here. I want to drive a union because driver union back almost 1700 people in Washington. So why don't do it here in Portland to support the brother and sister. Thank you so much.
119 Greg.
120 Good afternoon, mayor wilson and members of the city council. My name is craig bethel. I'm a fifth generation Oregonian and a resident of the Portland metro area for 68 years, and for the last eight of those years, a member of the rideshare community. I love my job. And serving the people of Portland. I am proud to call myself an essential service provider. Currently we have. We don't have any place to go to get help if we have questions or issues with the tncs. Uber and lyft refuses to pay us a living wage and they terminate us without any help of getting our jobs back. A $2 trip fee is about to go into effect without supporting the drivers that don't have the protections available. Like other essential workers, we understand the city has needs, but we do too. But so do we. And without us, none of the funding comes in. So please, council and mayor wilson set aside a small 10% portion of this fee to fund the drivers resource center, a place that has experience serving our diverse community of drivers so we can get the assistance we need from an independent organization that has drivers best interest at heart. We want to continue to support the city, but drivers deserve to be included in these decisions. We look forward to working together to make both of these things happen. Thank you very much.
121 All right. Good afternoon, mayor wilson. Councilors, my name is and a central rideshare worker in the Portland metro area, going on eight years now. Drivers are working long hours for low pay without basic labor protection and driving. And uber and lyft keep deactivating us. Portland wants to raise the tnc fee to $2 without supporting us, even though every ride we support the city please take just $0.20, just 10% on each ride to fund a driver resource center so essential drivers, non-english speaking immigrant drivers can have a place to go and get support that they need. I was deactivated for 18 months with no reason whatsoever. If it wasn't for the drivers union, I wouldn't be reactivated. All it takes is a passenger to falsify some stuff, and they will not hesitate to deactivate a rideshare driver. So please, we need your help. And thank you very much.
122 The here is joining us online.
123 Good afternoon, mayor wilson and all members of the council. My name is dahir sheikh ahmad, and I'm the rideshare drivers union members. I was living in Portland 25 years, and I have been rideshare drivers over eight years. I'm happy to serve the residents and visitors of the Portland metro area. As you might be aware, or consistently reporting drivers to the city of Portland, or the council. Drivers are drivers, are working long hours and never earn or close to the minimum wage of Portland, Oregon. Drivers have no basic labor protection at all. Rideshare companies keep strong. The expectation with us without any notice or warning. Therefore, we therefore to double or continuous our essential service in Portland city and Portland metro area. Please. Drivers need your help and support to fund our driver resource center. Please just take take $0.20 or just 10% in each right from the new tnc fee of $2 to fund driver resource center so the drivers have a place to go to get support they need, such as fair pay, necessary basic benefits, and protection of the activation, we hope and looking for word to work together to make those things to happen and make it of Portland. Great place to be. Residency or work or protect the rights of the labor. Thank you very much.
124 Thank you all very much for being here.
125 Next up we have yusuf fakih, nathaniel hudson hartman, angela todd.
126 Okay, you guys are tough acts to follow.
127 President, vice president, mayor dubya and company. I'm nathaniel hudson hartman, proud eight year rideshare driver and advocate with drivers union Oregon. The voice for fairness for rose city rideshare. As you can see, my merry band of largely low income black, brown and immigrant drivers and I are here back again to ask for your help. We support this city providing essential mobility services. And as our wheels turn, you all know millions are pouring into this city. But why is none of that supporting us? Impossibly long work weeks, jobs unfairly taken away, all thanks to uber and lyft. We need actual human beings, actual humans that have driver's best interests at heart without the influence of the tnc giants. As my brother said, great, great work that can serve our our diverse driver community in languages other than english and this place our community desperately needs, just like its seattle counterpart that has already helped thousands restore their jobs and access countless benefits and have a voice is the driver resource center. This tnc fee was adopted without considering the negative impacts to our already struggling driver community. And as usual, uber and lyft are propagandizing this proposal. But we are offering an equitable pathway forward that solves both of those problems, and that is the driver resource center. We're eager to collaborate more to ensure drivers not only have a seat behind the wheel, but at the table. Remember, without us, there is no rideshare economy, no tnc taxation without driver representation. That being said, councilor Kanal, we are encouraged by amendment 17. Vamos a trabajar. Thank you.
128 New topic. Good afternoon council and mayor. I'm angela todd with pdx rail. Last week this council approved an $8.5 million settlement during a budget deficit. I'm here today because I'm aghast at that decision. You approved a settlement for 27 people claiming ancestral ties to a home in albina. In the court documents that I read, there's no proof their family wasn't already paid when the home was sold or that they lived at the property. This isn't equity. It's precedent. I'd like to explain, even though I recognize this is a tough topic, it opens the door to every other family in albina, but also every eminent domain claim in portland's history, including the coliseum, the highway 405 to the mount hood freeway that was never built. Meanwhile. Present day. Right now, the city of Portland has seized two family owned nursery properties from the bull run filtration plant, and homeowners in rural Multnomah county are being harassed over new setbacks tied to that same project as we speak. Oddly, they're the ones who raised the money to sue the city. I keep hearing from this body that a budget is a moral document. Well, let's be honest. Symbolic justice won't fix what's broken today. This council should be confronting the real abuse that's happening now, not 70 years ago. Because the greatest injustice I see today is the one being carried out by the city of Portland against its own people through political muscle, inadequate public safety and policies that leave families and businesses crushed by financial pressure. With no relief in sight. It's time to show moral courage in the present, not just the past. Thank you.
129 Yusuf. Okay, next we have tiana tozer, eve ashkar, todd littlefield, and talia giardini.
130 I spent 60. Is it me? My name is tiana tozer. I'm a d2 resident. I'm concerned about the misinformation that has been floating around the police budget. Contrary to Green and canal claims that the police budget is being increased by 21 million according to the PPB budget summary, taking away the 2 million is a 0.4% increase. Page four of the budget summary states, and I've given you all copies of it. Putting aside inflationary increases, ppb's general fund revenue would have increased by a total, including ongoing and one time of 861,379.3% in the proposed budget and decreased by 1.1 $1,130,237. That's a 0.4% after the reductions in the approved budget. Where is the $21 million increase? Someone needs to show me the math. I would also like to clarify how and why the $2 million decrease will result in a decrease in services. The money from the 90 vacant positions is currently used for overtime to maintain a level of service. When a new officer is hired, they start being paid. New police officers have an 18 month training period during which they do not operate solo. That means a position is filled, but it takes 18 months for the staffing increase to take effect. In the meantime, to continue the level of service, the bureau needs the same amount of money for overtime. The result is a decrease in response times and services during your campaign. Councilor Novick. On October 2024, you stated, if it's a matter of cutting public safety or parks, probably you would have to cut parks. Are you going to follow through on your campaign promise, or will you give in to the piratical bullying of councilor Morillo? Portlanders want police and parks, and there are ways to fund them both.
131 Yeah, and I'll remind folks that while I know folks have reactions to a lot of what we hear, we try to keep those reactions silent so we can keep moving. Thank you.
132 Okay, sorry.
133 I'm like deep breaths. Okay. Can I go? Go ahead. Okay. Hi, I'm talia giardini, I'm a registered nurse and a Portland native, taking away 2 million from police, which with inflation is actually a 0.4% decrease. This goes directly against what the majority of the public wants. This is not democracy. It's entitlement and abandonment. Our dsa councilors are in denial of the facts and frankly, dishonest. They're open about police abolition, which is ridiculous. I care for victims of gun violence, domestic violence, stabbing, and adult. And this includes children. The hospital is regularly on lockdown due to gun violence and surrounding areas and parks. We now have metal detectors at every entrance after security guard was killed on site. I myself am a victim of domestic violence, assault and car theft. We want and need police and to say anything different is a complete fallacy. It shows the progressive caucus would rather double down on their political ideologies than protect the public. I've heard no mention of cutting their own multi-million dollar security budget. We don't want to lose traffic enforcement, human trafficking missions, or psr support. We don't want delayed 911 response times, which are critical to the health of the community. I was at the 2020 protests and I'm proud of the reforms PPB has made, including an oversight board and community policing. Ppb, thank you for your service. I'd like to add we're on the stolen land of the kalapuya tribe, who have been invisible in this conversations regarding reparations, and you better watch out for them to sue. Next, I encourage all of you to support the mayor's proposed budget, widely supported by the public, and support our public servants. Thanks,
134 For joining us online. Go ahead and unmute if.
135 You.
136 Hello. My mother and I own a small property management company that was started by my grandfather over 40 years ago in the lloyd center area. We have a diverse group of tenants who work in various industries ranging from nonprofit community outreach. Gun violence prevention software, audio visual services, kids after school programs, and high end auto repair. We do our best to keep our three blocks of buildings clean and safe for all of our tenants and their clients and customers. Over the last few years, this has become increasingly difficult when our tenants clients arrive to drop off their children for classes or deliver vehicles for repair, they are met with the unpleasantness of mobile homes, unlicensed cars, dealing drugs and leaving trash and human waste along the properties. Often, camper vans are parked in front of our buildings for upwards of 6 to 8 weeks, and their presence deters people from wanting to use our tenant services, thus negatively affecting their businesses and income. We have heard from our tenants directly how some of their clients are no longer using their services, because they do not place in the area. Our tenants are not able to maintain their business income that will not only hurt them, but will hurt us. As the landlords who are financially responsible for these properties, we are aware that there are only about eight people employed with PBOT to address parking and car camping, and given the state of the city, that is not enough. We need more funding towards PBOT and the police that will focus specifically on removing people and vehicles who continue to cause issues for local businesses. I continue to observe the city leadership putting the needs of those individuals above the needs of property and business owners in the city. It is families like ours and people like our tenants, who make every effort to keep commerce going in our neighborhoods and generate tax revenue. It is time for the city to take significant steps towards resources for PBOT and police to help business owners. Thank you.
137 Todd littlefield, next up, we have kai mcmurtry. Giles gardner. Dave crapo, anastasia howard, rob martineau and tara carlson.
138 Welcome. Thank you all for being here.
139 Would you like us to start.
140 Please, dave, for the record, my name is dave crapo. I am a chapter chair with ask me 189 and I'm the city's first park ranger dispatcher. I and my team, the dispatch team, are also in the process of receiving our layoff notices this week. So my job right now is to earn your vote in favor of budget amendments that will restore park park ranger dispatch for our funding, and then to place us under 311311. Management is prepared and ready to receive and support us in our work, and we believe that this is the best solution for everyone. If these amendments do not pass, our workflow will stop and there is no serious plan in place to take over our functions. Ranger calls will stop, will stack up and work queue, and they will be passed out to rangers as time permits. Frequently after problems have passed with no resolutions. So I have three observations about our work that I need everybody to understand. First, ranger dispatch lightens the load for pbem and boec by taking non-emergency calls and correctly routing them to safety resources around the city. Usually that's a ranger team and sometimes we partner with others. We are a force multiplier for Portland safety and security apparatus, and that helps with neighborhood livability. Second, we provide critical access to community services for people who are usually not comfortable calling city services. We help triage calls. We help people get social services, and we help people get health resources. Third, Portland is a union town. We are represented labor. We're the cheapest labor on the ranger team and we need your help. Please vote for our amendments.
141 Hi, I'm tara carlson.
142 Asked me 189, vice president and building plans examiner for ppe and city councilors. We are deeply concerned about any proposed layoffs of workers at ppe and any mandated halt to honor reserves and waiving of sdc fees as we move into peak construction season. Our bureau had no intention of decreasing our staffing levels this year because of a steady climb toward cost recovery. And yet, there is still an amendment that mandates ppe to reduce the draw on reserves and decrease bureau costs through employee layoffs. This action will cause our community to endure additional, longer wait times for critical construction, development and community services. Due to the 71 layoffs we already endured in January 2024. While waiving sdc fees will likely promote an influx of permits, we share PBOT, bes, water and parks concerns that fee losses will continue to strain critical infrastructure with unintended consequences on our legacy of livability. Portland has fallen behind major city jurisdictions nationwide by not implementing a steady governance from general funds for our building department to manage the inevitable ebbs and flows of construction. We agree with councilor Smith that the amendment to retain 31 jobs and reduce the drawdown of reserves did not go far enough. We stand by smith's proposal to provide a one time fund of 9.5 million to pd to preserve all staffing levels by amending pirtle-guiney amendment 101.
143 Here's my part.
144 Of the.
145 Hello, I'm anastasia howard. I'm an afscme 189 chapter chair, and I have worked for ten years at the Portland permitting and development bureau in the property compliance division. Picking up where I left off. Management forecasts are management forecasts that layoffs will balloon permit services backlogs and increase program losses. That resulted from the 71 staff layoffs in January 2024. For example, on time plan reviews are down to 90%. Wait times for free appointments for customers to get help with their permit applications have increased to four days and will likely be eliminated. The residential building inspectors are averaging 295 inspections daily among 13 inspectors, which hasn't proved easy. Layoffs of inspectors from 7 to 3 will decrease inspections from 70 to only 23 a day, hampering the mayor's initiatives toward new construction of affordable housing and business revitalization downtown. The property compliance division was forced to shut down yearly. Systematic. Inspection programs for multifamily rentals. Citywide. Demand for inspections for unpermitted construction, health and safety violations, and squatter houses is increasing. We currently have 889 properties in active code enforcement, alongside a backlog of 406 citywide complaints that are waiting for an inspector. We welcome the opportunity to further discuss how we can continue our mission to promote safety, livability and economic vitality in line with the city's compliance goals and our shared dedication to public service. We thank you.
146 Thank you, Portland city council. My name is rob martineau. I'm the president of afscme local 189 and a water operations mechanic in the Portland water bureau. The last 25 years, in addition to these cuts and permits and parks, which easily connect to housing and livability in Portland, there's an additional additional thing that I issue I'd like to raise. And that is the constant cutting of vacancies. That seems to be how all bureaus are forced to balance budgets. Those vacancies of my members are real work. Those are people that should be in the queue to be hired. Those are portlanders that need good jobs, and we need to figure out how we put back these vacancies. I understand it may not happen in this budget, but it needs to happen in the next. The work will still need to be done. Another area that's easy to forget is port portland's 14th elected official, and that's the office of our auditor. As a result of this budget, the one person who does the training on a records retention for all of the agencies and bureaus in Portland is being laid off. So where we talk about transparency, with which all of us at this dais have done it, it is antithetical to that, to unfund the support to the entire city of that records retention. And you all have one hell of a task. You have gotten here halfway through a budget cycle, and it's always budget season in Portland. I am encouraged at the progress that this council has made, and I'm excited to. You all have a full budget cycle to really guide Portland forward as we move into our next budget season. Good luck.
147 Thank you all for being here.
148 May I also please share? I have a letter signed by 26 park rangers and also a fact sheet about our work.
149 To our clerk, and she'll make sure that it gets to all of our offices. Thank you so much. Yeah.
150 Thanks. Giles is joining us online.
151 Good afternoon, council members. My name is giles gardner. I'm a Portland resident and an isa board certified master arborist. I want to express my clear opposition to council member zimmerman's proposed amendment, which will have devastating long term effects on portland's tree canopy. I'm here to urge you to preserve funding for urban forestry permitting and regulation team, and to protect portland's tree code. Cutting, staffing and weakening protections will dismantle years of progress at a time when our urban canopy is more important than ever. Mature trees are not easily replaced. While new trees can be planted, survival rates are low and it takes decades for them to deliver the same benefits. Large, established trees provide unmatched value and cooling neighborhoods, improving air quality, increasing property values, and reducing stormwater runoff. These benefits are especially vital in underserved communities already suffering from heat inequity and low canopy coverage. The urban forestry permitting and regulation team are not bureaucratic overhead. They're highly skilled public servants doing essential climate resilience work. Recent staffing improvements have dramatically reduced permitting delays. Cutting that staff now will reverse this progress. This proposal will disproportionately harm portland's most vulnerable communities and result in lasting environmental and public health costs. Please don't trade long term livability for short term savings. Preserve urban forestry. Protect the trees we still have. Once they're gone, we can't get them back. Thank you.
152 Go ahead. Hi.
153 Good afternoon, mayor wilson and councilors. My name is kai mcmurtry. I'm a resident of d-3. I appreciate you making this additional space to hear public testimony on the budget. I rewatched your discussion at the close of the may 21st marathon session. In response to Avalos first amendment to, quote unquote, increase the PPB budget. As a Portland taxpayer, it is insulting to me to hear some councilors position that 1.9 million as somehow the make or break amount of a budget in excess of $300 million, a budget that's up almost 8% is already the largest recipient of general fund dollars in the city. Those who opposed the redirection to parks wanted us to believe that it signaled some great concession to lawlessness. If $2 million made us safe, then $300 million should make us safe 150 times over, right? You know what many contribute? What else? Many contribute to a feeling of public safety. Litter removal. Lighting. Amenity repairs, ADA barrier removal. All things that are being cut in our cherished public spaces by the current reduction in parks maintenance dollars. I am encouraged by Avalos three. Koyama Lane eight. Excuse me. Koyama Lane eight. Novick two. Morillo seven. But I got to go to work and walk my dog and I cannot digest all that y'all are being asked to take on. So I have to speak to my values, which unfortunately leaves me open to interpretation because we are all using the word safety, but we mean different things by it. I don't think the state's threat of violence and incarceration can build a world of true, holistic community and safety. In every year that we increase the police budget at the expense of alternative methodologies, including well-maintained parks and public spaces, we are choosing to delay real community harmony. Thank you.
154 Thank you very much.
155 Next up we have benjamin gilbert, kevin christiansen. Marie tidball, jordan lewis.
156 Thank you for being here.
157 My name is benjamin gilbert, and I'm a tenant in district four and a member of the Portland democratic socialists of America. I'd like to voice strong support for Green ten. We can we can afford to cut from the external material and services budget, which is funding overwhelmingly directed towards consultants and redirects work away from represented city employees. It also funds the necessary study to facilitate the expansion of Portland street response, protects tenants and funds the arts. We need to defend the increase. Don't give the police more than they need and more than they asked for. When I look at los angeles right now, I see what an overfunded and overfunded police department looks like. I also strongly urge councilors to support Morillo 16, which supports tenants in the midst of a housing crisis. Also, vote yes on Avalos three. We need accountability on police overtime. Just look at san francisco, where an audit found police overtime was rife with fraud and abuse. When my neighbor was injured in front of my northwest apartment, more than six police officers came and harassed them, making them feel unsafe. I, I bought my neighbor a bottle, a cool bottle of water to help with his head wound and walked him back to his apartment. This seems like an overfunded police department. It seems inefficient, and it seems like we can take care of our neighbors. Like Portland street response would be better served to do this kind of work, and we don't need six people showing up when one one gentleman has a head wound who can just be walked back to his apartment, I did that. They didn't do that. Thank you.
158 Jordan.
159 Hello? City council. I'm jordan lewis with Portland dsa. I also live in the state stadium hood as well. I'm here today thanking everyone who voted yes on the police increase. 90 unfilled positions don't keep us safe. And the move would save parks employees jobs while not a single officer would lose theirs. Police conspire with ice and threaten cutting human trafficking work at the first whiff of accountability. I'm also here in support of the increase to tnc, uber, lyft fees, as well as canal 717 towards a driver resource center. I checked the lyft app just now, and a ride one way from here to kaiser interstate east is $15. Meanwhile, a TriMet ride costs less than $3. The additional dollar 35 fee on rides would be a splash in the bucket for such a luxury convenience. To be clear, I support funds being used on a driver resource center. I'm really here against the apps themselves and asking you to take it even higher. The uber and lyft app sent out alerts telling customers to show up and stall this effort, not unlike in may, when they did the same thing in illinois asking users to testify against a transit funding bill. This bill failed, pushing transit over the fiscal cliff and forcing chicago to cut up to 30% of their transit service. These apps function by undermining public transit and union taxi services with exploited labor. This is not the behavior of a public servant. This is the behavior of a tobacco company. If climate change is a problem, if road fatalities are a problem, if traffic congestion is a problem, the fee needs to be higher. $2 is a start, but please put put it towards a driver resource center as well. Thank you.
160 Thank you both for being here.
161 Checking on kevin christiansen marie table. Next we have jeremy Smith, jim labby, yoko silk, jesse hannon.
162 Mr. I'm sorry.
163 Good afternoon, councilors and mayor wilson, my name is jeremy Smith. I've been following the coalescence of the district for coalition over the past year and a half. What I've seen is concerning councilor Clark's amendment. Nine motions to increase funding for the district four coalition by $80,000 to boost their newsletter reach. The newsletter does not need $80,000 and can be grown organically at preexisting community events and utilizing social media to its full potential. Right now, it's only on facebook declining. It's a dying social media. We need to do better. At this June 2nd district four coalition board meeting, a $3,000 celebratory dinner at the lan su chinese garden was planned. This option was chosen over a community picnic that would have been open to everybody. Coalition president jesse burke, who is also the chair of the old town community association, used their pulpit to speak about bottledrop concerns for over 30 minutes in the media or in the meeting, prioritizing the concerns of her neighborhood over the 31 other neighborhoods that they are supposed to represent. Zimmerman. Amendment eight motions to restore 130,000in funding to the district coalition office operations, and 180 k to the district coalition office. Grants. Any funds given to district four will be disproportionately applied to the old town community association, a neighborhood that just received $30,000 from Multnomah county for the community vitality and economy opportunity grant. Over the past few days, PPB has been communicating with, aiding and abetting federal immigration and customs enforcement down at the south waterfront. Please vote no on Clark amendment nine, Zimmerman amendment eight, and the $2 million Portland police bureau increase. Thank you.
