The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-06-11
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (93,905 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
On June 11, 2025, the Portland City Council reconvened its budget session, opening with roll call, public communications (including testimony on policing accountability, a sister city agreement with Ashkelon, and a transit rider survey by Portland DSA), and a reading of council decorum rules. The council then worked through amendments and budget notes across policy areas including parks, public safety, community engagement, and housing/homelessness. Topics addressed included budget notes on external materials and services reductions, funding for Leach Botanical Garden, park ranger dispatch services and their relationship to 311 and emergency management, golf fee restructuring, technical FTE adjustments following prior votes, police overtime oversight and recruitment funding, a proposed public safety recruiting and capacity-building set-aside, opioid settlement fund allocations between a sobering center and Fora Health treatment beds, civic life office restructuring and staffing, rental assistance versus encampment removal funding, a technical increase to the insurance and claims fund for a legal settlement, and budget notes concerning ICE-related legal analysis, East Portland service equity, health benefit cost planning, an anti-displacement task force, tennis program partnerships, county funding contingencies tied to the homeless services agreement, welfare-check response reassignment, and studies of vacancy fees and package delivery fees. Numerous votes occurred throughout the session on these amendments and notes; outcomes of these votes are recorded in the vote ledger. Figures cited for certain items, including opioid settlement revenues and related funding amounts, were stated inconsistently by different speakers during discussion.
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 0–0
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
0 Thank you. [music] hey. Hello. [music] heat. Heat. [music] hello. Okay. [music] morning. It is 9:33 a.m. On June 11th. It is Wednesday and we are reconvening our council meeting to discuss the budget. Colleagues, when we left yesterday, we were talking about amendments within the parks policy area and giving folks an opportunity to bring forward a top priority. Uh we heard from councilors Zimmerman and Green and we'll pick back up there. But before we start, I just want to remind us all that we have about nine hours today. We are scheduled to end this afternoon at I believe 6 o'lock, maybe 6:30. I should look it up. Um 6:00, so a little less than that actually. And there is a lot that folks still want to do. So I would just encourage us all to say what we need to say to get our points across and then stop. We don't have um rules that suggest that we respond to everything. Some comments can be left alone. We don't need to speak to every vote if we've already spoken about why we're going to vote a certain way first. And we don't need to obliate. Um councelor Green, I see you first in the queue, but you have already brought forward an amendment. Are you oh, I'm sorry. Keyn, do you need to call the role? We do. And actually, we um have public communications this morning as our first item. Um before we jump into the I am so sorry. Okay. Well, let's do that. Instead of just picking up where we left off, let's call the role and then do general communications. But we don't have public testimony today, right? No public testimony, just public communications. And then um city attorney will also uh read the rules. Um, canel here. Ryan here. Coal Lane here. Mario here. Novik here. Clark here. Here. Zimmerman here. Duny here. Smith here. Here. And mr. Taylor, could you please read us our rules of decorum? Welcome everyone to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/counsel/aggenda. 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. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should please address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, please identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should please unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you. Thank you. And keelin, could you please call up our first folks for public communication? First up, we have addie Smith. I'm going to need a few minutes to set my laptop up just to record. [music] thanks for being here with us today. Thank you for having me. I signed up in April, so this is a lot's happened since then. I know there's often a backlog to to get these slots. Yeah, that needs to change and we the voters can change it. Good morning. My name is addie Smith. Today is June 11th. I am speaking before the Portland city council. Democrat-led states like Oregon, Washington state, california. Democrats have controlled the state legislatures since 2012, 1992, and the 1970s, respectively. Yet, police still create fake police reports and create fake charges. They still lie in police reports, so on and so forth. Das and attorneys still create fake charges, commit perjury with impunity, lie to judges and juries, and judges still hand down rulings on these fake charges and years long sentences on these fake charges. Democrats have controlled these respective state legislatores and have created no laws to hold judges, das, or attorneys accountable when they commit perjury, violate the laws and rights of the constituents, specifically those who are predominantly black and brown. These states have bar associations that do not hold attorneys accountable for committing perjury, creating fake charges, and prosecuting innocent people. These states have commissions on judicial conduct that are funded by us taxpayers to the state legislatores that do not hold these judges accountable when they commit perjury. Tina cotch and the Oregon legislature are silent about violations of the laws and rights of young black men that have been harmed by oregon's justice system. Nearly 90 million people stayed home in last year's presidential election. That's 36.33% of the population of the voters. That's more than the percentage who voted for trump or harris. The people pleaded with harris to change her stance on Israel and continuing to send them weapons and money to commit the ethnic cleansing of its rightful brown people of Palestine. This same month last year, biden deported over 12,000 people. We don't know who we don't know what those people's statuses were, whether they were legal, illegal immigrants or us citizens because the media didn't blast it all over the news. There were no protests. No social media was commenting about it. And gavin newsome is saying that law enforcement is only doing their jobs, quote unquote. Meanwhile, law enforcement in california has racially profiled, assaulted, and arrested black people with impunity. Newsome is posting every seven minutes on his twitter page about trump when he is no different than trump. His ex-wife is in a relationship with Eric trump. They didn't divorce because of political beliefs. They divorced because he cheated. Gavin newsome is doing everything he can to keep the lid on his real political beliefs until he can get in the white house. And hell will freeze over and I'll skate on the ice before I ever help get him there. In Oregon, black people make up 1.7% of the population, but we make up over 9% of oregon's jail population. Democrats aren't the lesser evil. Democrats scoff and speak out against scotus, but are dead silent when municipal circuit, court of appeals, and their own state right here in Oregon violate the laws of rights of black people. That's another reason why trump or his surrogate is going to be in office in 2028 because you guys are silent on what's happening to black people right here. The fire is inside the house. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. We appreciate hearing your concerns. Next up, we have cammy price. [applause] [music] cammy price, is it on me? It's my turn. Go right ahead. How y'all doing? Um, I just want to start by saying that the continued narrative that you guys, a lot of you are creating that pits community against police and this nonsense. And furthermore, most of y'all have never had the lived experience to actually talk about what happens between police officers and especially the black community. And for where I'm standing, outside of Loretta Smith, the rest of y'all just be talking. You actually don't know what you're talking about. Angelita, Candace, um, y'all know who y'all are. You guys really don't know what y'all talking about. You've continued to double down on narratives that actually don't bring police and community closer. It doesn't make black men in our community more safer from police officer. You guys have done nothing to actually make young black men safer. You talk about the same things that the city councils before y'all talked about. Police budgets, policing, and it actually does not make communities safer. It's a bit ridiculous that many of y'all have built political careers on the black on the back of dead black men, yet y'all silence the voices of black men that actually know what they talking about in the black and brown communities. It is a bit ridiculous that we're talking about police budgets as if black people are owning more businesses. As if black men are dying less by by numbers in this city. And as if any of those things, taking $2 million from the police for parts does not make communities safer. I don't have an issue with the $2 million. That's between y'all and the police. I sincerely don't care. It is y'all responsibility to do what y'all want with money. I really don't care. What I care about is the narrative of black folks have continued to be leveraged when no results have thus far came out of this city council to make young black men, brown men, and immigrants and refugee community safer. Loretta did a town hall. Young people stood up and said that they hear gunshots and are scared and police don't respond. I've seen no real answer out of this council about how to get police officers there faster and how to make sure when they show up that they are engaging community safely. It is not a lot to ask to create policy and do the things necessary to make police make sure officers are not bringing harm when they come. It is also not a lot to ask to make sure we are properly staffed. You guys's job is to not bring your narratives and your politics to the table. What is your job now to represent community? Y'all continue to do that. You've brought your activist dispositions when you need to represent this community holistically. It is a bit ridiculous. Jamie, I expect it from you to stand. You have lived experience in these spaces and you've continued to seem to get get bullied by your activist um counterparts. It is a bit ridiculous that you guys are afraid. Don't let your whiteness be a reason that you can't stand up and do what's right. Olivia, stand up. Be proud that you're willing to say something the rest of them is not saying. Our community is tired of being leveraged. There's no investment. There's no double down and make sure black and brown people are better off when this is over. And y'all voices cannot continue to dominate ours in this conversation. Thank you. [applause] I'm going to ask here. Thank you. Please keep your support or disappointment to silent means. Next up, we have noah pelican joining online. Hello. Um, good morning, Portland city council. Come today to testify regarding the Portland ashkalan sister city agreement. My name is noah pelican khan. I'm a lifelong portlander. I've been involved before as a precinct committee person for the multma county democrats, as a shop steward for ufcw555, but I'm here today to testify on my own behalf. The city of Portland holds a sister city agreement with the city of ashkalan, Israel. Ashkalan was allocated to Palestine in the 1947 united nations partition plan for Palestine, but conquered by Israel in 1948. It has since been almost entirely ethnically cleansed through a series of mass deportations. Given the ongoing case at the international court of justice regarding a genocide in Palestine, the arrest warrants issued by the international criminal court for prime minister benjamin netanyahu and defense minister yov galant alleging responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts during the kaza war and the decisions of the united nations special committee on Israeli practices and amnesty international which claim an ongoing genocide in kaza claims reinforced by the likes of united nations special reparator in the occupied Palestinian territories, franchesca albanese and human rights watch. I would request as a citizen of Portland that the Portland city council critically review our sister city agreement with the city of ashkalan. I find it imperative that the content and extent of this agreement is made publicly available. I believe that we should have the knowledge, specifically if this includes financial ties or holds any relation even tangential to war crimes or violations of international law as perpetrated by the Israeli state. Finally, I would request that given what we know of the ongoing actions of the Israeli state and military in huzzah, as well as in the occupied Palestinian territories and the west bank, a critical discussion is facilitated by the city council with public input as to whether we wish to continue this sister city partnership. I sincerely hope that this request is taken to heart and acted upon as all of us, especially those in positions of power such as yourselves, hold a moral imperative to act in times of grave injustice, which is what I believe we are witnessing at the moment. So, thank you for your time and for hearing my testimony and I wish you all the best with the forthcoming budget discussion. Thank you, noah, for being here today. Our last person is jordan lewis. Hello, Portland city council. I'm uh jordan lewis with Portland dsa. I sorry. Um, this spring, Portland dsa, uh, democratic socialist America boarded TriMet and Portland street car to survey transit riders on their experiences and priorities for improvement. I scheduled this communication spot months ago before the state transportation package was revealed with a solid 2.2% increase to the state stiff tax for transit. However, we want to still want to showcase our effort because we are proud of it and we think it adds some much needed context uh on the needs of our transit system at this moment. 340 riders from 65 counties answered our survey and these were totally random strangers uh samplings of people who happened to be riding transit during rush hour or on weekends. Our zip code analysis confirmed that the riders were geographically well distributed intended to ride more regularly than those in trat's own attitude and awareness survey as 11% of our respondents rode less than once per week while 40% of a&a respondents rode once per month or less. This implies that our results better reflected workers and those dependent on tryt than the ana survey which overrepresented former office commuters who remained on trimet's internal mailing list after the pandemic. 66% of ana respondents had a bachelor's degree or higher. The results of our survey did not entirely contradict theirs. However, the number one concern with transit was still writer behavior, though by a much lower margin than a&a reported. The next highest concerns were service frequency and shelter quality at a similar rate to poor passenger behavior. I want to highlight how though most riders complain about safety, those same riders would prefer increased frequencies over increased outreach worker presence. As city council, you do not control the rates at which buses run, but you but peabot has some control over bus shelter quality and the streets on which transit runs. I hope that you read the entire survey report in detail, but I'd suggest that rather than bashing transit for political points, counselors trade out the law and order mentality for better shelter maintenance and busway improvements. I personally have seen peabot remove entire shelters at west Burnside and st. Clare and seen benches removed from shelters around the city like at belmont and southeast 30th. You may not like transit, but someone in your community relies on it and they deserve dignified frequent service with functional shelters. I want to close with quotes from some writers we surveyed. Most buses downtown have incredibly difficult disabled access. Try security and police intimidate and harass people and delay trips making riders feel unsafe. Security should be naron. Security should be public safety such as naron, not policing fairs. On the 39, there is a stop with a lot of trash and brush around it. There's a fallen tree across the sidewalk that makes it impossible for wheelchairs and other mobility devices to get to the stop. And for those who can walk around it, you have to get very close to cars that are coming from behind you. It's been there for several weeks. Cars speeding on north Vancouver avenue make it difficult to cross the street and many near miss accidents. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that with us. That completes communications. Okay, counselors. We're now going to pick up where we left off yesterday. We are in the parks policy area. We'll then move to public safety and then community engagement, housing and homelessness, and then there were a few things in an other category. We'll then move to budget notes and then open it up for other priorities that have either been brought since we talked about a policy area or that you did not get to raise the initial time through. Councelor Green, you brought something yesterday on parks. Are you in the queue for some other point? Uh, madame president, um, there was an accompanying budget note, Green 10, that was paired with Green nine that we took up last night. I would just like to hear that, uh, because it provides the guidance for the targeted ems cuts if you think that's appropriate at this time. Given that we took things as packages previously, um, yeah, let's go ahead and start there then, councelor Green. I'll second it. Oh, thank you. Um colleagues, I apologize for having my foot up. I have an injury. Um it's not out of disrespect. Um uh I'm introducing a budget note to direct oversight of external materials and services reduction. It the budget note reads to guide the implementation of the 2% reduction to external materials and services. Council directs the city administrator to prioritize eliminating expenditures that reflect contract bloat, excessive consulting, and over reliance on external vendors for functions that could be fulfilled by city staff. Reductions should target highc cost, low justification projects, for example, luxury materials transport or redundant advisory services. Cut should not come at the expense of union represented uh represented positions or collectively bargain contracts. Further, council directs that the 2% ems cut to quote other revenue in Portland parks and recreation, an estimated savings of $377,000, shall be allocated to increase parks and recreation program expenses by the same amount to restore funding for community centers, aquatics, the Portland tennis center, evening hours, and alternative community service. That's what was in Green nine. Uh to ensure transparency and alignment with council values, the city administrator shall provide written updates every six weeks to the end of fy2526. Each update must identify affected contracts, quantify projected savings, assess impacts on service delivery and internal staffing capacity, and describe efforts to safeguard union work. The city administrator may apply flexibility in meeting the 2% reduction target and is not required to implement cuts evenly by bureau or line item. Concentrated reductions such as cancelling or scaling back large external contracts are permitted where they are most effectively where they most effectively advance fiscal responsibility, minimize service disruption, and advance the spirit of this note. The oversight framework ensures that cuts reinforce long-term fiscal responsibility while preserving workforce integrity and public service continuity, update attachment to a&h as needed to reflect this change. So that's the language of the note, colleagues. Thank you, counselor. Is there a second? Councelor canal is seconding. Uh, councelor Green, are you or I'm sorry, councelor duny, are you in the queue for discussion of this amendment? Councelor canal, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor novik, are you in the queue for discussion? No. Okay. Colleagues, seeing no one in the queue for discussion. Keelin, could you please call the role? No. Yes. Ryan, no. Coyamelain. Yes. Mario. Hi. Novik. No. Clark. Hi. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. Hi. Amalos. Hi. Duny. I Smith. Hi. Hardle. Guinea. I. The amendment is approved with 10 yes votes and two no votes. Thank you. Cox. Councelor duny. Are you in the queue to put forward an amendment in the parks area? Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Thank you. Colleagues, I'd like to draw your attention to duny 5. This is a revised version that was pre-filed uh pertaining to leech botanical garden. Before I start, I just want to again disclose. My wife works at leech botanical garden. I'd be introducing this regardless. It's our only botanical garden, our garden partner in east Portland. Um my previous amendment had uh attempted to uh it was based off some bad information. They recently had a changeover of executive directors um and they were expect that the information was passed to the new executive director that there was uh another year of funding that is not accurate. However, they have asked for some uh assistance in this coming year to transition to full financial independence with the new executive director in place. Um, my amendment uh directs $100,000 out of the parks levy contingency fund uh to each botanical garden for one year to in order to uh help with the final transition to financial independence. This will also help prevent any cuts to programming or uh staffs and I'd ask for a second. So colleagues, is there okay I believe councelor mario seconded that. Councelor canal, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor novik, are you in the queue for discussion? Oh, I need to add also, I'm sorry. There is $1.4 million in the parks levy contingency fund. This would direct roughly 7% of that towards parks. Councelor Smith, are you in the queue for discussion? Yes. Currently, do we currently give money to botanical gardens? Are we just expanding? Uh, most of our garden partners receive different let me start over. Yes, there are different agreements in place. The parks bureau has been moving towards um a licensing agreement rather than a management agreement with a lot of our uh community partners and they are moving towards some consistency and this is uh to help with that new contract regime. Okay. Thank you colleagues. Is there any other discussion on this amendment? Yeah. Councelor Ryan. Thank you madame president. Yes. Uh, councelor dumpy, I just want to have a little more context. So, um, they do have an executive director, you said. Yeah, they have a new executive director who started in February. The previous one left in January, and there was some miscommunication in the budget writing between there. Uh, the previous outgoing executive director had uh put into the budget that he submitted to parks that they were anticipating $360,000 coming in a fourth year of the con the contract, which actually is expired. And so the new executive director found a budget that had a $360,000 line item in it that was in fact incorrect and is not coming. This is uh not to keep them as whole as their budget previously anticipated, but is to help with uh smooth out the transition there. Is there anyone from parks here that could answer the question on why that happened and then if the what are the consequences of this 100k going in? Um yeah, clauddio is here. Great. If you could introduce. I think that's an opportunity to educate us all on the memorandum of understandings between parks and the friends groups. Yeah, clauddio campasano, finance property technology manager for vibrant community support services. Uh, commissioner Councelor duny has it has it exactly right. Um, we we have a three-year agreement with the leech botanical garden. Uh that included a grant that was being made to them uh over the course of three years specifically to help uh bridge them uh as they achieve as they achieved financial independence. Uh that uh that goal was established because uh the $12 million uh upgrade to the facility that was performed by parks that allowed for uh a pretty substantial improvement to the the wedding venue, etc. And and that they they keep the the revenues for as well as uh as well as several years ago we allowed them to start charging admission. Prior it was free. Uh and so that was sort of the the the deal was to uh allow them to charge admission and and and keep the revenues at the site uh and in exchange for not receiving any further subsidy from from the city. So uh we and we've been moving to that license agreement. Uh and that's similar to what we've been doing with all of our uh all of our partners. Uh is management agreements are really not the most appropriate way. Uh they need to be they need to be um uh solicited and and gone through procurement process and in a lot of in these instances we're we're not really paying them for service. We're we're allowing them to uh it's a partnership allowing them to maintain the site, run it for public purpose, uh but also for for some private purposes. So, thank you. And I actually was trying to figure out why the 300 and some thousand was not put forth this year. I'm sorry. I I think that that the that uh councelor duny had that right as well. It was a transition. Uh it was a transition on the executive side of the garden. Uh as the pre the outgoing uh executive director maybe didn't uh didn't transfer that knowledge around the ending of the agreement. And so uh the agreement ends at the end of this fiscal year. And I think that they were anticipating that that that subsidy would continue. And so this is like a bridge, a transition. Yeah. Slope. And this is fine with parks. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Claudio, before you leave, I'm sorry. Um could you give us a sense of what the parks levy contingency is generally used for? What are the other types of uses? I understand that this is 7% which isn't a large portion but it isn't nothing either and I' I'd just like to understand what we are putting at risk if we do this. Yeah that's that's a good question. Um so as with most most funds in the city that what you know and you probably have heard this from other folks contingency is effectively ending balance. Uh so it is it is what we were what we have at the end of the year. Uh we do have it as contingency so that we can budget in the event of of uh necessary expenditures. But uh but really uh and and in the case of the parks levy because this is the end of the fifth year uh that really is uh what we anticipate to be what remains of total levy dollars collected over the 5-year period. Uh and so we would be sort of landing that uh landing relatively close, you know, over the course of the five years. Uh it's over $250 million. So that that $1 million is what's left at the end. Thank you counselors. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing no other discussion. Thank you both. Keyn, could you please call the role? I think it's I think it's really important that we demonstrate uh not only that we're willing to invest generally in the things that are important, but specifically in district one. And I I'm grateful to councelor duffy for bringing this forward. I vote I mario. This is such a special resource for our city. I'm very grateful to councelor duny for fighting for his district. I vote I. Novik. No. Clark. No. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. Um, thanks. I appreciate this and I'm sure it will pass and I'm I'm grateful for that. But um been in government a long time and I I think we're bumping up against an interesting ethical dilemma here. Usually we would declare uh an a potential conflict of interest or we would not vote on it when our family is involved. So I wish this had come a different route. I I don't know that I don't want to contribute to this uh because I think we're touching up on something. Um, so I'm going to vote no and uh and I'm sorry for that. No. I duny I Smith I understand what you're talking about councelor Zimmerman. Uh, we didn't get any direction from the city attorney's office that it would be a problem and and I'm not I know we're not in discussion right now, but I didn't hear I I think that he would have jumped in if there was a problem. Uh, so I'm going to vote yes. Hurdle guinea, I. The amendment is approved with nine yes votes and three no votes. Councelor canal, are you in the queue for an amendment in the parks area? Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Colleagues, uh I sent in this email uh just a little while ago with a revised version. I was waiting for a revised scoring. Um, a portion of my previously pre-filed amendments, canel 15 and canel 4, were included in the, uh, Green 10, I want to say nine, the one that passed yesterday, the the last, uh, one. And so, uh, I have taken the portion of canal 4 that's relevant to parks, put it in to replace the part of canel 15 that is done, and repropose it as canal 15. And I'll revise it. I'm going to read it out loud uh, here. It's in your email. So this is canel 15 as revised. Allocate previously banked funding currently in contingency from revenue increases or expense reductions on may 21st to the to restore funding for two service dispatchers under parks and to transfer that those positions to the 311 program restoring 2.0 fte and the Portland bureau of emergency management increasing fte by 4.0. It has uh four sorry six specific items under it. Reduce contingency funding by 999,000. Increase bureau program expenses in the general fund discretionary ongoing revenue in the city operations 311 program by $252,000. And increase the city operations 311 program by 2 fte. Increase bureau program expense by 747,000 at the Portland view of emergency management general fund. And increase position authority at pbm by 4 fte. And of course update attachments a through h to reflect these changes. I'm proposing it here because it relates to park ranger service dispatchers uh and the core function of that role is in support of the parks. Okay, go right ahead. So, um, yesterday there there are three park ranger service dispatchers in parks. All three of them were slated in the mayor's proposed budget to be laid off. Historically, uh, and the rationale for that is that this work should be done by 311. I find that rationale very compelling, that 311 should actually be the place that dispatches it. Um, we brought up um, uh, the director, the manager of 311 and asked in the previous times where different types of dispatch have been moved to 311, have you ever received the work but not the staff? And specifically, peabot uh, came uh up in this regard last time and um, she said no. In fact, we have multiple examples of types of dispatch being moved over with the staff. Um, that wouldn't have happened this time. Uh we've restored one of the three dispatchers, but we've not restored the other two. Having a park ranger program is incredibly important. Um we will need to do more investment into park rangers in general, but having an infinite number of park rangers is not helpful if the dispatcher cannot get them to the park at the request of people who have a need. Um these are also represented positions, I should note. Um, separately we have the Portland bureau of emergency management, which has issued a uh I want to say $3.5 million uh request for specific needs to resolve some critical deficiencies in our emergency management structure. This would begin the process of making that uh a portion of that ask um possible. And it uses money that we have already banked in contingency. Um, which was the money we ended up on the day in the approved budget and then put into contingency so that our budget would be balanced and we could approve it and send it off to the tsc. So, this is money that would ultimately need to come and be used somewhere or just be a million dollars added to contingency if we didn't do anything with it. Um, and I think I I have uh one of the I have a few people here who can speak to any particular questions on both of the two sides of it. The deputy director of pem is present as well as uh one of the three park service dispatchers. I want to note the particular person who's here is not one of the people whose jobs would be affected. We already saved this person's job. So, this is a person who can speak neutrally about the impact to the program and we can all be confident that it's not because it's about their personal position being restored or not. Um, so I just wanted to note that for the record. Thank you, councelor. Councelor novik, are you in the queue to speak to this amendment? Yes. Right. Um, I'm concerned about whether the numbers add up um because to seek um director lavine's response to this. It's my understanding that I want to I want at least 625,000 for pbm for three positions, two planners, and one training response person. But it's my understanding that even for shifting money to pbm, which is a quote overhead bureau, 43% of the money we give them has to be discretionary. And I thought that what we had left over on may 21st, only 309,000 was discretionary. So you can't squeeze your parks dispatchers plus 250 some thousand for pbam out of that money. So I don't think so I just want to check with director lavine to see if this works. Um yeah, sorry. I was just trying to work on it right now. Um I I'm I think you're correct, councelor novik. We'd have to I but we need to um just take a minute to do the math on on the balancing. Um director lavine, I'm the reason I put this up this way and got owen to respond on it for the record. The uh the budget work session we had last week, we asked about this exact question, whether or not we'd be able to allocate the contingency to something. And the response that you gave was that we would be able to if it was towards overhead, but that if it was going to a nonoverhead need that that would be where the problem might arise and my understanding is the 