164 Good afternoon, mayor and city council. My name is jim lavie. I'm a district two resident. I'm here to oppose Zimmerman two and three and support Green amendment ten. From 2002 to 2016, I served as urban conservationist for the Oregon bird alliance and staff the east Portland office out at least botanical garden. And during that time I served on the citywide tree project stakeholder committee, and then subsequently, several years later, on the title 11 citywide tree code oversight committee. So I spent a lot of time with the tree code. It emerged that project emerged at a genuine grassroots movement across the city in 2007 to protect and safeguard the urban forest by revising very outdated city tree code regulations. Amendment four is four would basically got those efforts, those decade long efforts to try to improve those policies and their implementation. I get there's issues with the code, but the budget process is not the way to deal with with those code issues. Let's debate the code. Let's not gut the program via the budget. Urban forestry staff that we cut do more than inspection. They do education and information sharing, which is the critical part of that project. And I understand this is maybe a strategy to cut parks, to fund parks. That doesn't get us anywhere. A much better approach is Green ten, which partially addressed the cuts to parks in the mayor's proposed budget.
165 Thank you.
166 Mr. Ryan.
167 Go ahead ma'am. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
168 Yoko silk I'm a district two resident and a Portland parks employee. I want to say thank you to councilors Morillo Green, Avalos. Dunphy, canal Novick. Koyama Lane for your yes. Vote for the redirection of $1.9 million from police to parks. Councilor Ryan, I'm hoping that I can see you uphold supporting parks like you used to do when you were commissioner. When I'm also a parks employee under you. I cannot believe that this decision about 1.9 million redirect is being contested. Honestly, pb got exactly the budget they requested, plus some. And this redirection is just slightly reduces their increase. While all the other bureaus are facing massive cuts, parks is still facing an $8 million in cuts. Please stop spreading the false narrative that this is somehow defunding police. It is not. This redirection of 1.9 million is helpful for parks maintenance maintenance, but it isn't even enough. Please work to fund parks fully. I was a part time casual staffer for years ago and have been an fte union member for the past ten years. I know firsthand the incredible value of city nature programing, for example, that is still on the proposed cut list. These high roi programs that serve over 7000 youth a year are still posed to lose, poised to lose all funding for casual staff, which is over 100 positions. What makes these programs, which will make these programs impossible to run and reduces valuable job opportunities for Portland residents? The police bureau budget is 67% larger than it was ten years ago. More police don't keep crime off the streets, but engaging youth programs does. Healthy parks systems do programs that provide childcare like recreation, summer camps? Do. They are an investment in our city's welfare and portland's future. Funding youth programs is funding public safety. Funding parks is public safety. Thank you.
169 Thank you all.
170 Jessie hannon, tim larson, nike Green, Eric knox, glen.
171 Thank you. Councilors. My name is jessie hannon. I've lived in Portland most of my life. I'm a district three resident. I'm honestly a little confused why we're even talking about this. My understanding is that the Portland police got the budget increase they asked for and Portland parks, even if they were to receive the $1.9 million budget bonus, would still be looking at an $8 million shortfall. I think we all understand that we, the Portland police bureau, is not underfunded currently, and the Portland parks bureau is especially youth programs are well known to reduce crime in the city, and we seem to have hit the maximum of how much police funding will even do that. So I'm urging all the council members to please retain the $1.9 million with the Portland parks rather than give it to the police department, which didn't even ask for it. Thank you.
172 My name is tim larson and I've spoken to the your predecessors and city council and Dan before, and it kind of reminds me of speaking to an assembly at the deaf school in Washington, in Vancouver, without having a sign language translator. I hope that I have got your attention now because this is really important. What is defunding the police mean, or taking money away from the police budget mean? First, there's the extension existential crisis for business community in Portland. Downtown Portland property values have plummeted 57% since 2019, from 3 billion to just 1.3 billion. There was an article in the paper the other day that the old town pizza owner had purchased the merchant hotel building that he was in for $2.5 million, while just in 2017, the previous owner paid $12.5 million for that building. Then we have the human crisis. I'm a rideshare driver myself. In the last two years, I have given rides to a 78 year old man who was stabbed three times at an east Portland mac station, a 40 year old, 74 year old hispanic woman who was hit on the head by a 38 pound rock wielded by a homeless man, causing three life threatening cracks to her skull and sending her to the icu. By the way, this was the same mentally ill homeless man who just weeks before had critically injured a woman doctor who was jogging on northwest 23rd. We need more police. We need police to protect us.
173 Thank you.
174 My name is nike Green. I am the ceo and founder of triple threat mentoring, a 50 year plus resident. And in district two, we're a small, deeply rooted, black led organization which was recently awarded funding through the Portland children's levy for mentoring mayor, madam president and council members. We're grateful for the opportunity to be here today and share our perspective, especially given that we were previously asked not to lobby or provide any testimony. So here we are, not just sitting in front of you, but in the room, the balcony and watching online. We are a coalition of organizations, including the ethiopian and eritrean cultural resource center, also mentors and triple threat that were significantly impacted by the decisions you made in the last council. Pcl remained. Our organizations work within black communities, within workforce development, science, education, college and career readiness, and intensive mentoring across all of our nonprofits. Over 90% of our board member, staff, mentor, and constituents identify as black, so we are disheartened by the decision to reallocate funds to previously funded organizations, many of them larger legacy nonprofits, at the expense of smaller, black led orgs that have long been underfunded and overlooked. So what is our ask? That you would fully fund all newly awarded grants for at least the first year to prevent gaps in our services? If review is necessary, we ask that you do a partial remand to the limited to only the specific hunger relief funding Lane in question, rather than delaying the full cohort. Thank you for listening.
175 My name is Eric knox. I'm the executive director and.
176 Founder of holla. I've been in Portland for 35 years. I've been in mentorship for 31 years. I live in the community I serve. I don't drive into that community. I fully embody this work because I believe, especially for my black and brown babies, you can't be what you haven't seen. I have the resources to not live there, but I do, because that's the heart and essence of mentoring. So today I stand with my sister nike and the other two black led mentoring organization, elso and ethiopian cultural and resource center, harmed by your recent remands of the pcl Portland children's levy, which protects previously funded groups for another year while leaving thousands of black families and youth in limbo. We applied, we interviewed, we planned with integrity. Holla was recommended by a community led, equity rooted process for a reason. For over a decade, we've centered lived experience equity and delivered real impact. Now, we ask the council to honor that process and protect the progres. One fully fund all newly awarded grants for at least one year to prevent gaps in services. Two if a review is necessary. Limited to hunger relief Lane, don't stall the entire cohort. Request a report from pcl outlining the safeguards and fairness measures built into the process. This is about community trust, continuity of service and the city's own commitment to equity. We're not asking for special treatment, just consistency. We're not asking for charity. We're just asking for respect. Thank you for your time and consideration.
177 Thank you all for being here.
178 Todd littlefield, appreciate.
179 All.
180 Todd littlefield I live in district one.
181 Good afternoon. Councilors. Mayor wilson, thank you for your hard work, persistence, determination. Your budget is thoughtful, restrained, with the right priorities. After seeing the lawlessness and chaos which occurred Saturday night, which my neighborhood and many in Portland have lived with on a daily basis, going on a decade now, I googled, why do we have laws? They the ai generated response laws are crucial for maintaining order. They establish standards of accepted behavior, ensuring fairness. In essence, laws are the foundation of a well-functioning society. Without laws, society would be prone to chaos and conflict. They are essential for ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live a safe, productive and fulfilling life. When Portland does not have enough officers to send and stop anarchy. Saturday night at lloyd center and several other locations, we have a major problem. It's a miracle no one was killed. Have there been any amendments to improve the budget, reflecting funding and mandating the hiring of hundreds of more officers immediately? The one meeting income is far below the other districts. We have 40% of the city's children, yet we have councilors who voted to dramatically increase the cost to play golf, thus robbing our children of the opportunity to learn or enjoy the game. What are the council's morals, priorities, standards and values? Thank you.
182 Murray is joining us online.
183 Thank you.
184 Can you hear me?
185 We can hear you.
186 Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is marie table. As a person of white privilege, I applaud councilor Canals comment about the 8.5 billion for displaced albino black families, and that it only begins the process of making people whole. I urge you to vote no for councilor Clark and zimmerman's budget amendments funding the district coalition neighborhood association system, Clark and Zimmerman apparently are determined to make people whole, but these are primarily white, privileged folks who will benefit from this inequitable system. For example, councilor Clark will donate $2,000 each to the neighbor for district four neighborhood associations, whose past actions in the 90s contributed to today's segregated Portland, as documented in the 2019 report on our racist land use history. Councilor Clark also proposes $80,000 of taxpayer funds for the district four coalition newspaper propaganda media that prohibits letters to the editor from the public. Last week, the taxpayer funded district four coalition announced they will start a neighborhood watch program with the police. Portland's neighborhood watch program was dissolved in 2019, likely because studies show the program incites racial profiling and vigilantism. You may remember 17 year old trayvon martin was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer. Finally, last week, leslie hammond announced the district four coalition will spend $3,000 of taxpayer funds for a celebration of success dinner held exclusively for board members and their significant others at longview gardens district four. Coalition may hold the distinction for being portland's only taxpayer funded organization, currently flush with cash. Thank you.
187 Next up, we have diane salazar, patrick tran, audrey caines, micah meskill.
188 Welcome. Go right ahead.
189 Thank you.
190 Councilors I'm.
191 Diane salazar.
192 All right.
193 District one.
194 Tenant first. Quickly I support the rideshare.
195 Union demands.
196 Now, let me be frank.
197 Councilors.
198 I ask.
199 You.
200 Why are you so eager to.
201 View department.
202 Budgets as.
203 Indispensable? Except for the police budget? If we need to plug gaps, then we ought to reject the notion that any specific department is solely the.
204 One to bear that burden.
205 That's not to reject police accountability, police reform, or say that the police budget is perfect. But at the current moment, this feels more like a. Vendetta than a targeted move to sustain.
206 Parks.
207 Especially through targeting police recruitment funds. That's not good governance, that's grandstanding. I hope I'm proven wrong about this, but at this moment I voiced my concerns about this budget. I hope this does not become. A pattern. Milwaukee, wisconsin a diverse, progressive city, provides a better model through progressive mayor cavalier johnson, because accountability and fairness are what truly matters. That's what Portland believes in. Let's turn that value into our budget commitment. By adopting the mayor's budget and funding the auditor's office fully. Lastly, is a community advisory councilor. I oppose a top down budget reallocations. Thank you.
208 Okay.
209 Thank you for the.
210 Opportunity to.
211 Be here today.
212 Today I join my nonprofit colleagues from earlier. My name is patrick tran. I work with elsa inc, a nonprofit founded by two black women and led by the board, constituents and staff that.
213 Are.
214 All 90% black. I'm honored to speak today with their trust. I would like to address the integrity and equity of the pcl grant process. In my 15 years as a nonprofit fundraising executive, this is the most inclusive and equity focused process I've seen. Public or private pcl brought a bipoc consulting firm to help hundreds of community voices and lived experience that this committee questioned. Last week, the citizen oversight committee leveled the playing field, giving new community groups a real shot and fixing flaws like outlier scores, equity and fairness in action. For a year, community rooted organizations went through an exhaustive, equity centered grantmaking process. We showed up, we followed the rules, and under pcl's well thought out process, no organization had any issues with the process. That is, until the recommendations came out. The decision now before this body risks undermining the process and sending a message that even when bipoc organizations meet the bar, their funding is still negotiable, especially when lobbying and bias comes into play by organizations with more resources and connections to city leaders. That is the core of what happened at last week's meeting, not the equity centered process that has been years in the making. That meeting and decision were not equitable. We urge you to honor the process, respect the recommendations, and restore the funding to the youth that we serve. Thank you.
215 Micah.
216 Mayor and councilors.
217 My name is mike mescal, and I'm representing the alliance of Oregon and our 10,000 local members. I urge you today to not support councilor Zimmerman's attempts to defund the urban forestry program or shift any of its capacity over to pnd. A letter submitted yesterday by over a dozen local health environmental livability organizations on why we collectively oppose zimmerman's attempts to defund the program. The mayor's proposed budget already included a nine fte reduction to urban forestry to align with the city's overall budget reductions, and any additional staffing cuts to this team would severely impact its ability to meet the city's and community goals. We understand this is a tough budget year, but urge you not to further cut this program's budget, as it will have short term and long term impacts on the city's trees. Additional urban forestry regulatory or code compliance team, which protect our current tree canopy and is a valuable asset of our community. Valued at over $9 billion. This this group, the code compliance group, educates the public on the importance of trees and supports urban forestry's entire scope of work. Any further defunding of this team could roll back much needed progress in managing this asset. And finally, facing our deferred maintenance problem. The community has worked for years with the city to align their urban forestry program capacity with demands for services, balancing robust and cohesive set of non-regulatory and regulatory tours tools, improved inner bureau coordination and accountability for the cuts would have dire impacts for longer term public.
218 Health.
219 So please oppose councilor Zimmerman's attempts to defund. Thank you.
220 Jacqueline.
221 Hello everyone. My name is jacqueline rivera.
222 And.
223 I'm currently.
224 22 years old. I was born and raised here in southeast Portland, and I started working with Portland parks and recreation. When I was 15 years old. I got denied the first time and then reapplied and completely fell in love with this job. Portland parks and rec has given me so many amazing opportunities, so it saddens me to hear that we aren't going to receive enough funding. I specifically work with the youth conservation crew, which this crew, I've loved it. I've been with them for like about 4 or 5 years, and I'm back now being a crew leader for a group, I will be I will be leading a youth group of nine kids from ages 14 to 18, and I believe it's really important to have these kids come out with us and explore parks. If it wasn't for Portland parks and recreation, I don't think I'd be outside doing all of this nature work. So I give a big thanks to everyone that has led me into this position. I did give a speech to mayor ted wheeler back in 2020 for Portland parks and rec funding, and thanks to him, he was able to give us funding. And also thanks to my position with Portland parks and rec, I've inspired other people in my family to pursue careers outdoors, such as metro. My sister daniella, she's currently 16 years old, and she gives tours for metro at the Oregon zoo. I believe it's really important that we get more funding, so we get youth educated on why it's important to keep all these parks healthy and safe. Because Portland keeping Portland parks doesn't only make a healthier city, it keeps everyone happy. And we have beautiful parks and I hope we can continue to protect them. Thank you guys so much for listening to me.
225 Thank you.
226 For being here.
227 Thank you.
228 Next up we have ernie munch, daniel barbato, anand. Anand jain and henry kaiser. Henry is joining us online. Go ahead henry. Henry, can you hear us? All right, we'll come back to henry. One more time. Ernie munch, daniel barbato, anand jain. Okay, we'll move on to carol orloff. Robert ball, janet parker. Okay, I see henry is connected. Go ahead. Henry.
229 Is it my turn?
230 Yep. Go ahead.
231 Okay. I'm henry kaiser and I am co-chair of the health and safety. Committee of the city club of Portland. And I speak today to advise people of a July 23rd meeting looking at the issue of mental health for the homeless and access to it. There is a lot of myth and misinformation. If people come to this meeting, they'll find out what's possible, what can be done to overcome the challenges, to make it affordable and to make it effective. This will be take place from 6 to 8 p.m. At cal's restaurant on second avenue. And if we can deal, bring mental health to the homeless, I think we'll do a lot to deal with the homeless issues that are challenging our community. Thank you very much.
232 Thank you.
233 All right. I believe we have janet parker online. Janet you're muted.
234 Can you hear me?
235 We can hear you okay.
236 Thank you. My name is janet parker I live in district four. The main thing I want to say today is that they don't want any budget cuts to anything to do with public safety in my neighborhood, and I'm nervous about recent news that at least two new homeless shelters will be opening in my neighborhood in the very near future. As a member of stadium hood and friends of couch park, I've been impressed with and inspired by the efforts of my neighbors in drawing attention to the serious problems of the flagrantly open use of fentanyl all around us the homeless, mentally ill, and a chronic problem with tent campers, graffiti, vandalism, and all kinds of garbage on the streets and sidewalks. I live in the south end of the alphabet district between trinity episcopal cathedral and saint mary's catholic cathedral and school, in a four unit condo building built in 1884, which was a wonderful place to move to. When my husband and I relocated here for.
237 The last 16.
238 Years ago, she tried to sell our beautiful home last year, and though all who came to look at it couldn't believe it hadn't already sold, not one person made an offer on it because of the neighborhood. My now ex husband moved back to new york in late 2023, and I recently bought his share of the house because I still love this neighborhood for all the reasons we initially chose to settle here. I'm doing what I can to help keep this neighborhood from being.
239 Destroyed by.
240 All the stressors on it. We really can't do it without your help. Thank you for the time.
241 Go ahead. Jamie.
242 Greetings, councilor. And mayor. I'm Jamie partridge. I'm a retired letter carrier and living in northeast Portland district two. I am speaking in favor of a number of amendments here. The current proposed budget increases police funding from the general.
243 Fund.
244 Bringing the police bureau's total budget to 318 million for the 20 2526 fiscal year. Portland police bureau is the city. The general fund 34% in 2425 and in 20 2526 would bring it to 38%. This. All the while, Portland is looking at a huge $65 million budget deficit. Or maybe it's more. Mayor wilson is proposing to cut every other public service except the Portland police bureau in a time when we could be making cuts, should be making cuts to police, and investing in the services and programs that truly make our communities safe. In a time when white supremacists are in control of the federal government and targeting vulnerable communities, see los angeles. The historic connection and overlap between white supremacists and the police in this region. Specifically, it's illogical to prioritize police for crisis response, recently observed Portland police assisting the immigration and customs enforcement, removing protesters attempting to defend our immigrant neighbors. It's a clear violation of our sanctuary city guidelines. So I support the Green amendment to increase the police fund parks. Et cetera. And in favor of the Green amendment ten for housing tenants, parks, arts and Portland street response. Thank you very much.
245 Thank you.
246 Okay. Checking for ernie munch, daniel barbato. And jain carol orloff, robert ball, megan murphy. Corinne frechette. Misha litvak. John hollister. Darren campbell.
247 Good afternoon council. My name is nicholas desai.
248 I live.
249 In.
250 District three.
251 I'm a.
252 City employee.
253 However, I'm here today on my own time representing my personal views. I'm here to speak in opposition to the amendments to eliminate urban forestry, permitting staff and funding. I'm going to begin with a quote from william sullivan, a researcher at the university of illinois. Lack of Green infrastructure in the urban environment is the greatest predictor of mortality among low income communities, like sewers and city streets, our cities trees across all property types function as infrastructure. Trees play a vital role in mitigating the effects of climate change and improving our public and environmental health. The city tree code is an implementation tool of portland's urban forest plan. This plan reflects industry best practice for managing Green infrastructure, and it was written to intentionally align with the city core values. Together, the tree code and management plan work to protect and grow our urban forests so that all portlanders will have access to.
254 Shade.
255 Clean air, mental, better mental health, cooler neighborhoods, and more trees are an investment in our future. If these amendments pass, they'll have a devastating effect on the livability of our city for generations to come. With immigrant refugee people of color and low income communities suffering the most, our most vulnerable communities. Thank you.
256 Go ahead.
257 My name is john hollister.
258 I live in district four. In mid.
259 2020, city council voted to defund the police by $15 million.
260 Then in November.
261 2020, city council tried to reduce the police budget by another 18 million, but commissioner Ryan cast the deciding vote against this ridiculous proposal. Thank you Dan, I love you very much. Five of you who publicly supported the defund the police campaign on their website would have voted to cut another 18,000,000 in 2020. Thank god you weren't in office at this time, one of you said, diverting $1.9 million from the police wasn't a cut, that no one would lose their job. Last year, Portland had the highest number of police retirements in history. You're voting not to replace any of them. Nordstrom, multiple safeways, rei, walmart are all on month to month leases as they plan their departures because of safety issues. You think Portland has a budget shortfall now? Just wait. Oh one correction rei and walmart have already left. Commissioner Novick, I campaigned for you because you you put public safety first. I feel betrayed. This vote is on you. How do you want to be remembered in 2026 at reelection time and beyond? Commissioner Dunphy, I also campaigned for you. We discussed this. You put public safety as your number one. And I feel the same betrayal. I'm nick fish is turning over in his grave. He is cremated. But you know what I mean. This vote is on you. Actually, trump is hoping you vote to take all 1.9 million away because he'd love to send the national guard here. Like like when Portland can't handle the big next, next big incidents. Just like he's in la and new york.
262 Very much.
263 My name is michelle. I'm the vice president.
264 Of afscme. Local 1790. Representing frontline behavioral healthcare workers in our city's homeless shelters. I myself.
265 Am also a case. Manager working at one.
266 Of the village model shelters. I've been here a.
267 Couple.
268 Times before now.
269 So these. Cuts to.
270 Our.
271 Services, they they punished.
272 The workers.
273 This is like an.
274 Austerity measure that punishes workers. It leaves us less able to do our jobs. I'm hearing all this about the police are not able to do their jobs and their budgets getting increased, or people are wanting to increase the budget. We don't get that same treatment right now. We are being punished for. I mean, basically policies and practices that are being enacted by people who will not be affected by this, these contractors, these ceos, they can they can sign up again, they can propose to run something else 2 or 3 years down the line, the people who work at these programs, the people we serve, we don't have those options. We just faced our third round of layoffs since January 2025. It's going to leave us without peer mentors who are people who, you know, they show the way out. These are people with lived experience. Less budget is less staff, less safety, less services, and worse outcomes. I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.
275 Good afternoon.
276 Council president pirtle-guiney vice.
277 President and councilors.
278 Mr. Mayor, mr.
279 Jordan.
280 My name is darren campbell. For the last three years I've chaired the PBOT private hire transportation advisory.
281 Committee.
282 And I'm here to speak on.
283 The. Increase to the ride fees of $1.35.
284 My personal belief is that it needs to be more than that. I've met with many of you. And I've spoken towards this. In since the time that uber and lyft have come.
285 To.
286 Portland, uber has increased their. Safety fee, their ride fee. From $1 to $5. And in that same amount of time, the city of Portland has increased to 50 cent ride fee to $0.65. This is an overdue increase. I think it's too little. I think incrementally you can increase it an extra dollar every year until you get up to that $5 mark. But more more than that, I think you're leaving money on the table. I think you need to include taxis and shuttles, and I also think you need to add the lime bikes and the and the other bikes. These are fees that people will not blink an eye at paying. Now uber and lyft, they will come screaming saying that the number of trips are going to drop. They're going to see less trips per year. And I'm here to tell you they're absolutely right. They're going to have about 1.5 to 2 million trips. Go right to TriMet because that's what they took early on when their trips were so inexpensive. So doing this increase, you're going to help TriMet as well. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.
287 Thank you all.
288 Next.
289 Next up we have jay nicholson kevin matches, benson raby emily stevens. Go ahead.
290 All right. Thanks. My name is jay nicholson. I'm here yet again to bring forth the concerns of representative shelter and behavioral health workers. And asked me local 1790 recent budget restrictions handed to some of our represented shelter organizations by Portland solutions have destroyed our client assistance funds used to help people afford necessary documentation, transportation, phone services, and housing costs. Additional cuts have been made to case management services, peer services, and the overall staffing of shelter programs. It's a critical loss and will have a disproportionate impact on clients with disabilities and those belonging to other marginalized communities. Many of the city's moves seem to draw from this narrative that people struggling with homelessness are apathetic. They need only to clean up their act and get a full time job. What about people who can't work a full time job can't save for housing? What about people who need the aid of peer services, case management, or assistance funds to address their obstacles to income or housing? Do you plan to keep them in purgatory? You can end unsheltered homelessness. You can push people out of sight and corral them to holding spaces with nothing else to offer. You can get them out of the way, but where does that leave them? Years ago, a fellow colleague shared this metaphor with me that I will remember for the rest of my life. If you don't roll out to someone who's drowning and try to make them swim, you bring them to shore and offer support. With the acquisition of and ensuing cuts to these programs at the hands of Portland solutions, you, the city of Portland, are sending a clear message. If you can't keep up with the boat, just drown already. If any of you want to change this trajectory, the time to act is now. Reinforce funding for supportive services. Reexamine the budget decisions being made by Portland solutions. We aren't giving up, and neither should you. Thank you.
291 Thank you.
292 Kevin is joining us online.
293 Thank you. My name is kevin.
294 Matches.
295 Counselors I'm concerned about.
296 A pattern. Of misinformation being given to this body.
297 In a may 14th, 2025, work session, councilor Kanal.
298 Asked.
299 Staff, quote, does.
300 The sfpd.
301 Money show up as an interagency.
302 Into fire and or police and then an expenditure.
303 There, or is the.
304 Money.
305 Completely separate from. Fire and police budgets? End quote staff falsely responded that, quote.
306 It's completely contained within the sfpd system. End quote.
307 This explanation.
308 Was reaffirmed.
309 By staff a second time. In fact, the sfpd bureau sole.
310 Revenue sources.
311 Its property tax.
312 Levy, and.
313 It does provide interagency revenue to opb in.
314 Portland fire.
315 The fpd bureaus expenditures include benefit payments to retired members in the city run pension plan, who were first sworn before 2007. As well as interagency revenue for opb in Portland fire to pay for 100% of Oregon pers contributions, covering members first sworn beginning in 2007, it is the responsibility of opb in Portland fire to send contribution payments along to Oregon pers, but they build these payments back to the.
316 Bureau. I was.
317 I emailed correction to councilor Kanal and copied staff. Staff acknowledged the error and thanked me for the correction. On may 15th, however, I was disturbed to read a news article dated June 6th containing a link to a memo from staff repeating this same piece of misinformation. The memo falsely states that Oregon pers contributions are a cost subject to inflation, to be covered by the general fund. The bureau is a topic which has been subject to baseless speculation and outright misinformation in the public record. In my opinion, the lack of adequate discussion at.
318 Councilor reform has contributed to this pattern. Thank you.
319 Emily is joining us online. Please unmute.
320 Hey, can you hear me?
321 We can hear you.
322 Okay, good.
323 My name is emily stebbins.
324 And.
325 I know.
326 You have a lot to talk about.
327 So I'll.
328 Keep this short. I want to urge you.
329 Not to make any.
330 Further cuts to urban forestry.
331 I'm a volunteer with 350 pdx forest defense team, and I've been working on shade equity for several years. Trees provide us all with so many valuable gifts shade and cooling, clean air, water noise reduction, and well-documented mental health benefits. They are a public good, and it is unfair that the burden of caring for them should be shouldered by individual families. The effect of that unfairness is that only neighborhoods where people can afford to take care of trees get to have them. The equitable tree canopy program is just beginning to counter that effect, but urban forestry cannot implement it, or much of the other important work that they do. If the funding is pulled out from under them, please maintain the funding needed to protect our urban forest. Thank you.
332 All right. Checking for megan murphy, corinne frechette. Benson rabe. Okay, we'll move on to kate phillips. John hassan, charlie michelle. Wesley. Devin casey.
333 Hi, council.
334 My name is kate.
335 Phillips, and I'm an icu.
336 Nurse and member of Portland dsa. Growing up in florida, I was accustomed to a lack of. Investment in parks with bathrooms often closed or dirty, and playground equipment that was in disrepair.
337 When I moved.
338 To Portland.
339 I was impressed.
340 With the beauty.
341 Variety.
342 And maintenance of city parks. I moved to my neighborhood and district two specifically to live near peninsula park, which is my favorite in Portland. Parks draw community.
343 Members like.
344 Myself to choose to reside in the city. I strongly assert that city parks are a higher priority than is expressed in this budget. Beautiful public spaces are incredibly important to a healthy community. I urge the council to fully fund parks. Thanks.
345 Go ahead.
346 Good afternoon.
347 My name.
348 Is devin casey.
349 I am a case.
350 Manager and.
351 A union.
352 Steward with 1790, and I work at a safe rest village for a culturally specific for queer and trans individuals. Right now. As it stands, us and our sister site for bipoc homeless individuals are facing severe budget cuts, including layoffs and elimination of our client assistance funds. Our shelter, to put simply, is being set up to fail. This is a step backwards and a blow for our queer, trans, and bipoc community at a time when it's more and more difficult to be queer, transgender, and bipoc in this country, Portland should not be aiding and abetting the likes of the trump administration and rolling back services and safety nets for queer and trans and bipoc portlanders. I implore the city council if there is any way at all to restore funding to our necessary, culturally specific services. This is a chance to show up for queer and trans and bipoc portlanders, not just in words alone, but with real action. Thank you.
353 Okay. Let's see. Checking on. Amjad. Hassan. Charlie. Michelle. Wesley. Okay, let's move on to justin skolnick, terry parker, christopher olson.
354 I'm here for parks maintenance. Please bear with me. My name is justin skolnick. I'm a graduate of the university of chicago divinity school. I enrolled because sketchy theological ideas had crept into American politics, and no one could tell me why. I have a booklet from the national council of churches examining the christian identity movement. It describes, quote, a theological stalking horse of the organized racists and anti-semites who have found it useful as a rallying symbol and recruiting tool. This is from 1986. Today, that movement's kissing cousins set the federal policy agenda. It is evident to the authors and to generations of religious scholars that personal behavior tends to overlap with metaphysical commitments. Behavior resists reform without a change of heart or a change of infrastructure. The plainly discriminatory patterns of local law enforcement are not the kinds of problems you can fix with money. You can't conjure safety, sacrificing everything else on the altar of policing if recruitment is down. Because critics of police brutality found popular support than what attracted people to the job was brutality. Without changing the heart of the institution, new recruits can only reproduce the problems. So instead of feeding pb this little treat, please keep our parks clean.
355 Terry parker district three at about 545 this past.
356 Friday.
357 Evening.
358 I was in the hollywood.
359 District when a police vehicle went speeding by eastbound on sandy boulevard, navigating around heavy traffic by traveling east in the. Westbound lanes. That was followed about four minutes later by another police vehicle. Doing the same thing. What became apparent after listening to the tv news, officers were heading to a location on 115th avenue in park row 70 plus blocks away, where a deputy sheriff had shot a suspect. Last month, a motorcyclist crashed into a parked car and was killed at 757 on 57th and tillamook. Had there been police presence in the neighborhood, just maybe the motorcycle would have been caught speeding prior to the crash or not speeding at all. The police were the last to respond to the scene. Police response times are unacceptably too low. If you want vacant storefronts along sandy. If you want to fill vacant storefronts around sandy boulevard with tax paying businesses, sidewalks that are more vibrant, where people can feel safe. And if you want to cut down on shoplifting, vandalism and graffiti, break ins and drug dealing, Portland needs more police officers patrolling the streets, law enforcement and faster law enforcement times. The common sense road to accomplishing these goals is to restore the original $9.1 million to PPB, as proposed by mayor milson, by mayor wilson. And I would also like to see you fully fund the neighborhood. Our world renowned neighborhood association budgets. Thank you.
360 Christopher is joining us online.
361 Yeah. Can you hear me?
362 We can hear you.
363 Thank you.
364 Hello, mayor, council president and council members. My name is chris olson and I live in district two. Today I'm speaking on my own behalf. First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the members of this body who are which are all of you who voted.
365 In favor of last.
366 Week's $8.5 million settlement agreement for displaced albina residents. That was the right decision, both morally and legally. That being said, I'm concerned today about the increasing and increasingly disturbing and false narratives coming from reactionary forces in our city who claim to speak for the so-called silent majority. They call for more public safety, but define that almost exclusively in terms of expanding police budgets, rather than investing in social infrastructure that actually keeps our community safe. Let's be clear allocating $2 million for park maintenance does more for our public safety than increasing the number of armed officers or their hours. For example, if an unhoused person does not have access to a public restroom in parks due to a lack of maintenance, where do we expect them to go? To the restroom? In doorways, in front of businesses, onto our streets. Public infrastructure makes our city safer and healthier for everyone. And on the topic of small businesses that we keep hearing that are disappearing and going away, that are justifying harsher policing and anti-homelessness policies, let's be clear. A lot of these beloved businesses like rei, sizzle pie, hot lips, shoofly bakery. Why did they close? It's because in most cases, the workers attempted to unionize and were met with retaliation. It's very clear our our safest communities are those that are those with the most resources, and all the people of Portland deserve to be invested in, not criminalized. So let's stop with the fear, marketing and fear mongering and build a city that works for everyone.
367 Thank you colleagues, I know a few people are looking to have a quick break, so I think we're going to take a ten minute break now instead of waiting until the end of public testimony. Folks, when we get back, we will have about another 40 or so minutes for public testimony. So we should be able to get through all or almost all of the people who are left who have signed up. Colleagues, let's meet back here at 315. We will be on a ten minute recess.
368 So.
369 Welcome back. We are calling today's city council meeting back into order. Thank you for everyone's patience. We are picking up about two thirds of the way through public testimony, and we should have 30 to 40 minutes left that we can do for public testimony. So I'm hopeful that we can get through everybody. Keelan could you call up our next panel, please?
370 Yes. Thank you. We have henry hazleton, christopher ward, james o'loughlin, leah dawkins.
371 Please go right ahead.
372 Good afternoon.
373 Council. My name is james o'loughlin. I'm a labor representative with liuna 403. I represent parks.
374 Workers.
375 Transportation workers, environmental services workers and basically everything the city does. First, I want to say thank you to everyone that has spoken on behalf of sufficiently funding parks and protecting our urban forestry workers. That work is it's so essential to protecting the city, especially moving forward through our climate crisis. I'm here today to speak about a less visible component of our work, the environmental system development group in PBOT. This group is funded by funding from beis that has been reduced in this budget cycle. That would lead to about 24 fte terminations. Nearly half of those are filled. These workers basically maintain and repair all the equipment that collects water throughout the city, redirects it to our wastewater treatment services plant. And bts has robust ability to fund these positions if they don't fund these positions. The alternative plan is to support emergency work that is likely to cost more. But with $300 million in contingency and redundant supervisor positions that have been created, the 1.2 million to just keep the staff we have would be worthwhile investment around this council's priorities. Thank you for your time.
376 My name is.
377 Chris ward.
378 Welcome.
379 Councilors to your new role. I want to speak to you as a tree. Care provider in the.
380 Portland metro.
381 Area and.
382 As.
383 A citizen, and I want to urge.
384 You to.
385 Continue your support for urban. Forestry and all of its.
386 Services.
387 Including permitting and.
388 Regulation, at full capacity.
389 Now and in the future. We live.
390 In a.
391 Historic period characterized.
392 By changing warming climate.
393 The urban.
394 Forest canopy provides important.
395 Necessary services for human survival.
396 The future livability of our city depends upon investments.
397 In urban forestry.
398 Now why is that? Consider the urban heat island effect, where in the absence of tree canopy in urban centers, equates to increase in surface temperature compared to the surrounding rural areas. Portland state scientists in a recent paper noted that portland's annual temperature has increased by three degrees since 1940, and an average 4.6 degree increase in the summer temperatures in that period. They were able to show that surface temperature throughout Portland decreases linearly with canopy coverage. Let's look at this effect as seen in the various social strata in Portland. What about the homeless? Where do they go to escape the heat? That's right. In tents, under the trees, in the parks and the right of ways. What about you? Where do you go to escape the heat? That's right. In your house, under the cooling shade of the trees. This brings us up to a third point. Most of the tree canopy in Portland is on residential lots. You take away the tree code, and there's no end to the removal of trees and all sorts of reasons valid to frivolous and so forth. Having a tree code is an expression of portland's public will. Don't cripple this institution. Make the wait times for permits up to three months. Private property owners, tree service providers, contractors, developers and many other interested parties depend upon the efficient and timely inspection regime for their tree pruning permitting needs.
399 We appreciate you being here.
400 Charlie. Michelle wesley has joined us online.
401 Hi.
402 Yes, charlie. Michelle wesley, northwest tribal member. I'm mainly here on behalf of Portland copwatch. The city budget is a police accountability tool that has been sorely underutilized. So we have Portland copwatch we're encouraged by the councilors of efforts to use it to require PPB transparency, closer oversight, investment, and safer proven, publicly supported efforts like psr. Thank you. However, until public safety for all is a case, we do not support any additional funding, nor do we believe the police budget should be exempt from cuts. Just a few weeks ago, the city paid out $475,000 on two settlements for police brutality and violating constitutional rights. This is not accountability. Personally, for hours, I sat in overflowing auditoriums of community members, begging, pleading and rightfully so, demanding funding for their beloved parks and recreations. So many and many supportive services. We were so grateful for those few city councilors that want went to bat for us, who listen to us, who value us to bring at least a minimum of 1.9 million funding to community while 21 million goes to cops. These councilors bring an anti-discriminatory conscience to this chamber versus those serving the privileged, powerful, and who are more willing to ignore these community members as collateral damage. When election rolls around, we will remember who broke promises versus those who fought for us and met our needs. Support our community, not policing. Let them figure out how quality over quantity is a solution. Thank you.
403 Thank you.
404 Okay, checking henry hazelton, leah dawkins. Okay. Next up we have shelly bigley, babs benelli, tony gracia, rain. Tally. Go ahead. Babs. Hi.
405 Thank you very much. I assume you can hear me. Okay. Correct.
406 We can hear you.
407 Thank you. Babs benelli, 77 year old lifelong Portland resident currently in district two.
408 I've had.
409 The privilege and honor of meeting all of you at various points over the last two years. While I sometimes disagree with some of the things some of you say, I have never doubted your commitment to improving things in my beloved city of roses. All right, I'm just going to highlight a few things. By the way, I am wearing my ruth bader ginsburg t-shirt today because that reminds me to never give up. Okay, as for me, I support parks, support expansion of Portland street response and the program through the fire department, community health access and treatment. I support city county collaboration on transition from shelters to housing, including mental health and addiction treatment as necessary, and help with applying for jobs. As in terms of the police, the piece that I do support is that allocated funding goes specifically to training, including training in sensitivity so that officers can get on the job as soon as possible. Ultimately, perhaps, we will be able to reduce overtime hours. Thank you so much. I appreciate all the members who have testified today. We are coming out in droves to make our voices heard and we know you are listening. Thank you.
410 Thank you shelly. You're muted.
411 There we go. Hi.
412 Oh go ahead shelly. Hi there.
413 My name is shelly.
414 Bigley and. I'm born and raised in Portland. I've been a restaurant owner.
415 In Portland since 1991.
416 And specifically.
417 I would.
418 Like to express to the council the importance.
419 Of public safety. In my experience in district two over the last five years. My security costs have dramatically.
420 Gone up.
421 I've had to replace 12.
422 Windows, been broken.
423 Into several times, causing. Significant damages. I've had to buy a $4,000 security door, hire private security, and remove my outside street patio due to crime and drug use. I've never made an insurance claim for fear of being canceled. So again, I just urge to continue police funding and adding the boots on the ground presence. In addition to the funding the police I would like to see programs continue to be funded to get people off of the streets for housing, treatment and job training. I applaud Dan Ryan for all of his efforts for our business owners and Portland residents. Please listen to him and people like me that don't want to give up on our Portland. Thank you.
424 Corinne frechette has joined us online.
425 Hi.
426 I hope you can hear me. Thank you so much for.
427 Having us.
428 My first comment is please keep on.
429 Funding police.
430 And law. Enforcement in.
431 Old town. We suffer. From big. Issues with human trafficking.
432 Drug interdiction needs. Please don't give up on that. We're working really hard for very little money and for.
433 Some of us, we're volunteers.
434 I'm also a resident.
435 In district four. I witness a.
436 Lot of crime.
437 A lot.
438 Of difficulties.
439 For people, and we just beg for police. So if there's a way for you.
440 Guys to actually vote for this, that would be great. It's also extremely difficult for working.
441 People to testify. So just I appreciate the people that are here and that's it. Please fund.
442 Our police.
443 Thank you.
444 Okay. I'm checking for tony garcia. Reign. Tally.
445 Tony. Gracious. Here.
446 Oh, great. Thanks.
447 Would that be a.
448 Good time for me to go?
449 Yeah. Please. Go ahead.
450 Okay. My name is tony grecia. I'm an owner of a business that has been around since 2013. We started in northwest Portland and then in 2020 moved to the st. Johns area where we operate now. We do fitness instruction, things like personal training as well as martial arts instruction. I'm a jujitsu coach and just like the previous speaker said, as a business owner, it's pretty difficult to carve time out of our day in order to be at something like this. In fact, I literally was just on a call with a mom who wants to get her kids into my jujitsu classes and had to excuse myself from the phone call because I heard it was almost my turn to talk here. And I would also echo what the previous speaker said where the crime and the public safety is the top priority. For me personally, my business has had a ton of different issues, the most frustrating of which is we had one individual repeatedly vandalize our building by defecating on it, literally taking a poop in his hand and smearing it on our storefront windows on multiple occasions, urinating on our building on.
451 Multiple occasions.
452 And all of this is caught on high quality video camera. I reported it to police every time and nothing would happen. It wasn't until he tried to set our building on fire during business hours with our members inside of the building, that he finally got arrested and charged with something, and it's absurd that it should take this many instances for something to be done about it. And just a couple months ago, a different individual defecated on my storefront window again, and he was finally arrested and released the same day. And so I urge more funding for police and public safety.
453 Lydia mugs amy wexler. Zulema figueroa. Emma darden.
454 Good. Okay.
455 Good afternoon, council members.
456 My name is lydia mogus, and I'm.
457 Here representing.
458 The ethiopian and eritrean cultural and resource center and standing in solidarity with our coalition partners. Also mentors and triple threat mentoring that were significantly impacted by the decisions made in the last council remand for the Portland children's levy mentorship awardees. We are located in district one and serve in district one and two. We're grateful for the chance to speak today, especially after being previously asked not to provide testimony or lobby. But I must speak honestly. The outcome of the sessions are deeply devastating, not just for ehrc, but for all of us who have spent the last five, ten and more years building trusted, culturally specific programs that serve portland's black youth and their families. At ecrc. Specifically, our work centers on intensive black and black refugee youth, mentoring, career development, trauma response, and extensive education. The founder and executive director and 95% of our staff, board mentors and those we serve identify as black. We placed our trust in the pcl grant process one that centered equity, lived experience, and community voice. Your recent decision undermines that process. It sends the message that even when bipoc organizations follow every rule and meet every standard, our success is still negotiable. That is not equity. It is bias. Again, we urge you honor the process, respect the recommendations, and restore the funding our youth deserves. Thank you.
459 Good afternoon, Portland city council and mayor wilson. My name is Elana figueroa. I'm a local 483 shop, store and utility worker to in the environmental service division and maintenance operations at PBOT and a resident of district two st. Johns. I'm here in support of labor, brothers and sisters. Workers who day by day are in the field maintaining and repairing our sewer and storm water systems. We are essential employees who are in the field in hot weather, in freezing weather conditions. We work live from 8 to 12 hours a day whenever it is needed. My job consists with multiple tasks from traffic control, such as flagging, taking a Lane in columbia boulevard for the operator to clean, catch basins, cleaning sewer lines or to for the tv truck to be inspecting and maintaining sewer lines as well. Additionally, my job is to inspect and clean stormwater like trash around the city. This service is super important in our community, especially during the rainy season. Our labor force makes sure that our stormwater sewer are clean and following. The impact of this budget could reduce the labor force and services. Sewer storm. A simple example is like it will be, you know, when it's a rainy season, you know, can be flooding and debris and those catch basins. So therefore jeopardize the safety of the pedestrians also the drivers. So I'm here to ask for more funding from the to our division, the environmental services division, so that we continue with our essential environment service. Thank you for your time.