747 is an overhead usage. So I I just want to note where I got these numbers from and 747 and 252 does add up to the aggregate of 999 that's in contingency. Sorry. Yeah. Um, I think hang on. I um, can I just check with can we just chat offline? Could we maybe come back to it in a couple minutes? That's okay. Councelor, are you okay to chat offline and we'll move on to the next amendment in the meantime? As long as it's not a using the same funding for something else, I'm happy to wait. I think I may be the only person proposing using the funding for something else and that is not until public safety. So, this is also that could have gone in either category as you can see, but yeah, I'm happy to wait until a couple other amendments have gone by. Okay. Point of order. Counselor, can the money that's the million dollars that's set aside is that discretionary ongoing general fund? I don't know what that is. Councelor, there was a we reduced more than we spent because of an amendment that I brought forward that was ongoing funds and it was a mix of general fund and overhead funds and I would look to director lavine to tell us what the split in those funds was uh 309,000 roughly of general fund discretionary and 689,000 of general fund overhead and the um so it's just a matter of one time only that when you say over here no ongoing going with all the million the entire million is ongoing correct yes okay that's what I need to find out okay counselor we will get back to you in the queue councilors I'm giving folks a minute to get out of the queue if they were only in on this councelor novik are you in the queue on an additional parks amendment yes. Um, right ahead. Thank you. I'm in the queue for novik Green 17, um, which would eliminate the golf fee sir charge of $5 and replace the projected revenue with a one-time transfer of 1.25 million from the golf fund. U novik Green budget note 18 sort of elaborates on that. The basic issue is that we talked to the golf program and they said we had said um approved a $5 per round increase and the golf program said first of all they weren't sure whether a round meant nine holes or 18 holes but more importantly they have separate fees for youth for seniors. They charge different amounts to different courses and simply adding $5 per round for everybody would have upset what they try to make a more equitable fee structure. So what they said was they'd feel much better off if we just told them to give the give us $1.25 million and they will figure out how to equitably adjust their fees to account for that. And novac Green, I realize we're not supposed to get to budget notes until later, but novik Green 18 is the budget note which sort of elaborates on that and explains that we're asking them to develop and implement a new equitable pricing structure to generate the amount. Second, I I hear a motion and a second and counselor, we have had people bring things as packages if they go together. So, if you'd like to have us discuss 17 and 18 together, I'm happy to have us do that. Thank you. Okay. Uh councilors, we have a motion and a second on the table. Keelin, that second was from councelor Green. Is there any discussion? Councelor Zimmerman, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor Green, are you in the queue for discussion? Thank you, madam president. And I just wanted to motivate why I decided to join this amendment. My intention was to provide one-time resources so we could stop the bleeding in our parks. Um I I was compelled by the argument that you do need um a reasonable pricing structure and it was a bit of a blunt force and that we're still holding harmless the resources that we created earlier. And I'll note that I am paying a karmic price right now because I have injured my knee playing golf and I feel like that is because I tried to raise golf fees in a blunt way. So um I'm supporting this counselors. I put myself in the queue. We have been moving quickly and I understand that we haven't had a lot of time to do the background work as we don't have people with long institutional knowledge. But I would just encourage us as we go through the dayto-day to be very careful with our decision-m because this is the type of thing that we should have caught through work with the bureau before it was brought forward. I supported the original. I will support this fix as long as a question I have about the funding we've spent being whole is answered in the way that I need. I suspect we passed an amendment yesterday that is going to need similar fixing in the future and after today we will not have time to do that in this budget. So I just want to take this opportunity to encourage us to be deliberate and know that there are some things we might not be able to do quite yet. Um I know that we have lost director lavine to trying to figure out the amendment that councelor canal brought forward. Is dca in the room? Yes, you are. Jonas, I just want to make sure that novik Green 17 keeps um keeps us balanced. We appropriated the first year of money that was raised from that $5 sir charge. Would the one-time transfer of 1.25 25 million fully cover what we appropriated or are we leaving um loose ends in our budget that we will need to fix if we pass novak Green 17 and 18? Yeah, good question. Um, I would interpret this as leaving a slight gap because those amounts are not the same. And and I um uh as you what was the amount that we appropriated from the golf fund? Um I I take that back. I believe it was 1 1.25 was the uh $5 um impact of the additional uh charge. So this would be consistent with that amount. So this would not leave any loose ends. We would have the same amount of money coming out to the same purposes and we would just be asking the golf program to find a new more equitable way to raise the dollars rather than $5 a beanding. No loose ends. Correct. Okay. Thank you for confirming that. Councelor Smith, are you in the queue to discuss these amendments or this amendment and budget note? Yes. Um, as we learned earlier in the process, there was $4 million in the golf fund and it is my understanding when we were in co that people were doing a lot of golf and so we created this this contingency and I don't think that it is fair to continue to raid the golf fund just because it had $4 million in it and people didn't know other places to get funding from. And in that particular fund, it um it allows um it allows parks to have programs for for kids who want to learn how to play golf. And if there is I mean we have so many needs in terms of parks and to take their contingency for something that does not it doesn't mix. I mean I'd rather spend that money to um to upgrade a um a a golf course or something like that. It we're not going to have any of those funds if we if we take all of their 4 million out. And this is actually a this is not a one-time need. This is an ongoing need. And I think we need to take ongoing money from ongoing money, not just using a a one-time fix because we're going to have to figure out how do we pay for it next year. Thank you, councelor. Councelor novik. Yes, councelor spence. I just wanted to note that we already voted to take money from the golf fund by adding a $5 search charge. The point of this amendment is actually to try to protect programs like the youth program by allowing the um that golf program to figure that out. Thank you. Because I I have another amendment coming up that is going to affect that golf uh money that we actually pull for the elections department. It's a onetime fee. I think we need to have the money that we have in contingency actually replace that so that we're not here every year asking for those funds. I think that was marillo um the elections. What was it? Marillo 10. Councelor, can you help us with which number amendment that was of yours? I yep. Six. Great. Okay. Mo6. Yeah. I think we took a million out to to pay for the um the elections and that's one time only. And that fund actually needs to be paid with one time only money. And I think we talked about and I said last week that I would be bringing something forward to uh replace that million. I don't know exactly. Was it a million and two? It's been a long time. Let me pull it up. I know. I sorry. Nothing feels real anymore. If it happened last week, I councelor I believe it was 825,525, right? And so I wanted to take it out of a fund that had ongoing money so that you wouldn't have to keep bringing this amendment forward every year. And that's I mean it is it is already a uh it's in code and so we need to fund it like it is in code and I don't know how you feel about that but that's where I I was going to put another amendment in to put that 800,000 back into the golf and um replace it with uh contingency fund money. Councelor Smith point of information which amendment is it your of yours? What number is it? It oh it is not there. I I was telling them that I'm bringing one forward. But I talked about it last week that I was going to bring it forward, but I just wanted them to know that this is it it probably should come out of a one time it should come out of ongoing money. And I know that my uh colleague here is uh he's he's trying to use it for parks as well, but I just think that we need to figure out how to do that. Can you clarify what the source is for your change? The ongoing dollars, the contingency, the million dollars that we have in contingency ongoing counselors. I think this is important for us to note because that would affect the 1.25 here. Um, I would suggest that we move forward with our discussion and vote on these two amendments, but know that we may need to make some changes if we move forward with councelor smith's amendment later in the day. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Councelor novik. I don't have nothing further to say other than we've already moved the amendment. It's been seconded, right? We have. And councelor Zimmerman, just reconfirming you're not in the queue for this. Okay. Councilors, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, uh, councelor Ryan is getting in the queue. Go right ahead, councelor Ryan. Um, I was listening to both of you and uh I got more confused as I listened. And so we're voting on what right now and is this a restoration of funding? We are voting on novvic Green 17 which would be followed by novvic Green 18 which is a budget note that goes into more details. Novvic Green 17 would undo the $5 sir charge to the golf fee that we passed on the 21st. It would retain the 1.2 25 million transfer out of the golf fund, which went in part to parks programming and in part through the mario amendment to uh the elections office. Um I'm short-handing names of offices here. And it would then direct the golf program to figure out a more equitable pricing strategy to raise the funds to cover that $1.25 25 million gap from the transfer rather than having a $5 across the board fee. Novat Green 10 goes into some detail about how the golf program might more equitably distribute price increases to fill that gap. So this does not change the money that has been appropriated, but it changes the method of raising the funds to fill the gap that is created when we appropriate those dollars that were sent through two amendments on the 21st out of the golf fund. Does that help? Uh for those of us who voted no on the originals, it just it's it's you're trying to grasp your head around this if it's actually a solution to the problem that I experienced last week. Councelor, this is at the request of the golf program. They said, "rather than tell us you have to raise a $ five dollar fee on every round, could you please let us figure out how to raise it um by a more equitable structure where we'll continue to preserve lower prices for for seniors um youth, etc. All right. Um I think I'm done. I just think for those of us that were already against the original, you're trying to figure out this is good or not and I'm taking it in on the dis because I just found out. Thanks. Thank you, counselor. Counselor, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, keelin, could you please call the role on novvic Green 17, which is the undoing of the $5 sir charge, but the retention of the $1.25 million in transfers. Canel. 17. Yeah. Uh I better than it used to be, but no. Oyama Lane. Thank you, counselors novik and uh Green. I appreciate the work that you've put in and that you've been collaborative with this. I vote I mario. I novik. Thanks to my chief of staff, spencer manolles, who reached out to the golf program on this issue. I Clark I believe I voted no on the original, but I think this is damage control and it's a lesson to all of us about the fast um votes that we take up here and um I'm voting yes on damage control. Green I Zimmerman. I did not appreciate the search charge. I didn't appreciate rating the golf fund for uses not related to golf. I think this is another version of that. While I do appreciate that you're taking a more deliberate look, I still don't support rating the golf fund. I think they are self-sustained funds. So, no. Amalos. Oops. I Smith no. Purlein I. The amendment is approved with nine yes votes and three no votes. Thank you counselors. Is there any other discussion on novvic Green 18? Seeing no one else in the queue, keelin, can you please call the role on novvic Green 18? This is the budget note that goes with 17 to provide some guidance to the golf program on how to prioritize the raising of these fees. And I'll Ryan. Uh, sure. That's a practice that should be a given. Hi coyama. Hi mario. Hi novik. Hi Clark. Hi Green. Hi Zimmerman. Hi Avalos. I Smith I guinea. Hi. The amendment is approved with 12 yes votes. Thank you. Councelor Zimmerman. Are you in the queue to uh bring forward? You know what? You brought forward an amendment in the parks area already and then you requested that I bring forward a technical amendment. I did. That is a good point. Do you have a technical amendment prepared to help flesh that out? Yeah. Thanks. So yesterday we took action and I appreciated that. Uh given that action, there's a technical adjustment that that the council president and budget office has written and asked me to deliver. So technical amendment to true up the fte allocation across bureaus based on the passage of Zimmerman 1314 amendments from yesterday. One, increase the bureau operating expenses by 2.1 million in the parks maintenance program. Increase the authority of parks and recreation maintenance program by 10 fte. Decrease the same amount in the tree regulation program of 2.1 million. Decrease the position authority in urban forestry by 10 fte. Those amendments, excuse me. Secondly, decrease position authority in port and parks and recreation urban forestry by 27 fte. Increase position authority in the permitting and development organizational unit by 27 permanent ongoing fte. Reduce the bureau operating expenses in paf and in Portland parks and bureau by 3.6 million in urban forestry and increase the operating expenses in the Portland clean energy fund in the Portland permitting and development fund by 3.6. All of these are updates attachments a through h as needed. I'll second that. Thank you and counselor, thank you for bringing this forward. Um, colleagues, this doesn't make any changes functionally to what we voted on yesterday. It just adds in the technical pieces that weren't in that amendment. Councelor Ryan, are you in the queue for discussion? No, I guess. Councelor Avalos, are you in the queue for discussion? I guess I was trying to understand what we were fixing. Uh most of the amendments that we have brought forward have had specific information about the dollar amounts that were transferring and the fte authority, the position authority that was changing. Um and as councelor Zimmerman had moved from his higher numbers to his lower numbers, not all of those technical pieces were transferred over in the new amendment. So I just asked him to add those in rather than try to do it on the dis yesterday. Uh he had asked me if he could bring that today as a a technical fix. Councelor, is that a fair description here? Yeah, we have a strange practice here, but it's the one we're using, which is we talk about the fte allocations in the amendments as separate line items. And so this meets that desire by the budget office. Uh I think that there are a number of ways we can do this, but the intent from yesterday is just being tred up even further here. Councelor. Okay. Councelor camelain, any questions? I want to point out that when I asked councelor Zimmerman questions yesterday, he really couldn't answer them about who he's collaborated with on the administrative side. And want to remind folks that I don't I don't believe due diligence has been done. And there are many organizations that you have letters from including wamut riverkeeper, trees for life Oregon, bird alliance, columbia slooh, watershed council that are really concerned about this. So I encourage you to think about your values and your right what you believe is right and put aside um considering what you're going to get from someone else or any trading that might happen and make sure that you're voting with your values and if you're doing that then you can sleep well at night. So just last reminder so did didn't we already vote on it? We can't take it back. This is just to true up what we did yesterday, right? It wasn't specific enough. Oh, okay. We we did move the money yesterday. Yes. Just provides the additional direction on what that means. Okay. Without this, that amendment will still stand. There just will be some messiness in our budget. They will come to us at a later date and ask for the fte allocations because they have the money in their budget already. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Councelor canel. Yeah, I I I agree with that argument that this is this is in fact technical. I I think there may be a disagreement on whether or not it was a good idea to move it and I think that's still that's always a worthwhile conversation to have. I don't think that's necessarily what this vote is about. I I think it's important that we're honest. Yesterday we said we were picking winners and losers. This is formalizing that. Um it's I'm glad it's 10 and 10. I'm really glad it's not a net reduction. Um, so that's that's my rationale on it is we've already moved the money. This is going to result in 10 people or 10 positions being reduced in one place and also result in 10 positions being saved that would otherwise have been laid off. Um, and I I I know for the people that are in one of those two categories of 10, this is not academic and I I fully understand that. But that this is to me the obvious eventual consequence and better to get it done now of yesterday's vote. Councelor Green, thank you. Um, I voted for the first part of this yesterday. I voted no on the second part. Both passed. I voted for this because we had lost a considerable amount of jobs in parks maintenance. And this doesn't gut the urban forestry program. Of course, that there is a trade-off on the margin here. Um, but I think it's very very important that we are providing resources to parks maintenance so that way we don't lose the capacity of our parks as the crown jewel of our city. I made that choice on the merits and um I'll I'll I'll reaffirm that decision today. Thank you, councelor. Counselors, is there any other discussion? Seeing no other discussion, keelin, could you please call the role? I Ryan. Hi. Coyama. No. Mario. Um, I voted no on the full amendment yesterday, but this technical adjustment is needed. So, I novvic. Uh, ditto. I Clark. I think this is another example of a cautionary tale. We're making structural changes and I agreed to those yesterday. This is sort of a learn as you go experiment. This budget sess session. Uh we're we're working fast and furious and I will vote yes. Green yes. Zimmerman yes. Avalos no. Duny I. Smith I. Hurdle guini I. The amendment is approved with 10 yes votes and two no votes. Thank you colleagues. Councelor. Thank you. Colleagues, I want to take a quick moment before we move on to just recognize uh one of our staff who's here helping us today. We often have haley blondonie sitting at the side of the table at the front and she is actually out today. So, lillian gwyn is helping us out instead and lillian, I know that it's fast moving and long hours doing these council meetings. So, thank you for being here with us today working on this. Um, we really appreciate you and I'm sure as we move forward we will start peppering things at you. Feel free to interrupt at any time if you need us to move a little slower so you can capture all the details. Appreciate it. [music] counselors, does anybody else have an amendment you'd like to move forward in the parks policy area? Point of order. Madam president, are you ready? In the event that we move on to another category and then I get the information, will I be able to do it even though we won't technically be in parks at that point? Yes, he will. I guess also if the next category we're going to is public safety and I have the pem part of that, it's still part of that category that then as well. Um, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, very soon. Can I just ask a point of information just as I'm like following and we're going by category. So right now you put a call out for remaining parks ones. I see other ones here. Am I assuming then if nobody's raising their hand that those are all being withdrawn or no? We asked everybody to bring forward their top priority by policy area at the meeting on the 21st. Has been maintaining that so that we have some consistency. And after we get through everybody's um most important package or amendment by policy area, we will then go through budget notes and then we will go back to amendments and everybody will have a chance. We may just do a a roundroin if a lot of people have things they want to bring forward to bring forward additional things in policy areas. Yeah. And budget notes that are attached to packages with amendments. Feel free to bring continue bringing forward as we go, but folks agreed on the 21st to hold on standalone budget notes until we got through the the money movement. Okay. Councelor Clark, are you in the queue in parks or are you anticipating a move to public safety? No, I just wanted to ask you a clarifying question. So, my understanding is we're doing amendments now that involve money and later we're doing budget notes. If your budget note is part of a package with an amendment, bring them together. If your budget note is standalone, let's wait until we get through this first round on amendments. Thanks. As much as I would love to have my budget notes, and I'm sure you all would in the budget, they are things we can do by resolution later if we need to. Okay. Councelor canal, are you in the queue for a question or are you anticipating the move to public safety? I I neither. I think I'm ready to make the uh the amendment at this point, the amendment that you brought forward in parks. Yeah, there is a revision to the dollar amount in one place. Okay. And I appreciate councelor novik bringing that up because there was a miscommunication earlier. Can I should I read it back? How is it what's most convenient for you? If you can maybe point out to us first in the new canol 15 that we have in our inboxes. Colleagues, this is in your inbox from 10:00 a.m. Today. Show us in that where the revision is and I think that might help lillian as well and then read the whole thing for folks who aren't looking at it on their screens. It is in the second to final and third to final bullet points, the two related to pem. So uh and it reduces the um the dollar amount from 747 to 483 and it reduces the uh 4 fte to 2 fte for pm. Thank you councelor. Colleagues, is there any discussion on the new new canal 15? Councelor novik. Yes. I'm just going to oppose this because I'm gonna fight for pem to get three positions, two letters, and one um and one training and exercise person, and I don't want to use up the money that we have banked from may 21st on anything else. Can I clarify a question there? I don't think that there was a question, counselor. Let's let your colleagues discuss. Councelor Clark, are you in the queue to discuss this amendment? Okay. I hate when I come up in the queue this early. Um, colleagues, I am leaning toward opposing this amendment. I know that there are many other proposals for how to uh make pebm uh a little more whole. And I believe that in some of those we might even be able to find some funds for the uh new positions from the or moving the positions I guess from uh the ranger dispatchers to 311. Uh selfishly, I also had a proposal that I'll be bringing forward in the public safety service area using some of these funds which came from uh one of the amendments that I brought forward on the 21st. We have contracts within some of our community violence prevention programs which were held flat. They were not increased because the um they were not given the same cola increase that positions were, but we know that those contracts go to organizations that have increasing costs and I'd like to make sure that the buying power is not reduced. Uh for those reasons, I'll be opposed. Colleagues, is there any other discussion on this amendment? I'm in the queue. Council president, councelor abalos. So, just to summarize, you're opposing it because you want to use the dollars for something else. Uh, I do and I also believe that we have more proposals coming forward which would allow us to cover some of these other positions that councelor canal has named here. Canal. Yeah. Two questions and then a comment. My question for you, madam president, is if you can give me the number of that amendment because I'm looking at the public safety list and not seeing one with your name. Yeah, unfortunately um in working on technical things, some of my amendments came in late. So, this is plegine 16. I have a paper copy that I was going