460 Thank you both.
461 Amy wexler is joining us online.
462 Thank you so much, amy wexler. And I'm the executive director for alliance for safe. Oregon mayor wilson and city councilors. It's my first time testifying in front of this new configuration. And I welcome all of you. I am a resident of district two. And if you're not familiar with alliance Oregon, we are a statewide gun violence prevention group, and we work on across a number of areas, including. We have an equity table, which convenes community violence interruption organizations. And I am asking you to fund community violence interruption for the city of Portland. I'm sure you're aware there's great need for this. Black and brown community members are on the front lines of our gun violence crisis in the city, and we really can prevent gun tragedies by properly funding this work. Additionally, we ask that you fully fund Portland street response. An unarmed response is often what's needed, and police gun violence is also gun violence. So we are asking for community safety to be seen in the most broad sense possible. And that would also include funding parks. Respite areas for people are creates community safety and community. So thank you so much and I look forward to working with all of you in the time to come to make Portland the safest place possible for all and to prevent gun tragedies.
463 Thank you.
464 Emma garden. Okay, moving on to j ami g. John h. Lance. Nippert, ross. Freeman. Levin. Go ahead j hello.
465 Mayor wilson.
466 And members of council.
467 My name.
468 Is j. I'm the.
469 Organizing director of.
470 Unite Oregon.
471 I'm here because the people we represent are tired. Tired of our essential services being starved. While the police budget consistently consumes resources meant for our well-being, the $2 million to parks originally diverted from police represents a crucial step towards correcting that balance. Do not reverse it. For far too long, portland's black, brown working class houseless communities have been defunded by the overwhelming priority of policing. Our social services have suffered chronic underinvestment as police budgets balloon. The $2 million in parks and rec is no extravagance. It's a down payment in investing on what actually keeps us safe, healthy and resilient. Do not cave to the reactionary voices calling for law and order. These are the white moderates that mlk warned us about, who have always prioritized their own comfort over justice, and history has always proved them wrong. Police and their supporters stood against the marches that gave us our civil rights in the name of law and order. In fact, they stood against every single movement, demanding dignity for poor and oppressed people in the name of public safety. They're panicked. Now is the same old song, one that sacrifices our community to prop up a violent, repressive system. And I hope that you have the wherewithal to see through it. Pouring money into police amid trump's authoritarianism is the farthest thing from safety. We've watched officers brutalized disabled people to the point where the doj had to intervene, and recently we've seen them protect and work with ice as ice terrorizes our immigrant community. Make no mistake, overfunding the police fuels fascism and sensitivity training and hiring more local or black and brown police will not fix the toxic, racist culture of PPB. But on the other hand, parks and rec feeds hungry kids shelters, houseless and heat waves and gives youth alternatives to the streets.
472 Thank you very much.
473 Thanks.
474 John.
475 My name is john. Good afternoon. I'm here today to.
476 Strongly oppose any new funding for the Portland police bureau. I'm also would let some clarification, because I know that last year it was 295. And then the proposed budget says like 316 or 318. So I'm curious what the actual proposed increase is going to be. They already have the largest budget in the history in the history. They do not need more since 2020, after a brief 5% reduction, their budget has increased by nearly 28%. Meanwhile, vital community programs continue to be cut. I want to challenge the misinformation driving the push for more police funding. One the claim that we need more police to reduce crime. This. This claim is not supported by research. Roughly, there's 30 independent studies showing that the size of police force has no consistent impact on crime rates. There's a study by y. Y j lee et al that put it policymakers who want police to have an impact on crime would be better suited investing resources into new, evidence based strategies than funding surges in police hiring. Wow. I'm going to just talk. I have four points. I'll just mention one other one. One of the main arguments this uses is around our police force being much smaller than like the average per capita. This this argument is absurd. If you look at the cities that have the largest police per capita, these are cities dc wins chicago's second, baltimore's third, new york city's fourth, philly, detroit, memphis. These are all the places with the most police per capita. Obviously, those cities are not the safest cities. Those are some of the cities with the highest crime rates. And then other places like san jose are very low and they're very safe. So that's that argument just doesn't work. Well that's it.
477 Thank you.
478 My name is.
479 Lance nippert. I'm a resident of district one, beautiful.
480 East Portland. Thank you. Portland police bureau.
481 Has been documented on video aiding and assisting immigration and customs enforcement, otherwise known as ice. In deportation operations in the city of Portland. This is a clear and direct violation of Oregon state law, and aside from being morally repugnant.
482 No further funding can.
483 Go to Portland police until this matter is investigated and all funding must be frozen from them until done.
484 The.
485 Ppb are.
486 Already underfunded according to them, and stretched too thin again, according to them, providing basic public safety to the citizens and businesses of Portland as it is diverting. The resources they already have to aid a fully funded federal agency in their operations is a double use of my tax dollars and is a misuse of Portland and Oregonian taxpayer funds. Portland is made better by immigrants. Our communities are more vibrant, more alive and happier. When immigrants are welcome and feel safe among us as a non non immigrant, in the sense that I was born within the u.s, my daily life is easier, happier and better with immigrants around me. Thank you for your time. I yield the remainder.
487 Ross is joining us online.
488 Yes.
489 Can you.
490 Hear me? We can hear you.
491 Excellent.
492 Thanks for the opportunity to address you. And thank you to all the people who spoke in ahead of me. I'd like to echo Jamie partridge's comments, especially being a fellow volunteer at a local community access radio station in the past with mr. Partridge. His comments were especially. Right on spot for me, as were.
493 Many of.
494 The other peoples, about retaining services for transition for homeless people and supportive services for houseless and addicted people. I do not think that additional funding for law enforcement is going to address the mental health issues or the addiction issues that I witnessed on the street in front of my house every day, even though there is a drug house on my street. Actually two of them, and nonstop drug trafficking. I don't think law enforcement is prepared to address those issues effectively by arresting people and putting them in jail. I think we need more support services, parks funding, maintenance, funding for parks. I just don't think cutting social services is the right way to deal with issues of addiction and houselessness and crime. So thank you all for the opportunity and I'll just shut up and listen. Thank you. Walter.
495 Hello.
496 My name is walter.
497 Valenti and I live.
498 In bridgeton in.
499 District two. I'm speaking for myself.
500 It took.
501 Many years.
502 For us.
503 To create the situation we're in now.
504 And it's.
505 Really hard to try.
506 To solve.
507 Everything with this budget. So I believe what needs to happen is we've got to focus on the most important things and get them fully funded and get them to work and then build off from there. As we bring Portland back from the places that we've been, to me, it's those priorities need to be. Having portlanders feel. Safe and having portlanders see that major strides are being made in our resolution of homeless and people that are living on the streets. Now, anybody that knows me knows that I care a lot about parks. And I've been on the 40 mile loop land trust for over 20 years building parks. However, the most important thing the city can do to help the 40 mile loop right now is to make the trails we've already built safe to use. People don't feel safe on them, and people are using the trails as a place to live. So by solving those issues. We're solving things for parks. So when we change the city structure, one of the reasons why we did is that the old system created silos. And I hope I'm not seeing the new council creating a new set of silos that we're going on. I really implore you to find a unified voice as we tackle the most important things, get them done right, and move on to the next things next year. And to me, those are fully funding people feeling safe with public safety and making sure that we make a dent in the real problems with homelessness. Thank you.
508 Next up we have brittany gadberry, matt nicholson, rod such, tommy jarvis, bill crane. Go ahead matt, matt nicholson is joining us online.
509 My name is matt nicholson. I'm an.
510 Architect that lives.
511 In district.
512 Four in the reed neighborhood. I would. Like to urge the council to vote no on the Zimmerman oh two amendment. This proposal.
513 Is a bad faith effort to change policy via.
514 The budget process.
515 The tree code deserves our.
516 Full support.
517 Because trees are part of our city's.
518 Essential infrastructure. The tree code is the tool for creating and protecting that infrastructure.
519 Trees protect.
520 Us from extreme heat by increasing shade and reducing the heat island effect. They increase our property values, make our streets more walkable, and provide habitat for wildlife.
521 All of these benefits.
522 Are key to what makes Portland special.
523 In addition to the great.
524 Environmental harm that this proposal would cause our city, it would also make the tree permit process less efficient. With or without a staff. The tree code will still be the law, and residents will still be required to abide by the code. But without a full staff call back, times will go from days to weeks or months, and now is certainly not the time to make our tree permit process slower. Portland is facing an imminent mass die off of ash trees due to the arrival of the emerald ash borer. Cutting urban forestry regulatory staff will make it harder to implement the pest management plan. The tree code was adopted by the residents of Portland because it was a bold, long term plan for the future health and well-being of our city. It is worth standing up for because it provides huge benefits to all residents of Portland. It has taken decades to get us to where we are today. In our urban forests will quickly disappear if we don't protect it. Thank you.
525 Okay, checking to see brittany gadberry rod. Such. Tommy. Jarvis, bill crane. That completes testimony.
526 Thank you, keelan, and thank you so much to everybody who is still here with us right now for listening to your fellow portlanders share their thoughts and experiences with us colleagues. We are now going to move into. Adopting some amendments, or at least debating some amendments, and I had sent out a run of show to everybody, and also talked about this a little bit at the top of the hour. And I am pulling up. Not as quickly as I would like to. The amendment list. I'd like us to start with a bit of a housekeeping measure. We voted on a couple of carryover packages last time, and then had a discussion in a work session, which included the idea that in order to save time, we batch some of those carryover packages that were left into one. One amendment. And I am now looking for that number. 14 pirtle-guiney 14 is the council carryover package. It includes the carryovers from council offices that we had not yet addressed, plus a carryover from council operations to next year. The details are in the packet of amendments, attachment I and if there I would. I would like to start by moving this amendment so that our colleagues have some assurances that what they're hoping happens with the remainder of their office budgets actually does. I would love to have a second, second. Thank you. Councilor Clark, is there any discussion about pirtle-guiney 14? Councilor Kanal.
527 Thank you, madam.
528 Thank you, madam president.
529 I'm just.
530 Going to start by asking.
531 A couple.
532 Questions, if that's okay.
533 And maybe this is something that I'm not sure if cbo is the best responder to this or what. But how typical is it to use the eo for councilor Office. Carryover into not next year's budget for the.
534 For the same.
535 Council office?
536 That I think is a.
537 Separate question, but over.
538 Into the bureaus.
539 Is that.
540 Is that something that director levine sure.
541 Yeah. Typically our policy is to do all carryover, whether it's council office or otherwise, in the spring technical adjustment ordinance. I think the since this was just the first year of you all going through that process and through the supplemental budgeting process, we there's no reason it can't be done in the eo. And so we said that was that was a fine practice. I mean, I think council has the authority to allocate general fund underspending or to any other purpose as long as. Yeah. So it's you know, I don't think there's an issue with sort of essentially appropriating it in the current fiscal year and appropriating it for a different use next fiscal year, which is essentially what's happening here. Okay.
542 Thank you. And then.
543 I hope.
544 That this will be taken in the spirit.
545 Of just wanting.
546 To provide.
547 An opportunity to respond to.
548 The comments that were made.
549 About it.
550 But I do have a question for councilor Clark, because. There was.
551 Some.
552 Questions.
553 Around $80,000.
554 For the.
555 District for coalitions.
556 Newsletter, reach. And I just wanted you to speak to that and.
557 Maybe give a little more clarity.
558 Sure.
559 Thanks, councilor Kanal.
560 I think some of the people who spoke today misunderstood.
561 What's in.
562 The amendment. It's actually it is $80,000 and I've identified 15,000 for voices, which is the district for coalition newsletter, to help with their fundraising to keep that going. And the remainder is divided up between the 32 neighborhood associations. So it comes to something around $2,000 for each neighborhood.
563 Association.
564 Which should provide them funding for several years.
565 Okay. Thank you for.
566 That information.
567 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Green.
568 Thank you, madam president. Looking at pirtle-guiney 14, that's what we're talking about right now, right? It is. Okay. Can you tell us how this is connected to what the finance committee dealt with yesterday? If there's any connection? I think that there's a little bit of an overlap here, but but not completely. Can you just explain that a little bit.
569 When there are expenditures from this biennium that bureaus or offices wish to carry over into the next biennium? That requires two actions. It requires the appropriating the funds or I'm sorry I said biennium out of old habits fiscal year. It requires de appropriating the funds in this fiscal year, which is done through an over expenditure ordinance, which the finance committee discussed yesterday, and then appropriating those funds into next fiscal year's budget. The 2526 budget, which is what we do through our budget amendments. So many of the things on this list likely look familiar to folks who sit on the finance committee or who looked at yesterday's finance committee documents.
570 Thank you. And so, like, for instance, Green, whatever it was we dealt with on may 21st. So it's not on this in this ordinance, but it is in the eo package that the finance committee. So I just want to be clear, this pirtle-guiney 14 is just carrying forward the eo's that councilors had submitted that didn't get heard on the 21st. Is that right?
571 Correct. We heard your amendment, and I believe one other and didn't have time for other councilors. We discussed grouping them in an effort to reduce time.
572 I think that's my questions for now. Thanks, councilors.
573 Any other discussion, councilor Avalos.
574 Yeah, I'm.
575 At.
576 I'm actually.
577 Confused though. So what are you saying? Because yesterday.
578 The.
579 Eo had the council ops clerk, Smith, Koyama Lane and Green. This one has all of those except.
580 For Green. I don't.
581 Understand why.
582 We voted on the amendment to reappropriate those funds, as requested by councilor Green on the 21st.
583 Okay.
584 We didn't get to these other requests at that time.
585 And then.
586 We're doing.
587 It via.
588 An amendment. Why?
589 There are two actions that need to be taken. The eo had all of those amendments reflected in it, because that's the de appropriating of the funds from the 2425 fiscal year. We had only appropriated one of those sets of funds. The amendment that councilor Green brought forward, this is the reappropriation of the others that our colleagues brought forward, as well as carryover that council operations has asked to use next year. Okay. Councilor, you and I had had some conversation about what we thought of this practice. Generally, I see this this year, frankly, as a courtesy to our colleagues. Councilor Ryan.
590 Yeah, colleagues, I'm trying to make a decision here that's principled for me. And one, I didn't vote yes on the amendment that we did, the vote that we took in January. I thought we went too far on our council funding. And so I wouldn't I'm not going to vote to re-appropriate and re-appropriate. I think these funds should go like they always have been traditionally, which is to be appropriated and then into the bigger picture funding. I'm just against the principle of using our office funds to do one time funding in next year. And so even though I like some of them and I don't like some of them, I I'm just going to make a decision to vote no on these. I just want to say that up front. Thanks.
591 Thank you. Councilor, councilor Canal.
592 Thank you, madam president.
593 Thank you. Madam president.
594 I just wanted.
595 To ask if you could speak a little bit more.
596 To the last.
597 Thing you said a moment ago, madam president, which is that.
598 You see this.
599 Year as a courtesy to our colleagues, does.
600 That imply.
601 That we're going to have a conversation about what our communal, our community.
602 Practice is.
603 Here as a. Council going into next.
604 Year's budget.
605 Is, some of our colleagues have raised concerns, as councilor Ryan just stated about this practice generally. But because this was an option that was put on the table, and because we have already done so for one of our colleagues, while I do personally share some of councilor Ryan's concerns, I from my perspective, we should extend that same courtesy to all if we're going to extend it to one.
606 Thank you.
607 Colleagues, any other discussion on pirtle-guiney 14? Okay. Keelan, could you please call the roll.
608 Canal I to.
609 Share.
610 Some of councilor Ryan's concerns, but I found that last argument compelling from the council president, I vote aye.
611 Ryan. No Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I also share some of councilor Ryan's. Concerns and hope that we will come up with a overall policy before this time next year.
612 I mark. I Green.
613 Are the concerns raised I.
614 Zimmerman I.
615 Avalos reluctantly.
616 Voting I because I have a lot of those concerns to.
617 Dunphy I.
618 Smith I.
619 Pirtle-guiney I.
620 The amendment is approved with 12 yes votes and one no vote. Oh sorry 11 yes votes.
621 I'm going to write down 11 one on my page. Sorry. Thank you. Keelan colleagues, we are now moving into something similar to the work that we were doing on the 21st, where we took amendments category by category, and everybody had the opportunity to bring forward their highest priority amendment or package, not meaning everything under the sun. But we know that in some cases, amendments were broken into a couple of different structural amendments, even though it was one concept. And we're going to pick up with the. The policy areas that we did not get to on the 21st. I know that there are many new amendments or policy areas where colleagues, you had a number of priorities that you were hoping to bring forward after we do this run through of all of the topic areas and then talk through some budget notes on the run of show, where it says additional amendments is where we will come back to those other things. So they are not off the table. We're just trying to do this, picking up where we left off before we are going to move into the parks policy area. Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue to talk about an amendment around parks, or are you in the queue for something else? Fantastic. Would you like to kick off our conversation around amendments related to parks?
622 Thanks.
623 I appreciate this.
624 The conversations around the dais that I've been.
625 Able.
626 To have.
627 With many of. You regarding my efforts in the tree regulation work, and also just the public comments. Right. I think that there's been a lot of recognition in terms of the importance of the urban forestry program in the city of Portland. One of the unfortunate aspects of the last few weeks has been even on this dais, at times a mischaracterization, that somehow my original amendment was was removing all aspects of urban forestry. And I will I will own that with only it must have been the way I delivered it, and that I have always said that, that maintaining the outreach, the science, the tree planting, the tree maintenance programs in urban forestry was important and remains a priority for me. I also heard from my colleagues about a willingness to admit that we've got some problems in in tree regulation and how we apply the code against portlanders. And so I've developed two amendments, and I have sent those to many folks, and I'd like to read in the first one and then the second one, if that would be all right. And, and then have discussion. Council president.
628 You'd like to read in both of them together and then discuss or separately. I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
629 I, I guess I'm open I'm open to let me describe both. And if we want to discuss one at a time, I think that's fine. But let me introduce both. So amendment one, amendment one amend to move 100% of parks levy funds, which equates to about $2.1 million from the tree regulation program within the urban forestry division, and reallocate the parks levy funding 2.1 to the parks maintenance program. This restores 2.1 million to the parks maintenance program that was reduced in the mayor's proposed budget. Parks levy funds are not intended to fund code compliance and enforcement officials, and their use is better aligned within parks maintenance. This is particularly sensitive as the city prepares to refer a levy to voters in November 25th, and the city should take every effort to ensure voters know that their support for the levy is dedicated to meaningful recreation and maintenance programs. The. This amendment does not make any changes to the urban forestry division. Programs of science outreach, tree maintenance, and these are contained in programs in different parts of the urban forestry budget. So that's my first amendment. It's just the parks levy moving into parks maintenance.
630 And councilor. To be clear, this is a change to Zimmerman. One, you said not a new numbered amendment, correct?
631 Thank you. I, I made it clear last time that I, the budget office, had me break up previous amendments into many steps. I'm going to go ahead and push back a bit against that and just deliver these in a little bit more clear message. And I've also adjusted them significantly. These are not just a repackaging of the old four. This is a significant change. And the biggest change coming is amendment number two, amendment number two, amend to move all aspects of tree regulation program and staff from the urban forestry programs in the parks and recreation bureau to the Portland permitting and development bureau. Code enforcement, permitting and compliance work requires evaluation and critical application skills and organizational culture to fairly and appropriately apply city code. The parks bureau is poorly positioned and untrained to be able to provide such a service to the Portland community, rather placing tree regulation inside of Portland. Permitting and development pnd allows a system of oversight, organizational culture, and holistic application of the tree code. Title 11. This amendment does not cut any funding from the tree regulation program. The bureau leadership of paddy will have the full authority to implement title 11 design of and work prioritization for the administration of tree regulation programs currently housed in the Portland parks bureau urban forestry division. So those are two amendments and significant changes in that to the previous amendments I had made about reducing the workforce that now just brings that workforce under a different oversight umbrella. Thank you, madam president.
632 Thank you, councilor. I think we should take discussion on the two together, since it sounds like they moved together and then obviously vote on them separately. Does that work for you?
633 I don't think they move together. I think that I would say to, to all my councilors that even if it doesn't move over to p and d, I think that the concern I have about having parks levy dollars inside the tree code enforcement remains regardless of where tree regulation is housed. So I don't want it to sound like they are one and the same. I'm just noting two changes because they're so different from my original amendments.
634 Got it. Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane, are you in the queue to discuss Zimmerman one and or Zimmerman two? Yes, go right ahead.
635 I appreciate all my colleagues work. During this. First budget process.
636 We're working hard, we're learning a lot.
637 And we're figuring.
638 Out at what level.
639 Do we.
640 Hold responsibility.
641 For governance.
642 And policy.
643 And balancing that with managing.
644 At a line item, budget level.
645 Process for bureaus and programs. These amendments, brought forward by councilor Zimmerman and to be fair, along with other various amendments on our very long list, appear to move to a level of management over governance. If there is an attempt to manage at this level through the budget, then I have been clear with my colleagues that I am going to expect a high level of information to be convinced.
646 That the.
647 Councilors bringing it forward have done their due diligence and necessary collaboration. So since I'm saying these amendments for the first time today, I have.
648 Some questions.
649 That I would like to ask councilor Zimmerman, if that's okay.
650 Councilor Zimmerman, are you open to answering some questions? Can you?
651 Yeah. Can you clarify specifically what is the problem that you're hoping to solve?
652 Okay, so.
653 So I think that. One thing we've seen is that tree regulation has grown over the previous years significantly with the number of fte, while other code compliance code enforcement in the city has been cut. We heard earlier that there are 850 properties, I think 880 properties that are under current code compliance process, and they've got less than half of the amount of employees in the regular pmd world to deal with all the codes as it relates to property. I think that's partially in in what happens in government when a pet project gets to grow with little oversight. And I think we're in that situation. When the parks bureau presented to us early in this year and said that they were unaware of people being denied permits that then had trees fall in their homes, I felt that was pretty disingenuous when the parks bureau, just a couple of weeks ago, insisted that no levy funds were used in the parks bureau. Budget. Well, I want to just highlight that I gave every opportunity to that director to clarify that. But while folks have thought that the parks bureau budget entirely was going to be cut with this change, I want to just highlight this is urban forestry. This one line is the 2 million from levy funding. But adina long told us that levy funds are not being used for parks levy. I think if portlanders continue to read stories like they read in the Willamette week, in the Oregonian, in the years as we go to a parks levy, I think we're going to lose that levy, and we might deserve to lose that levy. Given how this program is being administered in Portland. But when I go to Portland, permitting and development, I've learned some things over my time in the city. And those code compliance officers are applying a holistic approach of many codes, many safety regulations, and they're doing it in a culture that is trying to solve problems versus protecting one thing. So I, I think that the code compliance professionals that exist in our other bureau can probably save this program in the long term. I think that's going to be really important, because right now, I think they're out of line with the public. And I say again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the planting, the outreach, the maintenance of trees. I'm purely trying to make sure that we are not allowing a division of Portland city government to continue to, I think, run unchecked and fairly abusively against portlanders as it relates to the tree code. Just as we were sitting here, I sent a message to my three colleagues in district four, one of our constituents who's had their tree code regulation bounced between p and d and city tree regulation code enforcement officers multiple times. And this weakened. That tree came down on their neighbor's deck, but they had been denied permits on Thursday. So I don't know that we have the oversight. That's that's serving the program very well. And if we want to keep it, we owe it to the oversight. And I think p and d is positioned to do that more effectively.
654 And I want to.
655 Understand your process used to develop these amendments.
656 I'm wondering if.
657 You can explain how deputy city administrators, city employees doing this work, community members were involved. Was there collaboration? We also know that at the end of this year, urban forestry program is leading a title 11 tree code amendment. How does that fit in with your decisions and amendments?
658 Thanks. The we've asked multiple times for alternative packages and recommendations to come from the urban forestry division. We have not been given those types of alternative plans. In my original amendments, I, I asked for what is the right number because I preserved, I think, five fte. And I said I'm open to if there's other right sizes. So I didn't get any of that. But I'm also not cutting any of that either, because I've heard from colleagues a willingness not to not to cut that. So I'm preserving the tree regulation program, but placing it under a different oversight bureau. And so that part is significantly different from the original amendment. So there are no additional fte cuts in the movement to pnd. And I want to make that clear. Clear, clear. I will continue to feel very strongly that no portlander voted for parks levy, which I think most of us think about when it comes to the maintenance of parks, kids having access to recreation, community centers, being open. I think I think looking at the practices that we're getting hammered for with the way code enforcement is going against the tree code, and when people have things like we'll save, you know, save people, save trees at the expense of people, I think that's a terrible thing to tie our levy to. And so I'm making a strategic and frankly, a cultural community based idea that I don't think we should be spending levy dollars in the regulation. So that was my decision process. I've worked with anything I could was able to get from the parks bureau, which wasn't a lot. I think that the braided funding model that they've used has been deliberate. I think that's made it very difficult. And so I'm going to not. Not take an action today in these amendments that hurts the employees in that or the work of it, but instead sets some set some standards. Levy dollars are not going to be used for tree regulation and allows, I think, whether those code changes come later this summer from title 11 or for title 11. I think that the recommendations we get out of them will be much stronger under the guise and leadership of paddy, who I think is taking a holistic look about all of these types of things in Portland versus just the one thing. I think that's a big difference in perspective.
659 I'm hearing your points and concerns. I would also want us to consider beyond the individuals involved, I'd also want to have an understanding of the structures and systems at play. What do we know about if and how these amendments would change the structures and systems? I'm willing to hear from you or that makes sense. I'm open to hearing from dca, or.
660 So I think that within the parks bureau, you've got things like the help line, the program administration, the non-development permit, the development permit, those types of groups. None of those groups would cease to exist by these amendments. This aspect, right, is really important when it comes to the fact that all of the services that we expect of tree code remain intact. They may not be as full with general fund, but we're allowing pd to better evaluate and say, okay, I've got I've got 40 some odd million dollars instead of six, some odd million dollars to accomplish this. Where do I want to assign it? And in a place where we've got by the way, pd already has tree inspectors on their books. This is not a line of work. They're out of touch with. So I think that the worry that we were slicing one portion of this, of this division off and that was going to hurt us. I think we've delayed that in this because we're just moving it over to a new section.
661 And what would be. The reason for. This being a council decision versus an administrative decision?
662 Great question. I would have loved to have seen this come out of the proposed budget. We didn't we didn't see that. But in a place where I think we've got a city program who is being administered in either an unfair manner or in a manner that is not treating portlanders well, I think we do have a duty to act, and we can do that through budget. I would have I would have preferred to have better recommendations come out of the bureau, but I, I do not think that the bureau, the parks bureau is really particularly interested in working on a solution here. And if portlanders love urban forestry, which I think they do, but if we think tree regulation should be part of that, we may have to save tree regulation in spite of the bureau leadership on this topic, because they have gone to ground in terms of trying to find a solution here. And frankly, since January, their appearance at this budget committee as well as the finance committee, has been a series of months of gaslighting. Who would say, we don't have a problem? Who have said that we actually only we issue permits all the time, but I want to just kind of show folks, see this graft, see where the line starts to drop. That's our urban canopy. And so when urban forestry tree regulations went into place for the first time in 15 years, we started losing canopy. Something is wrong here. Something doesn't make sense. I would have loved a bureau who was willing to work on a solution, but instead we got a bureau who said there is no problem. There's no problem whatsoever. And this cut is getting up after the part that can hurt portlanders. It is not getting after the part that is going to plant any trees in east Portland. It's not getting after the part that's going to make sure that trees are planted, continue to be watered and cared for. We're preserving the best parts, and we're giving the part that's struggling a new boss, to see if that new boss can figure it out. Because the fact that we turned urban forestry on and then started losing canopy should concern all of us.
663 Councilor Green.
664 Thank you, madam president. I originally got into the stack to talk about other things, but the chart now gives me a comment to provide this relevant. If you show a chart like that councilor, you're going to get my comments on it. I don't know where I'm at on your amendments. I am interested in the balance of this debate and discussion today. I just want to note on the chart. You can't draw that conclusion on a causal basis. There was other factors happening, such as heat waves and pests. And so I think when we lose capacity, it's difficult to tease out the role of spinning up this program. And I know that's the argument you're making, but I don't think I don't think that's the strongest argument you have in your, your toolkit. I think the issues related to the parks levy is a little more compelling to me, but I just wanted to share my complaints with the chart. So that's that's all I have.
665 Councilor Novick.
666 Thank you, madam president. Just a few short points. I am sympathetic to many of councilor Zimmerman's points. I'm just not prepared to support these proposals. Now, for one thing, on the move to rp, and I'm certainly open to considering that. But I confess I haven't asked rp and what they think about it. And it's okay. You have and they're fine with it. Yeah. All right.
667 I'm not going to speak for them okay. But but they they got an absolutely. We can we can administer this and there's no change to the full program was the answer I got.
668 Back okay. I mean that's something that I don't think I still want to hear from them. But I think that's something that doesn't have to happen in the budget process. That's something we could take up next month. On the issue of, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that when we send out a levy, we can specify that the levy isn't spent for tree regulation. As to removing the $2 million. Now, though, my concern is that the tree regulatory people don't just go out and beat people up. They also process permit applications. And although it.
669 May.
670 Be that we should say that we reach the conclusion that you don't need to have a permit to remove a tree in your own property right now. You do. So I'm afraid that what effect might be that people will apply for apply for permits to remove trees, and there won't be enough people there to process the applications, so they'll take weeks and weeks for them to get a response, which is as bad as getting a no. So that's my concern about making a cut without knowing exactly what the immediate consequences would be.
671 Councilor Avalos.
672 I think more than anything, I'm just this is really hard to follow. I mean, I'm seeing that there was some information that you gave other councilors to explain this. I'm reading what I see in the. Document that's been pre filed and it's on the website. That's not adding up.
673 Like none.
674 Of it's adding up for me. And I'm just feeling. Frustrated that I'm so confused. And I. Don't understand why I'm confused. If I'm supposed to be looking to this document to understand what these updates are and they're not reflected, I get that there's probably a floor amendment thing that's going on, but. Also I didn't receive any information. I this is really complex, and I wasn't given the opportunity to think that through with any new information. So definitely going off of councilor Novick, I mean, I don't feel comfortable making any kind of decision on this right now because I don't have it in front of me. I was already not really, you know, I was already concerned with it even prior to these new updates. But now I'm even more concerned that I.
675 Feel.
676 Like I don't have the tools to make a good decision.
677 So that's very frustrating. And I'll.
678 Just.
679 Leave.
680 It at that.
681 You councilor Councilor Kanal.
682 Thank you, madam president.
683 I just.
684 Want to first start by saying I see a lot of the same problem statement, and I think there's been a clear effort here to try and narrowly approach this to resolve it. I have a. Couple questions. I mean, we did hear from director long and councilor Zimmerman, right. He did follow up a couple times about whether or not levy funds are going to code enforcement, and I can't read the details of that graph from over here. So I just want to verify that probably with cbo about the use of levy funds going to. Code enforcement. The other question I have about the first part of this is. Basically is there and I know councilor Zimmerman, you mentioned I'm going to get to part two in a second. That part two does not do anything in terms of the number of fte, but part one, $2.1 million, I imagine, could theoretically be personnel related. So if you could speak to that a little bit more, I'd love to. And then I'll make a comment on part two.
685 Sure. Thank you. And councilor Avalos, I apologize for not sending I've sent it to you in terms of getting it to everybody and not bringing a quorum. I broke it up into different emails. It is on the way to you. You should have all the written text now in your email. Councilor Kanal. Yes, in terms of the funding that keeps tree regulation alive, we get 3.2, I think million dollars in funding, another 780. It looks like in general fund funding, 3.6 in pcf three and 780 in in general fund. So essentially it takes the program from 6.5 down to $2.1 million because of the levy funding. I certainly think that when the ppe well, whomever the oversight is and the bureau director is of this at the end of it, if they have a program that has $2.1 million less, they're going to they're going to reduce the footprint. What I'm not doing is dictating what section should survive employment or which section should take a full hit. I think that the bureau director of the bureau, wherever this lies, will have a four point million, four point something million dollar program instead of a $6.5 million program. And they need to make the choices within their within their set to accomplish all the same things that exist in tree regulation. So I do think there would be some cuts, but it's a very different than the previous where I only outlined tree inspectors being sent over to ppe. And in my original amendments, I've changed that significantly so that all aspects of tree regulation survive in this amendment. Unless the bureau comes and says, well, given this new size of it, we would have we would do that, but that I'm putting that on the administration's side, not in the amendment side. I think that's I'm just I'm I'm happy that it evolved that direction. I think that's a better direction for amendments that that affect whole programs, because the ins and outs of how to accomplish the tree regulation with, with for some million dollars instead of six and a half, I think is best taken at that level with, with the administration.
686 So thank you for.
687 Thank you for that. So moving to the second part, I think, and I'll, I'll wait for more information on the first part here. But but moving on to the second part, I'm inclined to support it. And my rationale is simply that we have seen and I have had what feels like dozens of meetings with constituents complaining not only about code enforcement that protects the trees, that are clearly failing at the expense of the safety of residents and their homes. But occasionally, and sort of the exception that proves the rule, the exact opposite in a way that is, is inconsistent. I think there was an article about there's a tree at 11th and siskiyou. I think that the idea that code enforcement makes sense in a singular place is compelling to me. I am going to check one aspect of this, which is that, you know, we would probably need to adjust the we might need to do a corresponding code fix to, to ensure that that makes sense. And that's not a reason not to do it today. In my mind, it's so that that part of it makes sense to me. And I do think, as you mentioned, it can stand alone. I'm not 100% clear on the on where I'm at on the first one, so I'm going to enjoy listening to what other folks have to say. Thank you.
688 Thank you councilor. I am next in the queue. And councilor Zimmerman, I mentioned to you earlier today that I had been working on something similar because I, after hearing your presentation previously, where I had pushed back that I thought the numbers were too high. I agreed that the balance was off and that as I look at the cuts in parks and the growth in parks, and as a as somebody who is strongly in favor of expanding our urban canopy and someone who frankly believes that we must do more for our urban canopy, I also am strongly in favor of maintaining more of our parks maintenance, and I think doing something like this is important. I'm struggling right now because I was told by cbo that while there is. Funding in urban forestry from the levy, that there is only a very small amount of funding, specifically in this part of urban forestry from the levy. And I was told that when we were figuring out our numbers, because I didn't realize you were going to bring a slimmed down version. So I was going to try to today to reset the balance. So I was given different numbers. And I'm that's the.
689 Story.
690 Of the season. Madam president.
691 I want to make sure that I understand what's on your chart, because what I saw under tree regulation. Showed something like $4,000 in levy funds. So I don't know if we need to have the dca have sonia come up here or if we need to turn this to ruth and jonas to get an answer. But I'm hoping we can figure out why we were given different numbers.
692 I would agree, and we were given these by cbo that last year was 1.58, and this year was 2.1. And continue to say that this remains part of the problem with this braiding of it.
693 Jonas, can you can you help here?
694 I will attempt for the record, jonas berry, dca budget finance and chief financial officer there is in fact, some confusion and I might lean to my colleagues to assist in the approved budget. There was, in fact, 2.1 million of what I believe is levy funded resources going into tree regulation and 3.6 of pcf seven, 80 of general fund discretionary. So, councilor Zimmerman, exactly what you described at some point, and I don't know, I may need some help identifying how this occurred. There was an adjustment made into the adopted that that moved that amount out. And I believe that the information cbo referenced and pulled from the system was reflective of that change. And I can't tell you how that change happened, but I'd be happy to welcome anyone who can describe that to come join me.
695 Jonas, given that any changes between the approved and the adopted, I believe, are supposed to be amendments from council, and given that we haven't touched this line, and given that there is no adopted budget yet, since we haven't adopted a budget, I'm really concerned with what I just heard.
696 I agree, so let me try again to. So there's a there's a point in the system as this gets tracked. And so we don't have an adopted budget. But there's a entry in the budget system to start to track these changes as they're in motion, so that the adopted budget can be ultimately produced. There are multiple multiple points throughout the year where those adjustments are made. And the, I believe, the information council president that you referenced, that cbo provided and pulled from the system, included a number that had been changed. And again, I'm saying I don't know how that number was changed, and I would welcome someone who does know how that number has changed to come join me and describe that, because I don't have that information.
697 I see claudio coming up. Who does? For vibrant communities. Can you? I want to make sure if we're going to pass councilor Zimmermann's amendment, that we can actually do it, and if we can't do it, I would offer you alternate numbers, but I so I don't want to.
698 Yeah. We can go into budget make make believe bill if we need to.
699 I don't want to move money that isn't actually real and isn't actually there. Councilor. So I apologize for doing this.
700 But yeah.
701 And claudio.
702 Campuzano for the record, finance, property and technology manager for vibrant.
703 Community support services.
704 Yeah, this is a change that we had discussed with the city budget office a couple of days ago.
705 I believe.
706 That it was included in the approved change memo. Or is it in the adopted. Change memo? It's in the adopted change memo. So it's actually something that you have not voted on yet. And it was something that we did. Really as as something that was intended. To capture the spirit of what councilor Zimmermann. Noted earlier in the process. First of all, recognizing that the parks levy has paid for parts of tree regulation over the last several years, it does is it is an allowable use of the parks levy. We included that clarification in the in the response to council questions from last week. So I won't reread that, but those the. That over the last couple of years we've published that that use of parks levy in report for year one, two and three. But given the given the concerns raised by council, we had included in the adopted. So as I said, you have not yet voted on it. It is in the memo, though, the shifting of parks levy out of out of tree regulation. So we would only use general fund rather than the blended funding model. That said, I don't think that that from a technical perspective in cbo can can help clarify this. I don't think that actually changes the effect of councilor Zimmermann's amendment. I think that that $2.1 million is you you can reduce it from that program. It does save it does save parks general fund levy. It can be used to cover maintenance. So I think that really it was more a technical change that was intended to reflect the intent of councilor Zimmermann from several weeks ago. So forgive us for sort of jumping ahead and ultimately then it would conflict with councilor Zimmermann's amendment. So I'd say they were mutually exclusive. The chain. What's in the change memo versus this? But I don't know. It's not something that I was aware of that that that amendment until today. So I would look to cbo to determine whether they do conflict or not.
707 Jonas. I think we need to answer that question. And it seems to me that because this amendment specifically calls out reallocating levy funding, there might need to be some slight wording changes. But once you answer that question, I'd also like to know if there are other changes in the memo that this council has not had the opportunity to talk about. Because I skimmed this over looking through my materials, but frankly did not look for the level of detail that I might have if I knew that bureaus were making changes between the approved and the adopted that they hadn't brought to council. So I just.
708 Jonas answers that I would like to respond specifically for where we got this number, if that's okay.
709 Absolutely. Councilor.
710 Yeah. So the first answer I'll give is that the actions that have that this council has taken are on the approved as, as discussed previously. So the amendments that you're discussing should be amendments to that document. And ruth can correct me if that's if that's incorrect. But for purposes of making amendments, you're making amendments to the next step in the process, the prior step in the process, which was the approved budget. So I think the question that came up was the gap in information that was provided, the gap in the numbers that were in the adopted versus the numbers that were reflected that cbo mentioned to you, council president, and I'll pause for a second before we talk about the change memo.
711 Counselor zimmermann.
712 Yeah, I just want to I. This feels like a big boo boo. But I also want to give a little bit of grace to the fact that in terms of how we have allowed general fund and parks levy to get used, and I think this sentence will help. This is a conversation between one of my staffers and one of the central budget office employees. 1,582,931 is budgeted as parks levy revenue for tree regulation in 20 2425. Yes, the amount will likely be smaller, depending on how their actual spending ends up. Parentheses they only transfer as much as is needed to cover actual expenses. I think for me, that kind of highlights this idea that the because they have authorization to use levy funds, they kind of run the credit card, so to speak. Or maybe it's the debit card against the levy funds. I think that's a practice we should call out. What makes it difficult, though, is to apply. If I say in my amendment to save $2.1 million from the tree regulation, then if that same practice is used, can we really say that 2.1 million could go to parks maintenance? I think the answer is yes, that that is accurate, because I think about we're spending a lot of time talking about tree stuff, but I also want to on the other side of that, we also know what's going to be lost on the maintenance side, and I do want to add that into it. Right? I'm if I have to make priority choices, I'm being very clear with everybody in the public, particularly within my district. I am prioritizing better ongoing park maintenance over a code enforcement program I think is beneficial, but probably not hitting the mark right now. But the bathroom cleaning and the playground cleaning is I'm saying I'm saying I'm picking winners and losers. I'm asking you to help me pick a winner and loser in this. It's not fair. But this use of these funds is making this complicated, which I think the reason I'm highlighting this is it has been very difficult to get straightforward numbers to all of you, not because I was playing hide the rock under the red cup, but because it literally might exist in four different ways in four different documents. You've got to work. We've got to work on that, I think.
713 Thank you, councilor.
714 So I believe the second part of your question, council president, was on the change memo, and I'll move to ruth to address that.
715 Sure. So the change memo, as I briefly went through earlier, is should does contain only things that are either like technical changes that just align the adopted budget to things like the year end revenue forecasts and year end expense forecasts and technical changes that correctly budget the amendments that were voted on on the 21st.
716 Plus this.
717 And then there's this. So yeah, I think I think it was just a miscommunication in this case. And I, I it is not I think we need to be a little tighter going forward. Now honestly, I think this is just a change in the form of government and how we budget differently going forward. So yes, it should be very closely tailored to only very minor technical changes or things that are meant to align it to what you all voted on on the 21st, so that it's just correct, because it's the last chance to make those technical corrections. So that is what the technical what that is what the fund change memo attachment b is supposed to line item. And there are two pages of lines that kind of explain that. And then attachment c actually has more detail than attachment b.
718 Thank you director levine. Sonia, I want to make sure that I wrap up and get to other councilors. But did you have something you wanted to add here?
719 Not in a. Pressing way. Thank you.
720 Okay. Colleagues, as I said at the start, before we uncovered this very interesting budget twist, I believe very strongly in protecting our urban canopy. And I actually have a district where I hear more often from people who are upset that trees are coming down than people who are upset that they can't take trees down. It's a very different incoming on these regulations than I think. District four sometimes receives. I also think that on balance, as we are trying to weigh difficult decisions, there was in my mind a little too much cutting in parks maintenance, and I think we could have taken a little bit more from the part of parks that has grown significantly. So at this lower level, I'm willing to support a change like this. I still am a little bit confused, frankly, as to whether the funds that are in councilor Zimmermann's new amendments are available. If our budget folks are saying they are, I am willing to trust that for today. And if they are not, then councilor. I'm happy to partner with you on something where we can find the funds.
721 I think we heard they are available and they would make it to park maintenance today if we made the first amendment, and we got a solid up and down from the staff on that.
722 Yes.
723 Councilor Clark.
724 Thank you.
725 Madam president. This has been a very interesting budget discussion. It really changes what we're going to be doing in the future. But I don't want to speak to number one. I want to speak to number two. Number Zimmerman. Number two makes perfect sense to me, given what's happening to the parks bureau anyway, in the mayor's budget, we're breaking parks up into pieces. One goes here, one goes there, and this is just another piece that it makes absolute sense to me that the regulation goes into paddy, because paddy is actually a blending of eight other bureau permitting processes already. This is just another adding another one to this to the regulatory soup. So it makes perfect sense to me and I intend to support it.
726 Councilor Koyama Lane.
727 I hear councilor Zimmermann statement of the problem and these complaints being outlined are very valid. I believe they need to be addressed, and I still question whether or not this is the best way to fix it here as council. It seems clear to me that there is an interest from councilors to make sure that this program is hitting the mark better, and I believe it is an expectation that we're working on this with the executive branch. And just to be clear, in general, I value giving ourselves the time and opportunity to build strategic, collaborative relationships with the executive branch. That will take more time than this budget process. I also invite all of my colleagues up here to not refer to our city staff by name, and instead by title, because this isn't about individuals, it's about positions and function. At this point, I can't support these amendments because I haven't had much time to fully understand the structures and systems at play.
728 Councilor Smith.
729 Thank you.
730 Madam president. I am glad that we had this discussion today. I'm glad that we were able to find out information. About items that were not language in, items that were not put in, that we didn't have information on. And I feel confident that. The civic life folks are saying that they have the 2.1 million. Is that correct?
731 Yes, yes.
732 Vibrant community,
733 You apologize? Absolutely. Take make reduction to urban forestry $2.1 million. Move it to move it to maintenance.
734 Okay. Thank you so much. I wanted to make clear that we had that because I don't want us to come down to the 11th hour and then we're short, especially because we didn't transfer over information. Thank you very much.
735 Councilor. Canal.
736 Yeah. Let me start by asking a question about the change memo in general. And this is about attachment c at the bottom. The citywide total goes down by $12.851 million from 8.651 to 8.638. Can can I get a little information on what that aggregate total represents?
737 Sure. So. Hold on. Sorry, I'm just trying to get the right attachment up. I mean, I think if you look at the individual lines, it's just it should just be a sum of the individual lines. So if it, you know, so for example, the fireplace disability and retirement fund, there's a reduction of 44 million of bond and note proceeds to reflect the shift from tax anticipation note revenue to interfund loan revenue. So that's a reduction in appropriation. All all of these are from the perspective of how much money are you appropriating for these particular purposes. And so what is the maximum they can spend. So it's just aligning those appropriations based on the adopted budget as filed.
738 So sure.
739 I guess let me put it another way. When we approved a budget at 8.651 and that was considered a balanced budget, and now we're coming back and being told that we are through this memo, we've appropriated 8.638. Given these changes, should we not therefore have $12.851 million to play with? The way that you've written this.
740 It's all funds and all sources of money. So for example, in that particular that that particular $44 million example I just gave, it's just it had budgeted money for bond and note proceeds that we're not going to receive and therefore we don't need. But it doesn't free anything up because we're just not issuing those bonds. We're not receiving that revenue. So it just is a it's just a technical correction to the appropriations schedule based on the actual budget as filed.
741 Okay. I look forward to that being clearer next year. And because I had some certainty, then I got some confusion through this process.
742 Sorry, counselor, can I just jump in because I think it may help a little bit to provide another example of what's included in the in the budget, so that 8.5 million or 8.6, whatever it is, includes things like transfers between funds. Right. So money goes from one fund and it's appropriated from that fund, the.
743 Double count, because there's about $6.5 billion.
744 You'll see a small adjustment. I mean, it's not small, but in the context of the budget, maybe there's a resource from golf fees, right, that are coming in that were adjusted. I'm just picking on it on a sort of example. So that increases that amount and reduces the amount of fund transfer that needs to come to offset that. And so some of those balancing activities are what's happening in that scale of adjustment. And it's not a release of new revenues. It's just realigning the new version to be balanced with the decisions that council made to move dollars around previously.
745 Right. Okay. Thank you. And I guess just to for those who may be listening at home, not following along with this, the one thing that maybe isn't relevant to this, but is relevant perhaps in general, is there's not $8.5 billion in our budget. There's something closer to six between 6 and 6 and a half, if I recall correctly. And money gets double counted when it's in one bureau's budget, gets paid to another bureau's budget, and then is expensed there. And that's, I think, something that isn't necessarily the most well known fact. No, it hasn't come up yet. So I figured I'd say it. Yeah, I guess I am open to the argument about winners and losers, and that our job is in large part to pick winners and losers. That is a compelling argument to me about our. Not just ability, but frankly, responsibility to make a decision like this and not solely defer to the administration about it. Because if we don't do this, it's not as though the conversation will continue while both the park maintenance staff and the urban forestry staff are both going to be funded with the same $2.1 million, it's that some of these people are going to lose their jobs while the conversation may continue, and then we might be hiring some of them back if over time the money is moved around between these. The only other thing I wanted to mention is that in the event that this second amendment does pass, I do think I did want to just confirm the thing. I speculated earlier that there would need to be a small update to code to just replace references to the parks bureau, and we've done this before several times over the course of the last council did it in the second half of last year, updating code to fix the references to bureaus and service areas that did or didn't exist at the time it was created. But I just wanted to flag that. Yeah. Thank you.
746 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Novick.
747 Is dc de oliveira here?
748 I believe he's in the back of the room.
749 Good afternoon, dc oliveira. And this might be an unfair question. Sort of sort of like answer as you see fit, but do you think that p and d is how much time is paddy had to study whether the concept of absorbing the tree code regulation, and how easy do you think it would be for them to do so expeditiously? Thanks for the.
750 Question.
751 Councilor daniel. For the.
752 Record.
753 Councilor, about a year ago then worked with infrastructure.
754 Bureaus to.
755 Contemplate a.
756 Merger at the time of a 30% staff reduction.
757 So not too.
758 Dissimilar from the.
759 Moment we're in today. So I think, is.
760 There a.
761 Culture and a will.
762 To support.
763 Council direction? Something like this?
764 Of course, I would say.
765 For this. Particular amendment.
766 Have we.
767 Contemplated how it would be integrated?
768 No, not.
769 To the.
770 Degree that we probably would like, assuming this would go into effect July 1st.
771 But given the. Sort of the resilience of the bureau, I think in partnership with parks.
772 I think we can make that happen.
773 The one thing I'll just offer.
774 Is it's not. Just moving people over.
775 It's how we embed them.
776 In.
777 The system, make sure.
778 That they're being supported as staff that.
779 We'd want to think about. And so we know fully what's happening to paddy. I think that's.
780 Hard to fully give. A confident answer that we're ready for that change. But it is certainly doable. Another unfair question. Would you feel safer if we if this decision didn't take effect until like, September 1st or something?
781 Thank you for the question.
782 One more time.
783 Yeah, I think any any day.
784 I have no strong opinion on that either.
785 I think, how about this? The more time that's given for staff to contemplate this change.
786 The more. Effective that the change could occur. Thank you.
787 Councilor Ryan.
788 I just want to make a couple comments before I vote. Council. Zimmerman I was opposed to original amendments, and I respect the rework that you sent out today at 129. I thought that was great work. I was a commissioner in charge of parks for 18 months. Yes, I know it did seem longer based on the circumstances during those 18 months, and the big winter storm of 2024 was one of them. I took a lot of punches from portlanders. I will never forget their stories. In fact, I of course believed them and I went out during the storm during cleanup and I witnessed so many hard working foresters, which made it easier to take punches for them at that time. The truth is, I think we need to do a move right now. And this is this is the right step at the right time. And I support this updated amendment. And I thank you, councilor Zimmerman, for your persistence on this one. And thank you. I'll be supporting both of them.
789 Thank you. Before councilor Kanal we move on, I'm just looping back to make sure folks who are in the queue for other things didn't want to speak to this councilor Green, did you want to speak to this? Okay, go right ahead.
790 Thank you, madam president. I just want to come back to this question of whether it's appropriate for city council through budget amendments to create kind of changes for our bureaus. And I think one of the things I struggle with is, on the one hand, that's stepping too far over into the other side of the executive branch's side of the house. But this is our opportunity to provide a budget that provides guidance to this government. And so I think, you know, it's, you know, carefully crafted budget budget note helps helps us do that. I think it is appropriate on on, you know, in some cases. And so I do think I want to defend this, this aspect of it. I also don't have a credit card that we can swipe to run up a big debt. We have to balance a budget. And there is a trade off here. And the thing that I really struggle with is we still have deep cuts in parks maintenance that are going to live through this this next fiscal year. And there were amendments that I had brought forward with some colleagues earlier in this process that did not pass, that would have provided resources for that, but those failed. So now we're in a situation now where we have to make a choice between a diminished relatively. You know, I think it's about a third cut to the tree regulation program here from this parks levy question versus a relatively large cut to parks maintenance. And so I'm leaning I'm leaning towards support at this time. I know that that's not going to be popular with some some people. But we're not making good decisions. I mean it's trade offs on the margin for all of this stuff and none of it feels good. And I just I just leave it at that. I just wanted to er the, the piece that I think, I think, I think we can put our voices and our intention as councilors, duly elected officials in the budget amendment process for how we think the execution side should go.
791 Councilor Smith, were you back in the queue for something on this amendment, or are you in the queue still for something later?
792 I'm not in the queue.
793 At all. Okay, councilor Kanal.
794 I apologize, I just forgot one question for dca and it's based on something councilor Clark said earlier. Can you speak to other potential org chart bureau changes to parks that are in this budget or not? I believe the comment was that it's being separated out into parts or I don't want to. That's not a quote.
795 Yeah, I.
796 Heard that to sonia shymansky dca for vibrant communities. I wasn't entirely sure what you were referring to, but I'm sure that it's something.
797 I was under the impression that parks is moving into the public works service area. Yes, and perhaps not moving, and perhaps not all parks. Another piece of parks might move into dca olivares service area.
798 It I see councilor or I see city administrator jordan making an a ha face.
799 Excuse me. Just to be clear, part of vibrant communities is moving to economic and community development, not part of parks.
800 So okay.
801 Thank you.
802 Councilor Novick. Did you want another bite at the apple here?
803 Yes. Questions for councilor Zimmerman for one. Zimmerman three talks about increasing position authority in ppd by five permanent ongoing fte.
804 Those are I'm not even proposing those.
805 Okay. So you're you're proposing moving moving authority from parks to pd just as a standalone administrative thing. Would you accept a friendly amendment to say that that would take effect on November 1st?
806 I'd take a friendly amendment for September 1st.
807 What about what about October 1st?
808 How long negotiation. But I if I'm if I appreciate it councilor. So I, I think getting through the summer is appropriate but I am acting with urgency because I think we do have serious concerns. So I'm going to stick to I'm amenable and I'm happy to entertain that at September 1st as a date, which is similar to some other right sizing that the city is going through.
809 Councilors, I don't see anybody else in the queue, and I'm not sure what the resolution was there. And I think we need a resolution before we know what we're voting on. Was there a friendly amendment, accepted or not?
810 I'm debating whether to make an unfriendly.
811 Okay, let's do October. Steve. Come on.
812 All right. I offered an amendment that the shift from a regulation from parks to pd take effect on October 1st.
813 No later than October 1st.
814 October 1st.
815 I think that's a friendly amendment I could accept. Thank you.
816 Okay. And I'm sorry. Resolve that first come back to me.
817 I just I heard councilor Ryan's second the friendly amendment and realized that I don't think I caught who seconded these to begin with.
818 I heard Clark.
819 Okay.
820 Clark thinks that she was the one who seconded these. So what? It was a long time ago. So we have that captured. And, councilor Clark, do you then are you maintaining your second with this friendly amendment?
821 Absolutely.
822 Thank you. Okay. Fantastic. Sonia.
823 Thank you. And I hesitate.
824 To offer a.
825 Comment that. Might introduce a new line of conversation. At this point, part of why I came up here was to share the question I had when I saw this, and I hadn't had long to look at it or think about it, but my question to my team was, does this standardize what is otherwise an outlying situation where you are administering this code? Pd is administering other code. Does this bring you into greater alignment with how the rest of the city does things? And what I heard from them is that it more creates an anomaly than resolves one. And I welcome better thinking about this, because I am not the expert structurally here. My understanding is that pnd administers code related primarily, maybe not exclusively, to private. Property development, and that as a general matter, other bureaus administer code related to other things. Within their scope of work.
826 Fire marshal.
827 Parking enforcement. Sewer pipes. These codes mostly live within and are administered by those bureaus. Park rangers title 20 also in parks. So I guess I'm offering as a consideration. Does this otherwise match how code is applied.
828 And administered.
829 In other parts of the city? I think it does not. And so that's a policy question for you all.
830 I think that fair points however. The private property aspect of tree code is I think where we have the greatest problem, right? That's where a person who's just at their home, who doesn't have the lawyers and developers to help navigate a really tough system, are are not getting good outcomes when they work with the city of Portland. And PBOT, for instance, is, as we learned in the Oregonian, able to throw some curbs down and take down trees. No problems, no questions asked from tree urban forestry. So given the fact, I don't disagree that this is a slight anomaly, but given the fact of how much work pnd does on the private property. So if you have if you've got a rental property that is derelict and it's a slumlord situation, these folks are involved. If you when I helped shut down the fourth and Washington drug den a few years ago, it's these folks who are involved that private property aspect. I think they work with property owners all the time. And I will say over and over, we have heard that some code changes are planned to come toward the end of the summer into the fall. And if there is some realignment that says, hey, this would be better served in the in the public works side of it, I'm all ears, but we haven't seen that happen without this action from council. And so for the short term, I think I have all faith in the code compliance folks at ppa. And frankly, I think they're very skilled and working with portlanders well, all the time. So I think the anomaly is a safe risk and we should accept it.
831 Dc oliveira is their tree enforcement in pd already in other areas, or would this be a completely new line of work.
832 Not explicitly. Done for the record council president? Not explicitly in title 11? There may be things that come up through nuisance complaints, but those are typically redirected to parks if they're specific.
833 To.
834 Title 11. Just to follow up on szymanski's comments, it's true that largely the code that pd oversees with permitting is in the private sector, but in our code enforcement, we're covering everything from noise complaints.
835 To other.
836 Nuisance infractions.
837 That.
838 Typically the team interacts.
839 With, you know.
840 Residents and businesses.
841 More.
842 You know, ad hoc. I would.
843 Guess that this.
844 Would be a new element. So it's not.
845 You know.
846 Unique, but it's distinct enough where there.
847 Would be.
848 Subject matter expertise that.
849 Could.
850 Be relied upon coming from parks to, to administer.
851 That code.
852 So the tree inspectors and budget are focused on other code, not on title 11.
853 Generally in support of but not directly.
854 You know, that's parks okay.
855 Councilors, I don't see anybody else in the queue. So keelan, could you please call the roll on the new. Zoom? In one which moves 2.1 million in parks levy funds from the tree regulation program within urban forestry to the parks maintenance program, knowing that we may need to do some work in the change memo to make sure that those funds are available. Is that how we're doing this? Haley, I see you leaning forward.
856 Hi. Sorry.
857 Quick question.
858 Were you intending to.
859 Replace Zimmerman? 1 or 1 and two, or are you withdrawing Zimmerman one and two and.
860 Adding 13 and 14?
861 I think a full withdrawal of the old ones. These are freshly new. So you.
862 Would be voting.
863 On.
864 Zimmerman.
865 13. Okay. What we had before us, said one. So Zimmerman 13 and this is the first part that councilor Zimmerman went over, which is the funding change, moving the levy funding from urban forestry tree regulation program to parks maintenance. Keelan could you call the roll canal?
866 As I said on may 21st, I think it's really important that we have clean bathrooms and we have maintenance fully funded. And that's a major, major lack in the in the mayor's proposal that we get a chance to rectify, I vote I.
867 Ryan I.
868 Koyama Lane know. Morillo councilor Zimmerman.
869 I really appreciate all the work that you've put into this and trying to address. This problem. My concern at this time is that I just don't feel like I have a.
870 Full.
871 Grasp of the impacts of this policy.
872 On the.
873 Different bureaus and staffing.
874 And funding.
875 That we have, and maybe.
876 That's not your fault.
877 Maybe that's the fact.
878 That parks.
879 Didn't get that information to you. But that doesn't change the fact that I feel like this is a substantial change. And we haven't, as a council, received a full scope of information to make that decision. I would also point out that that's an issue that is not isolated with your research and amendment. That's something that's going.
880 On overall.
881 So maybe everyone should consider approving my amendment to add a cbo position so that we can get more information later. I vote no.
882 Novick no.
883 Clark. I Green.
884 For the same reasons that I complained about councilor Zimmerman's chart not showing causation, where there may only be a correlation. I think a relatively modest cut of the parks levy funds is not going to hamper our overall urban canopy in the short run, and I do think that we need to set ourselves up for a good conversation at the parks. Levy and I and I, I've been talking ceaselessly about the need for parks maintenance in this budget cycle. So for those reasons, I vote I.
885 Zimmerman.
886 Thank you. I appreciate those who gave input to help me craft this in a way that was most palatable and also, I think, addresses a pretty serious concern. And I think we are set up better if this passes to pass a successful levy. And so if this if this passes, I'm also very eager for those parks employees who work in our maintenance to continue their work and their service to the city. So thank you, I vote yea.
887 Avalos.
888 No.
889 Dunphy.
890 I continue.
891 To.
892 Be.
893 Deeply concerned.
894 About the parks.
895 Maintenance, so.
896 I vote I.
897 Smith I.
898 Pirtle-guiney I.
899 The amendment is approved with eight yes votes and four no votes.
900 Keelan. Could you please call the roll on Zimmerman 14? I'm looking to haley to make sure that number is correct.
901 It is correct. And if I could.
902 Just get councilor Novick.
903 And councilor.
904 Zimmerman to clarify.
905 The friendly amendment.
906 Language and where it goes.
907 To be implemented no later than 1st October 2025.
908 Okay, Steve.
909 Okay. So what you have listed in the email from councilor Zimmerman as two, which is officially Zimmerman 14 with the a friendly amendment from councilor Novick that this would be implemented no later than October 1st. This is the proposal to move tree regulation program, staff, program and staff from urban forestry programs to Portland, permitting and development. Keelan. Could you please call the roll.
910 Canal I.
911 Ryan I.
912 Koyama Lane to clarify, I'm not completely opposed to amendments that reach over and make executive type changes or management decisions, but my bar is high for those types of amendments, and I believe that I don't have enough information to know how this will be affecting programs and all of the staff. So I vote no.
913 Maria, no Novick I. Clark. I Green. No Zimmerman.
914 I Avalos. No Dunphy.
915 I would very.
916 Much like to.
917 Have this as a conversation and a policy committee, but I'm not there today. No.
918 Smith I.
919 Pirtle-guiney I.
920 The amendment is approved with seven yes votes and five no votes.
921 Councilor Green, do you have an amendment within the parks program area that you are in the queue to speak to?
922 Yes, but I just some I have a new omnibus amendment that has some elements that talk about parks. I guess my question to you would be, would you prefer to use this space right now to talk about things that are just standalone parks things, or can I talk about my thing now?
923 Well, the precedent that we set last time was that if it touches an area, you can choose which area it falls within. So I am going to try to stay consistent to the best of my ability. Go right ahead.
924 Yes. Then I would like to talk about Green nine okay. Let me pull up my text for my own.
925 I'm going to second it.
926 Okay.
927 We have a motion and a second on Green nine. Hopefully we can hear a little bit about it.
928 Okay great. Thank you madam president. Since may 21st I've put a lot of effort into trying to. Fund some priorities that are of my own, but also some of my colleagues through a new funding source. My previous ones failed to prosper. One failed. So, you know, we did our best. It didn't work out. So I'm coming back again and I'm offering a motion. The title is motion to amend attachment d and added budget note to reduce external materials and services spending and add funding for housing, arts and operational capacity. Capacity. So colleagues, the way this works is it funds Green three which is fund Portland street response program evaluation at a reduced level 200,000. It funds Green six, which provides one time grant to Portland center stage at a reduced level. It's 200,000. It funds one of Clark two ci positions on a one time basis. It's got Dunphy to fund arts and economic development at 365,000. It has canal four funding for community centers, aquatics, the Portland tennis center, pm hours. So it's restoring the cut hours in the evening and alternative community session. It also removes it moves one of the parks rangers service dispatcher roles that was being cut into into 311 and paying for that. That's part of canal four. And then we have Morillo nine, which is restore analyst positions in the cbo at 350,000. So the way that this is all paid for is by a 2% additional reduction in external materials and services, with some with some key exemptions. And these exemptions are as follows. Exempting all outgoing grant subrecipients all outgoing grant beneficiaries and outgoing loan disbursements, and it also excludes prosper, portland's line item for ems, because I think that that complicates the fact that we already passed that budget. The net effect is it makes available $1.5 million in general fund discretionary resources, $192,000 in general fund overhead resources, and $151,000 in additional other revenue. And all of that pays for these for this package. So I know that's a mouthful. And if you look at the attachment I it has the cbo has created the sort of individually impacted bureau areas that have the cuts that looks like it's part of Morillo nine. It's not it's just it's just a formatting piece. So I know that there will be certainly some questions. So I'm happy to take them.
929 Councilor Kanal.
930 Yeah. So if I was a little early on that sorry, I will second it. Now I do have one question about it, which is the overhead. 190 2371 if you can speak to where that specifically went. That's the only question I had.
931 Yeah. Happy to. That covers part of Morillo nine, which they're the cbo analyst positions have that general fund overhead.
932 Thank you. I'll come back later.
933 Counselor Smith.
934 Yes, thank you, madam president. I'd like to verify with. Cfo jonas or ruth.
935 We I.
936 Just think that that you're leaving some money on the table. I think you're leaving some money on the table. So I want to I want to know for sure. Is the is the 2% that that you're cutting off of ems? Is it, in fact, 1.5 million or a different number?
937 So I can speak to a little bit how that how we got to that number. So there's definitely more ems in the city's budget than that. But but I think this is first of all, I believe it was general fund only if I'm remembering correctly. It's ongoing. And it is it is only for things that we aren't legally required to pay. So like it's is it one time.
938 The amendment says this is a one time general fund.
939 Sorry. Okay. Sorry I'm misremembering. So but I think this is general fund only. So like none of the ems that's in the utilities for example, would be in here. Additionally, things that were legally required to pay, like fpd and our benefits that are paid out as ems and health, health benefits that are paid out as ems don't aren't in this denominator. So I think what getting into ems is tricky just because there are so many things lumped into there, many of which we don't really have discretion over. So I think there was an attempt to get at sort of a denominator that made sense in order to come up with that number.
940 And could you explain the difference between the external materials and services versus the internal?
941 Sure. So external materials and services are any external include anything that's like contracts, grants, anything that goes out the door. So it includes a huge variety of different types of expenditures. Internal materials and services is only for services that are provided internally. So our central services and those are done through interagency agreements. And. And. And budgeted as internal materials and services as the sort of category in which they're budgeted.
942 Okay.
943 Thank you.
944 Counselor Clark.
945 Thank you, madam president. While I really appreciate counselor Green adding Clark to very much and Green six, I'm struggling with reading through the list of all the reductions and noting that the big reductions come from parks, police and fire. So I'm I'm kind of wrestling with that, not really comfortable with it. I don't know if we can ask if interim dca causey is here or.
946 If I.
947 Okay.
948 Then we do I believe have all of the dca's in the room and we have. With us.
949 Counselor Green wants to address this. First of all.
950 I appreciate the question. I was remiss in my motivation to also say that this is paired with the budget amendment that directs how these ems reductions should happen. So that's Green ten. The budget amendment says to guide the implementation of the 2% reductions to ems. Council directs the city administrator to prioritize eliminating expenditures that reflect contract bloat, excessive consulting, and overreliance on external vendors for functions that could be fulfilled by city staff. So, for instance, when I talk to labor leaders, they say, well, why are we paying? Why are we paying consultants to do design work or pay is I think councilor Kanal uses this, this phrasing a lot, which is why are we paying other people to think for us? So the idea here is, you know, please do not execute. Find the reduction in not hiring solemn consulting, for instance, for $1 million contract to help with the strategy session. That's the intention with this. And that's what the budget note directs. The sort of schedule of cuts you're seeing is the is the kind of undirected, like if you do nothing else and if you apply 2% to this, these are those these are those impacts. And so I do want to just be fully transparent that there are risks here. And the risk is that we that we don't get the outcome that the budget note is, is directing. Right. And then they start going after some of the kind of things that you, you care about there.
951 Councilor can we hear from interim dca?
952 Yeah. And director cozzie director myers is online as well. If you'd like for him to come up on screen too, or we are happy to defer to you.
953 You know, if he would.
954 Like to go first.
955 That would be fantastic. And I'm happy to chime in where I can.
956 Thank you.
957 Director myers, would you like to add anything here before we turn to or dca? Myers I apologize before we turn to interim dca.
958 You know, I'm almost wondering. For the record, I'm bob cozzie interim dca for public safety service area. I know that a lot of our team across the bureaus had dca.
959 Myers link.
960 To this meeting. So that might be what we're looking at right now is someone else who didn't change their name.
961 So I.
962 Apologize for that. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. And I am really jumping into deep water here. And thank you for this opportunity. On one hand, I look at, you know, additional funding for, you.
963 Know.
964 Evaluation of Portland street response. And that's certainly something that psr. Could welcome. I look at some of the other components in here. And I do have some concern when I see that.
965 There is a reduction.
966 To the Portland police bureau general fund by $287,000.
967 And a.
968 Reduction to Portland fire, $183,000. Now, there's also a section in pbem for a reduction of $13,000. And.
969 You know.
970 Knowing the structural deficiencies, particularly at pbem, I'm just beginning to get a handle on the fact that they don't have adequate staffing. I'm certainly concerned there. I see the other cuts as well as without.
971 Having a. Lot of. Time to.
972 Review what the impact would be. I certainly have concerns. What I a question that I had and I think, ruth, that you answered this. Earlier is contracts that that we have with.
973 Current vendors.
974 Those are not included in this.
975 Is that correct?
976 Because we have a legal obligation to pay. That. That is the spirit behind the exemptions that I put in there. Outgoing recipients. You know, was intended to pick that up. Okay. You know, without really knowing what the impact will be. I don't think I can speak. Much further, but I am here to hopefully answer some questions if you have them.
977 We ask the same question of our parks dca as well. That's a big that's a big chunk of dough.
978 Dca shymansky.
979 Hi again.
980 Sonia shymansky I think I saw that it's about $700,000 ems cut in the parks bureau, and.
981 That an.
982 Amount to be added back. I did ask, is it the same amount or is it a different and greater.
983 Amount to.
984 Be added. Back for those particular services?
985 I don't believe.
986 It's the same.
987 It's just it's a lesser amount, but it's also for.
988 Different sorts of.
989 Yeah.
990 I.
991 Believe that through canal for that's brought in 265,000 is added specifically to restore pm hours at a few facilities. But the external material and services budget is reduced by $692,000.
992 These are all very reasonable and fair things for you to consider and to do. I know that ems sometimes surprises me in how directly the spending contributes to provision of services. That's not to say it's I'm not making a judgment about its importance or how closely it should be protected. I will just say 700,000 ish is significant, and the services that are proposed for restoration are highly valued and very important to community.
993 Councilor Clark. Anything else? Councilor Smith. Let's see. I don't know if that goes to me next. I, I'm trying to understand what is cut in the contract here because I'm trying to weigh these trade offs. There are some things councilor Green that you include that I really like, and I appreciate that you tried to carve out some pieces of ems that we wouldn't want to cut. Director shymansky, since you're up here, I'm wondering if you have a sense of what external materials and services buys within parks.
994 I know it buys bark chips, and I know it buys a lot of other things. Claudio, can you give us as specifically as possible.
995 Maybe a.
996 Handful of examples?
997 Sure. I would say that the single biggest item is utilities. So specifically the utilities necessary to run pools, community centers, etc. They are air and water. We pay. We pay water and bts bills as well. We are, I think, the city's biggest water user. And that shows up as an external material in service. And of course, as was mentioned, there's a lot all of our. Garbage hauling that is that is external materials and services. So I would need to look closer at sort of where there are opportunities to do $700,000 cut, but if it's council's direction, we would do it.
998 Is there an ability to take a cut like this on things like. And I hate to call out any service as unimportant because they are all important, but something like bark chips, for example, as a permanent cut would be problematic, as a one year cut might be weatherable, whereas garbage hauling as a one year cut would not be weatherable. Using those as kind of standards on either side. Do you suspect if you looked at the numbers, that there would be a way to take a cut that in weatherable cuts, or would we be cutting into things like water to fill the pools, electricity in our community centers, and garbage hauling?
999 Conceptually, yes. And we did put forward a number of ems cuts to meet our own cut target. And the theory was, yes, we will scale what scalable and we will not eat into what is not discretionary. I think this is a question of at this amount relative to the denominator. Can we keep doing that or does it begin to cut into things like pool water or that are not as discretionary.
1000 Yeah, I would say that a one time reduction is definitely much more manageable than an ongoing reduction. Going further than that in the moment, I wouldn't want to characterize it. We would just need to go back. We've spent a lot of effort getting to the reductions that we've gotten to. We could certainly do more. We potentially have more on the table depending on on where things go with the levy. So it's but I wouldn't want to characterize it here on the fly.
1001 Thank you. City administrator jordan, I noticed that there's a significant cut in the city administrator's office, almost a half $1 million. Is that a cut from from contracts through Portland solutions, or are there other external materials and services that cut could come from? And I'd ask, we use the phrase a lot Washington monument here. I'd ask that you not give me the Washington monument. But but realistically, what would this what what are these external materials and services within the city administrator's budget?
1002 Thank you for the question. We currently.
1003 Don't do any maintenance or contracts on the Washington monument, so we I have spoken previously about expenses in the city administrator's office. And so I'm on the record saying that the bulk of expenses in the office are in Portland solutions. And I can tell you that the bulk of expenses in Portland solutions is external. Ms. It's in contracts for the operation of shelters, primarily. And then there are other things, but. You know, you have the city and I might add that that the city attorney's office is listed specifically, I think for an ems cut and the city attorney's office is the second biggest office in the city administrator's office. So if we're including ogre, government relations, equity and human rights, the attorney's office and Portland solutions, those are the bulk of where ems is. And I would say proportionately, ogre and oe have very small amounts in them. Ems, I'm not looking at the specific figures right in front of me, but that's my that's my assessment. So to come up with almost half $1 million, I think we'd have to take at least a look at some of the programs in Portland. Solutions.
1004 Thank you. Colleagues, I'm getting notes that other dca's may want to speak to this as well. I also see that there are a lot of other councilors in the queue, so I will put myself back at the end of the queue to give other dca's an opportunity after other councilors have spoken, but I will just say now councilor, I like a lot of what you're buying. I am really concerned with the extent of some of these cuts. I am leaning no right now because I don't think I've had enough time to sit with some of these, and I apologize for not spending more time with it previously. I will continue to think about it as I hear from other colleagues. Councilor Ryan.
1005 Thank you, madam president. I kind of want to listen to the other dca's come up that said, you know, I made it clear back in may that my lens would be shaped by a few things going into the weeds of operations, that this elevation does start me at a no. And so I started at a no on this one. And sure, there are a lot of pieces of this that politically have nudged me to a yes. And these have been fascinating conversations. So I've had conflicted debates with my own self. As I listen to all the conversations over the last half hour, I don't know who hasn't, but clearly there will be impacts of these reductions. And I also said I would not support amendments to the mayor's balanced budget that made cuts to police and fire, and they seem to be included here based on what I listened to. And now I heard that about Portland solutions. So this is very well intentioned amendment, but I will not be supporting it at this time. Thanks.
1006 Councilor canal.
1007 Thank you. I, I'm going to just note that there may be some space here. There is a I think it's eight. Where is it 600 plus thousand dollars. It's not allocated here. There's some restrictions on that funding. And I'm trying to understand that a little bit better. That might be able to sort of soften some of the specific blows. But I want to take a step back for a second and say two things. One is as it relates to unintended consequences, it's a concept that comes up and there is a certain level. I think it's less about the way I would frame it is less about unintended consequences and a consequence that we know the details of versus one that we have a general idea of. We know that two people in the city budget office are going to get laid off right now. If we don't do anything about it. We know that that's categorical. We know that the only person who does racial equity plans for the whole city at oer is going to get laid off. One of the four people in the ADA team at oer. Some of that's not in this. Some of that is. But I know that these are things that we have to weigh. So it can't just be a general opportunity cost conversation. We should engage with that specific opportunity cost, which is that absent a revenue source, we are not going to find a way to save some of these positions. And that's very concerning to me. I think we have seen the value of both the current and a future beefed up cbo through this process, and I want to make sure that director levine has everything and everyone that she needs for that. That's particularly important to me. The other thing I wanted to talk about is the contracting piece. There are dozens of examples I can give in my three and a half years working at the Portland building about work that can and should be done by city employees, that is contracted out. And it is it is work that I've often described as councilor Green put it, that is thinking for us, there is work where contractors are good community based organizations that do violence prevention, which are exempted from this. By the way, that's very important. This doesn't cut over grantees or anything like that. There's a testimony virtually about the violence prevention, community violence intervention money. None of that's affected by this. There's work that we can't do ourselves as effectively. But then there is work like strategic planning assistance, and there is work like community engagement contracts, where people do really well, but they're more expensive than a city employee. I managed a project where we had the money for three years to fund a city, a community engagement staffer, and we were told over and over and over again that we would get that funding or get that position authority to spend our own money. And I can know from a different project that I worked on that the community engagement contract cost more than a staffer to do the same amount of work. There's so many examples I could give about how we squander money, and it's to not have an ongoing labor commitment, and that is a profoundly anti-labor practice that we do. And I, I think that this is the beginning of asking the administration to start looking at that differently and bringing these, these particular types of work back into the city, back to afscme and pro tech and cp, back to all these specific unions that are doing this work. And in many cases, there are still some fte that has to then manage the contract. So we're also wasting the money there. So that's my interest in this is starting the process of going at the practice of contracting out work that could be done by unionized labor in this workforce, people who can afford to live here and do live here, because a lot of this, you know, professional services contracting is to people in philadelphia or baltimore or something. And I'm sure they're great. But I want to make sure that we're working to put our Portland city budget dollars into the city of Portland.
1008 Councilor Zimmerman.
1009 I think we have a little bit of a better idea from parks. What what this could be used on in terms of materials and services, what's truly used on maybe in the city administrators. I'm looking for a way to get to yes on this amendment as well, but I'm noting that there are a couple areas that have just significant cuts, like multiple. Employees worth of cuts, and I know they're not employees, but that that level of work. So. I I'm going to think out loud a little here in terms of, of options that might exist. What I don't know right now is if I were to go and look at parks and rec, this is noting 692 of materials and services. But I'm wondering what the amount of unspent revenue in that bucket was in the current year. And I could apply that question to all the big hitters here above six figures and say about how much do we normally return to know if it has a substantial categorical, categorical change in service, or if it's one of those we don't want to ever get right up to the edge. And I I'm going to look quickly just to see if there is a feeling of severity in terms of these numbers and what that might look like.
1010 Sure. That is always a difficult it's a totally legitimate question to ask. It's a difficult one because a lot of spending is encumbered in one year, and it gets carried over into the next. And so what you see as underspending in the current year often is not. There are there are sort of encumbrances against that resource. But looking at, you know, looking at projections for the current fiscal year, I'm looking at in just in general, fund only for parks, we're probably going to underspend by 1 or 2 million. Yeah.
1011 Okay. So 1 or 2 million. And I, I note that because. What it what it may what we may end up seeing here is that in the next year we have a slightly lower. Well where I come from beginning fund balance. But actually the way the city does it is we wouldn't see that reflection of savings until the fall. What we used to call the fall bump, the technical adjustment and fall. It may be a little bit smaller than we're normally used to in our operations, but I'm sensing a workability here, and that's what I'm trying to kind of put my head around for. Ruth levine, our budget director. I think that you mentioned the amount of general fund contingency that we had left over last time was in around the 999 category.
1012 That's right.
1013 Okay. My thinking out loud part here is that if we were to have a bureau, for instance, come and say, hey, mr. City administrator, we're at risk of not paying the water bill at one of our at one of our bureaus, our utility bill. The lights may go off. That is exactly what contingency is for. That's the kind of thing that as a finance chair, I would say, yes, we have a problem. Some something spiked. You come on in and to keep the lights on at a community center, we're going to float you an extra quarter of $1 million from the general fund contingency. So if we were to potentially add a set aside from that, almost million dollars that we created in excess last month as a as a fund to tap into, I think I'm quite I think I could get comfortable with this amendment because I don't think any of the groups listed here should feel like they have to do the same thing with less. I think we're saying, please get closer to finalizing out your budgets, but if you run up against something, we have a set aside that you can make the case for materials and services as a as a fund to tap into. And I would be curious what colleagues think about that, given that we created nearly a million extra dollars in contingency on the 21st. But thank you for that quick answer. I appreciate it a lot.
1014 Councilor Novick you haven't spoken to this yet, have you?
1015 I have not, thank you, madam president. First of all, as to councilor Zimmermann's last point, some of us have some designs on that million dollars. For example, some of us are thinking about using it, which includes some discretionary funding and some overhead to fund some pbem positions. But second, I just think this is. I don't think it behooves us who believe in the value of government to decide. Well, we think there must be a bunch of waste, fraud and abuse here. So let's just vote to cut 2% and they'll find the waste, fraud and abuse somewhere. I don't if we if there is contract bloat, excessive consulting and overreliance on external vendors or functions that can be fulfilled by city staff, let's identify that specifically. Let's not just assume that the parks bureau has $692,000 of those things without knowing.
1016 Would love to offer offer some responses when you think that's appropriate.
1017 Why don't councilor Green? We have you offer responses, and while you're offering responses, I'll just note that I put myself back in the queue to give a couple of dcas an opportunity to come up. So I think de oliveira wanted to speak and I wasn't sure if dca wanted to come back up. If you all come up well, councilor Green is speaking, that'd be great.
1018 Thank you, madam president. Councilor Novick to respond. If we were given budget documents with the level of specificity for me to identify specific contracts, and I wouldn't mean I wouldn't go down this road, I think it is an imperfect road to go down. That's why the budget note is attached to give more clear guidance to the city administrator on what the priority is. And I'll just use an anecdote that I remember from asking 189. Contract struggle from last year. They had pointed out that the city of Portland found over $1 million to buy a piece of granite from vermont, and have it moved here for the base of a statue that is an ems expenditure. But they didn't have that money for, you know, on the table for their negotiation. Negotiation at the time, I've heard other anecdotes where we pay we pay management consultants over $1 million for like a weekend of work for strategy, visioning. Those, those anecdotes exist. And while I don't have a spreadsheet of all the specific contracts, I know that they exist. And so I would very much looking forward to a world where we have that level of resolution and so we can be much more prescriptive. And I'll just say, you know, I do think we need to get a handle on our external contracting consulting. My vision for this city. And insofar as I have a voice as a city councilor and the budget process, I believe in public sector capacity. I don't believe in outsourcing that to third party contractors. It's just fundamentally something I don't. That I don't that I, that I don't agree with. So I think we've got some other dca's up here that want to kind of talk to it. So thanks.
1019 Thank you all for coming up. If you wanted to respond to any of the questions that we've asked of some of your colleagues about impacts, I think we'd be happy to hear those. And I think in doing so, the question from councilor Zimmerman also about how much of these you have left at the end of the year and if perhaps while difficult, it's something that could be absorbable for one year.
1020 Great thanks, council president.
1021 I think I'll go first. Don oliveira, for the record, the one item I want to.
1022 Flag for council's situational.
1023 Awareness is the. $75,000 in the office of economic development that ems allocation is part of a two.
1024 Year project.
1025 For the permit improvement. Team to upgrade ppe permitting software. It is a discrete project that is both software and implementation, and once completed, it will.
1026 Be done.
1027 And I'll just.
1028 Offer for your consideration that.
1029 While we could probably get through with that, it's a contract, not just again for people. Councilor Green.
1030 But for actual systems that we're.
1031 Investing in that we would.
1032 Ideally like to.
1033 Purchase what we agree to a year and a half ago.
1034 So my recommendation would be for your consideration.
1035 Is to consider.
1036 That as a. Project that's close to completion. Thank you for your consideration.
1037 Great. For the record again, jonas perry, d.c. Budget finance and chief financial officer a couple of things I'll flag looking at the reductions, maybe I'll just say I appreciate the effort and intent of looking citywide at citywide contract efficiencies, certainly something a cfo that's a priority of mine. The thing that catches my attention is a reduction in the office of the chief financial officer, which will be the new evolution of budget and finance. As I mentioned at previous budget work sessions within that service area, we have already reduced our ems in this to meet the original budget reductions to the bare minimum. So a further reduction to ems. Ems will be a reduction to services in that within that office, it will be a reduction to tax support, specialty tax support that we get from external sources, software support, specialty and surge support, background checks, translation services, employee trainings to make sure that we're maintaining our financial expertise, etc. So I just want to be explicit that there will be reductions directly resulting from that, at least in that service area. I can't speak for others. The other thing I'll mention and then maybe hand to d.c. Morrissey, is we also know we have upcoming enterprise efficiency work that we need to work on, and that may benefit from from having some of those resources available to help facilitate that work and get to some long term efficiency. Some of those efficiencies identified that are likely be identified will be to ems. And so we'll actually need to. This, I think, takes us a little bit of a step backwards in implementing that. And so I don't know if you want to add more.
1038 Yeah.
1039 Thanks so much for.
1040 The record, sarah morrissey, dca.
1041 For city operations. I wanted to.
1042 Flag two items. One, we are unable.
1043 To take a reduction.
1044 For the office of community based police accountability. So that will need.
1045 To be. Re distributed.
1046 To another fund balance due to the settlement with the doj. And then the.
1047 Second is in the.
1048 Office of city operations.
1049 We have the independent. Police review, we have the dca office, we have almost no ems. And we also have 311 and procurement procurements. Ems is primarily coep. And so we will not be basic. That's basically committed to prosper via an iga for the implementation of that program. So that full impact would likely sit with 311, and that would likely have a staffing impact as well. So wanted to share that with the council.
1050 Thank you all. Councilor Clark.
1051 Thank you. Sure. Thank you, madam president. I'm desperately searching for my magic wand. I don't know where it is, but we really need one right now because there's so much in this that I want, not just my own amendment. And councilor Greene's and councilor Dunphy's. I really want what's in your amendment terribly. But I'm afraid of unintended consequences here with this sort of haircut approach. And I thought that we had talked earlier about not doing haircut, per se, but I also want to make a comment about the contracting piece, because I totally agree with you, and I think that we could bring that up in the governance committee and have a really good discussion about our our philosophy around contracting. Other pieces may not be so easily adapted to a resolution or a policy here, but I guess I'm just I'm wrestling out loud with the tension I feel over this because I really want these things, but I just think there are going to be unintended consequences that we're just with this sort of haircut approach. And actually, I think it was maybe oops, sorry, councilor Ryan, that mentioned the public safety side. I just I can't abide by that. Thank you.
1052 Councilor Morillo.
1053 Thank you, madam president. So I guess I just have a few questions. And to be clear, under Green ten, this isn't.
1054 A blind.
1055 Cut, right? We would. Pass Green ten and then get the updates on these cuts every six weeks to understand the implications of every cut. And we're going to be. Working with the agencies to make the most sense about which areas it needs to be taken out of when.
1056 Discussing.
1057 Like access outsourcing. I guess that's not that's that was a rhetorical question, really. I'm just saying that that's what I'm seeing here. But also, no bureau is required to cut a particular part of the contract with dca. Oliveira cited as part as a particular contract that is 75 k, he's not obligated to cut those specific contracts that's not specified in the amendment or the note. Quite the opposite. So we're what we're talking about is 2% of ems, which could be any contract of choosing. So I think that it's very reasonable to find 2% in our own budgets. And if there are impacts that we don't like with certain contracts, then we should find them elsewhere. But these are really critical services that we're trying to support that are going to help a lot of people during a budget crunch. So frankly, I really appreciate councilor Green finding creative ways to give us more flexibility with this budget, because I feel like you're the only person that's actually tried at all to do that. And maybe you're taking a lot of public beatings for doing so, but I appreciate it.
1058 Councilor Smith.
1059 Thank you, madam president. Others of us have tried to councilor Morillo, we just didn't get our stuff passed. So I'm going to add a finer point to this. It is so very interesting that as this was presented, we watched dca cfo. You know, the cbo office identify what could be a problem. And from day one, I have said that we don't line item stuff. And when you hide stuff in external materials and services and internal materials and services and don't line item what your stuff is, and if their fte in those materials. And so I have a big problem with that to begin with. Stop putting your stuff in external materials. If you're if you're paying for ftes, let me see that line item. And then you come up and you say, oh, but that pays for this person or that person. Stop. It is meant some of this stuff. Yes. We can't just take a haircut. I agree with you, councilor Clark. But if we do and have a general way where we can know exactly what's in it, every time I talk about asking for money out of the administrator's budget and in the ems or ims, oh, that's for Portland solutions. Well, if you would put Portland solutions exactly out there on how much we're paying for how many ftes, then we would know what we could take and we couldn't take. So that part is a is an issue. And I appreciate everybody coming up and vouching for their programs and saying, this is what we can't take. And I, I agree with councilor Morillo. They're going to be in contact if this passes and not going to try to take those things out that we cannot absolutely take out. But note to self, it would be more helpful to us if we had better line items of what's in each of these things. If you're going to say material services, what is it? What is it? And you all don't say it because you don't want us to know. Or maybe it was the practice that you didn't do it in the past, so you're not doing it in the future. But for me and others who are used to seeing line items, we wouldn't have this issue right now if saying 2%. So we're giving you an opportunity to say where the 2% is from, and the fact that it gives direction to the city administrator to do that, because he knows what's in all of this. It didn't take any of his power away, not one bit, because he understands what is, what can be done and what can't be done. And I just want to say thank you for bringing this up because it's needed. And we got to do better for this next cycle. And we will.
1060 Right on.
1061 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor canal.
1062 So thank you. I have a question for both councilor Ryan and councilor Clark, which is if hypothetically, because you both mentioned one of the concerns was public safety, if hypothetically, public safety was exempted, would that affect your support for this? And I have a response. I have a comment. After I have question, I get a response if they would be willing.
1063 Councilors, if either of you would like to respond, go right ahead.
1064 That's a tough one. I think it's the public safety piece that probably pushed me over the edge, but I do. I am concerned about the unintended consequences, and I do think that some of these things can be taken up as policies in our committees. I think, you know, we're all wrestling with limited resources and scrambling for anything we can get. And I appreciate what councilor Smith said about finding out really what the truth is, the bottom line on these these things. But I'm not sure it would change my vote.
1065 I made other comments as well and it wouldn't change my vote. It's not the right practice. I had experiences as a commissioner in charge where we didn't have outside opinions. It would have been not good for portlanders. So there needs to be some money in the budget for this. And what I've listened to from all of the collective administrators today made it more clear to me that I can't support this.
1066 Sure. Thank you for clarifying that. So I think what I'm struggling with is, I agree with councilor Ryan that there needs to be money in the budget for this. And you see these $314,000 of general fund discretionary coming from parks, plus an additional $377,235 of other revenue, which is some that money is going back into parks for the other programs. But these are large sums of money. And then you stop and think for a second that that three just the first one of those, the three 14,000 is part of $15 million of ems. That's just the discretionary ems, right? There's an additional 17 million ish in parks for that. That is ems that's funded through a different type of revenue. So I think that's something where I struggle with the idea that they wouldn't $15 million when you when you frame it that way to find $314,000 out of I mean, I think there's I want there to be bark chips. I want to say that emphatically bark chips are important. They actually do matter. I think there's money for bark chips I in here. And so that that's what I'm, I'm struggling with. Having said that, I'm going to float something and I, I just note that the if you look at the top of the before it gets into the enumerated parts of it, again, this is Green nine and I hope that we get a chance to talk about Green ten because I support it. And I think it it helps ensure that Green nine makes sense the best possible way. Once passed. It, it raises, you know, these three types of revenue that total. $2.567 million. And it spends $1.88 million, $1.881 million. So there's $686,553 left over. And so the thing I'm going to float is exempting the 287,661 from police, exempting the $183,100 from fire, exempting the $5,000 from the community board for police accountability, exempting the $31,371 for the office of public safety dca, exempting $13,044 from pbem. There are no cuts to boec here that I saw, so that's the entirety of the public safety space, and that adds up to $520,176, which leaves $166,377 that I think we should probably use to soften the blow to parks, because parks has taken the biggest hit here. And so that would be the thing that I would float instead of making this a budget, a non-neutral amendment that raises revenue, we could use somewhere else. It would keep it as budget neutral, but it would soften the blow on the bureau taking the biggest hit, which is parks, and it would exempt public safety. And I would that that's an important value for me and I wanted to just float it. I'm not proposing at this moment, but see where what folks think about it.
1067 Can you say it again. Slowly and carefully for my slow little brain.
1068 And q haley exemption to police fire. The office for community based police accountability, the dca office for public safety, and pbem.
1069 Yeah. So this this was not neutral. It was 683,000 $686,553 up. I would remove the third line, 287,861 reduction to police. So this would not reduce that $183,100 in the fourth line for Portland fire and rescue. 10th line reduced bureau program expense in the office of public safety general fund by $31,371, and go down to the bottom line on the page $13,044 for pbem. Go to the first line on the next page bpa for $5,000, which, by the way, is a charter requirement. Not not the d.o.j. And that adds up to 520, 176, 520,176. That leaves an additional 166 377, which I would reduce. The second line. That's 692,000 to parks by the 166,377, which would actually, sorry, got the number off here. 692 -166 377 doing math live in a windows calculator. 525 623 would be the reduction, not 692. And that would make this budget neutral.
1070 Councilor Green. Would you like to respond or should we move on in the queue to councilor Avalos first?
1071 I am intrigued by your suggestions. I would like to hear from councilor Avalos.
1072 Councilor Avalos, you are next in the queue.
1073 Okay.
1074 Well, I'll.
1075 Start by responding.
1076 To this.
1077 Proposal.
1078 I guess.
1079 Did you in this proposal decide how the things would get reallocated? Maybe I missed that.
1080 It was a lot of.
1081 Numbers.
1082 Like. Are you going to be. Suggesting that because that's.
1083 Revenue essentially.
1084 That you're cutting and therefore because all.
1085 Of.
1086 These dollars are allocated.
1087 So how.
1088 Are we going to.
1089 Do that?
1090 There were there were dollars that were not allocated. Oh, and this is, this is a it was unbalanced in a good way. It would have ended us up with 686,000. So I'm putting it back into the bureaus. If in this suggestion, which again is not a formal motion at this time.
1091 Okay. I agree with the larger sentiment that it's really frustrating to try to make any of these decisions when we operate.
1092 With such.
1093 Limited information, when we're not getting line by line items, when every everybody does the whole, you know, national monument, monument thing or whatever.
1094 And that. Just puts.
1095 Me in such a hard spot, because I obviously want a lot. Of the things that are in the package. I know that our community, I think needs and I am concerned about, you know, where those cuts are going to come if they're going to, if they're going to result in any fte. And, you know, we could definitely debate, you know, the reasonableness of what the bureau heads or whatever.
1096 Are proposing.
1097 But at the end of.
1098 The.
1099 Day, once we make this decision, so it feels like a lot of it will be out of.
1100 Our control. And I'm scared about.
1101 Those repercussions. So I'm.
1102 Really.
1103 Grappling with all.
1104 Of this.
1105 And I'm going to keep listening to see how I feel. But just yeah, it's just a really conflicting feeling to get information right from your bureaus and your dca's, because ideally they're giving you the best information they can, but it doesn't. I just don't always trust it. And I don't know how to feel about that, honestly. And I, I can't make my own decisions because I don't have all of it in front of me. So it just feels like a really I'm putting this really hard. Spot and I don't want to have the negative repercussions of certain contracts getting cut or fte getting cut, and then it just feels like I don't know what's going to happen, and I don't know how to grapple with that right now. Honestly, I'm really conflicted.
1106 So I'm just going to answer the first question there about if any fte are going to get cut. This is all ems, so no fte would get cut. This would instead restore three positions that would get cut one park service dispatcher, two analyst positions at the city budget office. And then additionally, some hours that I don't know if it adds up to an fte for that. Those community center hours. Just clarifying.
1107 Well, but.
1108 But I don't know that that's entirely true because the thing is, like and this is the thing I've largely had an issue with as it relates to contracts, like some contracts aren't just for external things, right. We might have contracts that pay. For us to bring in staff. And so what if there's a contract that is going to affect us or you're making a face?
1109 What's the face for?
1110 I am not familiar with that.
1111 That's all.
1112 I'm just thinking about. I'm thinking about when I was an executive director, okay? And I have a budget and I'm getting money from all these kinds of sources. I'm getting it from grants. I'm getting it from individual donors.
1113 All of those.
1114 Things are messy, right? Like a one grant that I'm getting. It could fund some of my staff. It could fund an external contract. It funds all these things. And I don't know this how the bureaus work with that. I don't have that information. So I don't like feeling like I don't know the real impact because these things are all really intertwined. And if we're going to leave the decision, I mean, I appreciate having, you know, Green ten that like gives some more direction about how to make those cuts. I'm also, you know, and I have a bunch of budget notes that I'm like, you know, I'm putting these suggestions. I also, to be quite honest, I don't know if that's actually going to happen.
1115 I don't.
1116 Know if like how to keep keep them accountable to that either.
1117 So I don't.
1118 Feel that the notes are like a solid thing for me, but I think I'm just frustrated because I don't really know the impact and I know how dollars are just again, they're so woven together, and so I don't think that it exactly means that just because it's ems and that's technically not fte, I don't believe that that exactly means that fte won't be lost, but I can't answer that question because I don't have the information and I'm frustrated about that. So.
1119 Thank you, councilor who people keep jumping in the queue. I want to remind us that while there's a lot we can debate, we are moving toward a vote here. So I don't want to stop people from saying things they need to explain how and why they're going to vote the way they are, or to try to influence your colleagues. But I do want to make sure that we don't have folks just. Just jumping in if we don't need to use that time and space. I also am seeing that our interim fire chief is online with a comment, and in the same way that we gave some space to the dcas, I'm wondering, do you see a cozy, if you mind, if we hear from aj jackson? Chief jackson director cozzie is our dca cozy is coming up.
1120 I'm up here.
1121 So again, for the record, dca causi my phone was blowing up through the conversation and chief jackson had messaged me and said that she does have some specific examples of the impact to Portland fire. And I mentioned to her that if we have the opportunity that I could come back up. So chief jackson.
1122 Thank you.
1123 For allowing me.
1124 The time.
1125 For the record.
1126 My name is.
1127 Aj jackson.
1128 I'm the. Interim fire.
1129 Chief for.
1130 Portland fire and rescue. And just.
1131 To provide a little bit of context.
1132 I know there's.
1133 A lot of questions and.
1134 There's kind of fears about what's embedded in the external materials.
1135 And services.
1136 And I. Just want.
1137 To.
1138 Speak.
1139 For fire, and I don't want to speak for anyone.
1140 Else.
1141 But the majority of our ems.
1142 Is really.
1143 Going to support our station operations.
1144 Apparatus maintenance.
1145 And suppression support.
1146 So that's simple repairs, that's fire hose, self-contained breathing apparatus. It is a big.
1147 Chunk of our. Budget overall that goes to supporting our efforts. And just to kind of give a little bit of perspective as it.
1148 Is like right now.
1149 We are projected to go over our budget.
1150 And right now it's about at 10 million.
1151 Is the projected.
1152 Ending.
1153 Which is.
1154 5% of our budget. And I guess for me and.
1155 For who might be, you know, stepping in behind.
1156 Behind me.
1157 As the new fire chief.
1158 Coming in, I just want.
1159 That person.
1160 To have.
1161 A full arsenal.
1162 Right. And to not be caught already on the defensive, on how to support our operations and ensure that we can maintain the services we provide to the community. So if there are further questions or line item concerns, we are more than happy to provide that information to you all so you can have a more informed decision, at least from the fire perspective. Thank you.
1163 Thank you chief. Thank you casey. Thank you. We have a couple of additional people in the queue. I'll note that our colleague, councilor Koyama Lane is going to try to jump back online with us, but had to had to leave the meeting. Councilor Zimmerman, did you have anything additional to add?
1164 Thank you. I just wanted to comment on the ideas that were put forward by councilor Canal in terms of exempting those that you listed. I appreciated that that helps me get much closer. The one area that I would actually say I'd rather, because it's a smaller amount and we are in this constant negotiation with the county on our Portland solutions stuff and our joint office stuff, I would say that extra 160 you noted for parks, maybe that could go back into the administration, the city administration, where I think that would probably benefit Portland solutions in a sheltering manner. But I there's a couple of beaches out here. I generally am comfortable with the ems aspect. The areas I wouldn't I wouldn't want a cut applied based on this action. If we miscalculated in this amendment, the 2%. So if we said we think there's 2% represents this number, and actually that bureau doesn't have that in ems, the way the budget document would signal that is that they'd have to make that cut in a similar way because they've got to balance. So I want to make sure that that's avoidable, that we aren't adding or sending a signal of make this cut. Regardless, I think it needs to make sure that we are signaling only make this cut in ems if that's happening. But I feel like there are some conversations and some work here, and I just appreciated councilor Kanal adjustment because saving the public safety pieces here, the apparatus that the chief just spoke about, I know the work it takes to get a fire truck serviced and that's important. These are investments. You do not want things to go down years without the right maintenance. It gets a lot more expensive. So I'm generally getting there and I think we can move a few things around, maybe to pass this at a different time.
1165 Councilor Morillo.
1166 Thank you. I'm getting a little frustrated by the fact that it seems like no one seems to comprehend what a budget is. A budget note is legally equivalent to a resolution, which means that it is giving direction to our agencies as the legislative body. With the power of the purse, we can give direction to our agencies about how they're going to spend these dollars. So when it says that they are required to check in with us every six weeks and give us updates, that does not mean that this is going to go, you know, randomly through bureaus without any oversight from us. We are quite literally the oversight body. So I feel like this is as clear as it can be. As far as engagement timeline, do people want it more than every six weeks? What is it going to take to make people happy? Because I I'm just failing to see how ems would involve cuts to fte. By definition, these are two separate and different parts of the budget that do not overlap. Am I misunderstanding something? Okay, Zimmerman, answer it then.
1167 Counselor Zimmerman, did you want to say something to that before we move to counselor.
1168 Can.
1169 I totally agree, I think there's one question that remains, which is if in this amendment, because it has specific dollar amount reductions that are cited, if we apply it in this amendment to a bureau and they don't actually have that in their, in their ems, that that that could have a different effect because they still have to balance it. I think it is such a minuscule percentage point, it's not really worth wrapping the axle, but it could cause pause because you're right, ems is not people, right? And given the fact that the way that we lump things together in this city's operations of budget is making this more difficult to counselor smith's point, I think if we can clarify 1 or 2 things there, your point is made.
1170 I just I need to jump in here. I'm trying to respect the stack, but the numbers that are enumerated there did come from the cbo and those were from ems budgets. Now, whether or not there's a preference to cut those budgets, that's a different question. But those are those are these those are ems categories in their budgets. I would be open to amendments or friendly approaches that could get us closer. But really Green. Ten the budget note is, is providing the vision for this. And we are, you know, to counselor smith's points. Ditto. And I think that that is you know, next time we got to have more resolution. So thanks for letting me jump in here.
1171 Thank you, counselor councilor Canal.
1172 Yeah, I've had a little time to think about it and hear feedback. I think regardless of whether or not this is the thing that makes it pass or not, this aligns with how I'm viewing the situation. So I will make the request for a friendly amendment to counselor Green that I floated earlier. I am very open to saying up to that last dollar amount for that last category. In case there's a rounding or a small amount, as opposed to the hard and fast number of 166,377. And if it's if it's the gap between living and dying on this to get what we need, I'm happy to put it elsewhere, but I'd ask if we could go 5050 on it for parks in the city. Administrator counselor Zimmerman, if that's a if that's okay with you.
1173 Yeah, I appreciate it. I we. Were under the gun right now from the county's perspective in terms of whether or not they're going to live up to the iga. And frankly, I would like to morrow to bring a note that is stern about our position on that. And I want to be careful that we don't add to the messiness in our own, because last week, hearing that they had a 40% reduction in their potentially a 40% reduction in their sheltering, I don't want to then further contribute to it, because I think that agreement right now is hanging on by like a thread of a thread. So that's my concern.
1174 I'm realizing that you just put $2.1 million into parks maintenance, so I'm happy to float it the way I said it earlier, but putting 166,377 into the city administrator's office instead of parks at the end there, and I'd ask if counselor Green would be comfortable considering that amendment friendly.
1175 I am comfortable with that.
1176 And I was the seconder.
1177 You were the seconder. So I assume that you are also okay with it. So, counselors, the proposal before us is now Green nine with a number of items taken out of the reductions, generally those related to public safety and a. Increase and increase bullet added, which would send the remainder of the dollars. Because this did raise more than it spent to or actually, I guess it would decrease the reduction. It would decrease the reduction to the city administrator's office general fund discretionary with the remainder of the dollars. Specifically, in order to keep Portland solutions as whole as possible. Is that a fair summary of what you're doing here, counselors? Okay. Counselor Avalos. Councilor Avalos did you remove yourself from the queue? Okay. Councilor Kanal are you back in the queue? Okay, counselor. Seeing no one else in the queue, I am assuming, counselor Green, that that's a legacy hand.
1178 Their legacy hand.
1179 So sorry. Fantastic.
1180 Can we repeat the amendment?
1181 Yeah. So, keelan, I'm going to have you call the roll. But before then, can you, haley, please tell us the changes to Green nine? We are not voting on an amendment to Green nine. We're voting on Green nine. This was a friendly amendment that was accepted to it. So it's Green nine different from what is on the page because we have removed some reductions and reduced a reduction. And haley, can you share with us what those changes are?
1182 We need the amounts shared back to us. Councilor Kanal can.
1183 You send it.
1184 To you?
1185 Yeah, yeah. Great. Okay.
1186 Or you can vocalize them here and I can record them.
1187 Sure. So in the first line this is page 20 of the document. It's the first of the points under Green nine. Reduce program bureau program expense in the city administrator's office general fund by. 323,930. So that's a reduction in the amount reduced. The third line would be struck that says bureau program expense reduce bureau program expense in the Portland police bureau general fund by 287 861. That would be struck so it would not be reduced. The fourth line would also be struck reduce bureau program expense in the Portland fire and rescue general fund by 183 100. If you go down to the. It's in the middle of the page. Reduce bureau program expense in the office of public safety general fund by 31,003 71. That would also be struck. It's the. Ten 10th, the last one on that page. Reduce bureau program expense in the Portland bureau of emergency management general fund by $13,044 would be struck the next one after that. First on the next page, reduce bureau program expense in the office of community based police accountability general fund by $5,000 would also be struck. So that is six lines that are sorry, five lines that are struck. And the very first one, the dollar amount changed from. 493,007 to 323 930.
1188 Councilors. Did everybody catch that? Okay. Keelan, could you please call the roll on the amended version of Green nine. Canal.
1189 Thank you to councilor Green for your consistent effort in trying to figure out how to make these things happen and save represented city public workers. I vote I.
1190 Ryan.
1191 As politically seductive as this one is, I still have to remain on my principles. I vote no.
1192 Koyama Lane let me see if she's joined.
1193 Can you guys hear me?
1194 Yeah, we can hear you.
1195 You can.
1196 I very much appreciate the discussion and the effort. I literally just said right before this as much as possible, I think it's important that we try to stay at the governance level. There are problems that we need to address. I want to address them. I'm not convinced that this is the right approach at this time. I vote no.
1197 Morillo I.
1198 Novick the day I start governing by anecdote and assuming there must be a bunch of waste in government. So I'm going to vote to make random cuts and hope somebody else will find the waste. Is the day I joined the republican party. Hell no.
1199 Clark.
1200 Well. I think I'm being seduced. I, I want to say hub staffing very, very badly. I want the Portland center stage. I want all the things that are in councilor Dunphy's amendment. Perhaps against my better judgment, I'm voting yes.
1201 Green.
1202 Yes.
1203 Zimmerman.
1204 I am. I am always glad that councilor Green is on the finance committee with me. I appreciate the way you look at this. I think it's why we get along and a lot of stuff. Budgets are fast. You got to keep up or you will get lost in the dust, I vote yes.
1205 Envelopes.
1206 Me.
1207 I don't believe the rules allow that. I apologize, councilor. You can always change your vote at the end if you need to.
1208 I'm sorry.
1209 I.
1210 I'm gonna vote no right now, and then I might change it.
1211 Then I.
1212 Smith. I pirtle-guiney.
1213 I heard things from our dcas that don't line up with the numbers on the page. I think there likely is room for cuts like this, but I can't do it in this hatchet of a of an attempt. No.
1214 Classics.
1215 Seven five, I believe.
1216 Sorry.
1217 I'm looking for the official count from our clerk, though.
1218 Yeah, my vote tally tracker just crashed. I believe it was seven. Yes to five. No, but I'll verify.
1219 That's what I wrote down as well. Colleagues, we were scheduled to stop at 6:00 tonight because we also have time tomorrow. So I am going to pause us here. We did two things in two hours. We have a lot to do. Tomorrow. I am going to encourage us all to say what we need to say, to try to convince our colleagues to change their minds, to reach better policy, and to explain our votes before we vote, but to try to not say more than that tomorrow so we can get through this all. We will reconvene at 930 tomorrow morning, and we are scheduled between 930 and 6 tomorrow. And that is the time we have for our budget work. Haley, do you have something? Before I recess our meeting, one request.
1220 Would be for councilors whose amendments were encompassed.
1221 In Green.
1222 Nine to send me a quick message that formally withdraws your amendment if it was encompassed and you're happy with that. So we can officially remove those from the to do list for tomorrow. Thank you.
1223 And with that, I will recess our meeting to tomorrow at 930.