to hand to everybody when I got in the queue for this. I'm happy to hand you a copy now if you'd like to see it. Would love to. Um, and then to councelor novik's point and to clarify, I wanted to ask him a question. Um, if you could speak to, so just to clarify, you're saying the portion of this that is, uh, that meets with your objection is the portion related to park service dispatchers and you'd prefer to use all of this money on pem. Um, my position is that I'm not voting for any money for public safety or anything until we get $625,000 for pem for three positions. So there is there are other amendments. I don't care. I'm not voting for anything that I think might undermine that until we get to 625 for pbm. Period. Okay. I um okay. Well, I guess then the only comment I would say is uh we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Um and I would think that if we could have two amendments that added up to the right dollar amount because there's two different funding sources, then that is a good use of money. Um because as opposed to trying to combine two pre-filed amendments from three different people or something like that um that are completely disperate in their funding source type. Um I should also note that um this would uh this would also reduce the contingency draw from $999,000 and leave $290,000 in the contingency for potential other uses. Um, and uh, I believe that's overhead money. Um, I'm seeing a nod. So, this would this would uh, leave $290,000 that could be um, I think to use your term, councelor novik, unlocked with additional discretionary should we find that somewhere else in the budget. Thanks. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Zimmerman, did you have a comment to the amendment? Thanks. I I'm leaning towards supporting this. Um it and I would do that in noting I probably won't be supportive of larger grabs in those same areas and and to the point that I think councelor canel is making of of a couple of spots or a couple of folks those those are probably going to meet my needs. But my request to folks is if they have if they have competing um amendments that you think that um would be better uses that we articulate those so that we can look directly and make some evaluations. It it is hard to read minds. Just saying I have one coming is is hard for me to understand which one I would prefer over. So, right now I'm I appreciate the uh the pbm work that councelor canal is citing here and I'm generally leaning in support. Councelor murio. Yeah, I agree with councelor zimmerman's uh assessment here. I would like to see uh council president if you have written language for the things you're planning to bring forward because I haven't been able to see those or read through them yet and so it's hard for me to tell which one I would support. And I would also just say that we had two weeks to put this entire thing together. Uh so yeah, there's going to be a lot of hasty amendment making and we should probably all stop chastising each other for that. Councelor canal, at the request of our colleagues, I'm passing this around not to take away from your discussion, but because folks have asked to look at it, I hope that that is all right with you. Yeah. Um, I I'd just like to ask if uh dave kpo if you could come up. Councelor, I I believe councelor novik was next in the queue, though it looks like he's removed himself from the queue. Go ahead. Yeah. Um, thank you for being here, dave. Um, could you speak to just uh maybe briefly what a day in the life looks like for your role? Great. Um, yeah. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. For the record, I'm dave crapo. I'm the city of portland's first park ranger dispatcher, and I'm here under the ask me 189 banner. Um, there's a lot of stuff that we do that you could probably guess. We take online reports, we take email reports, and we take phone reports from staff around the city and from uh park neighbors and parked guests. Generally, people don't call us because they're having a good time. They're uh calling us because they're seeing something that is frustrating or upsetting or concerning or traumatic around the city. Um we take those calls and we share them with rangers in the field and then we track rangers movements in the field. So they call out to us on the radio and we keep a spreadsheet. We know where everybody's been. We know when they're talking to people. We know when they're leaving challenging conversations and if they're in trouble, uh, we're the ear on the radio that sends the help. So, that's a thing that differentiates us from a 311 call taker. 311 call takers are our partners and like when we're on lunch or uh when we're on a break, they will take those calls as backup, but then we triage them as soon as we get back to the desk and we make sure that things keep moving. We also take uh after hours emergency maintenance reports and send them off to prms so that if there is some kind of an emergency in a park that could damage infrastructure that we get a quick response to that. Um and then we have some really long-term ongoing relationships with our callers. Uh I've met with 11 out of 12 of you and your staff in the last couple weeks. And the thing that I've heard from almost everybody is you guys do a lot of case work, don't you? Which is not really part of what you think a dispatcher does, but we do a lot of followup with people who have seen or experienced uh upsetting and traumatic things in our parks or as park neighbors, and we make sure they got the help that they needed. And if they didn't get that help, we keep on pushing. Thank you. And uh I think you've already answered my other two questions for now. Um thanks for clarifying that ask me 189 is the the labor unit for this next slide. Are we good? Yeah, I think so. All right. Thank you for having me. Councelor novik. Yeah. I just want some clarification about what this actually does in terms of um in terms of resources for pem. Um, but how many given the the discretionary overhead split that we need, how many pbm and dispatcher positions does this actually pay for? Yeah. And I think we could invite up the deputy director of pbm fees still. Yeah. Okay. In the back, but but I'm asking this of director lavine because again it's an issue of the uh discretionary um uh overhead split. So, as amended, as um councelor canal just read out earlier, we just corrected the discretionary overhead split. So, you can think of it as just a normal general fund overhead function. And so, the question is just how much does that buy? So, the the split is copacetic. And how much does it buy? How much does using all of the 90 to the the 300,000 in discretionary that we have left over from may 21st plus an um commenurate amount of overhead. How much does that actually buy? Does it really buy two positions in one and two positions in the other? Um so um sorry I'm just pulling up the amounts. Um so I believe and councelor canal can probably speak to this too. It's um 483,000 to pebm. So um you know I guess the question for pbm is um how much you know how much can does that buy them in um in two positions and um having not done them you know depends on the classifications and the like which I don't have in front of me. Thank you. Sorry counselor. I would like to make sure that we get the question answered. Director lavine just gave an answer. Councelor novik, does that fulfill your does that answer your question or should we look to dca ksy? [music] your your question is answered. Uh I that specific question is answered. I wouldn't mind hearing dca kazzy and jordan wy talk about what they um elaborate on what they could do with that money. Thank you. Good morning. Um for the record, I'm bob kazzy uh dca interim. Uh Monday is when I actually take the role officially. Um so I'm still double duty and I'm getting up to speed on a lot of things. Uh and I did invite deputy director jordan here uh jordan wy to uh answer specific questions about pbam. So yeah, thanks uh jordan wy, deputy director for pem. Um so the question was what does 480 and change get us approximately two positions? I think our position wouldn't change in terms of priorities. We still need planners. That's the first and foremost critical function that we're about to lose in a couple of days. Um, planning is one of those critical components of emergency management. That is core. I would argue I think most folks that know anything about em on this council understand that. And so we're about to lose that last literally the last planner we have. So our first priority would to be get additional planning support. So if it's two positions, two planners. I know councelor kunal, we talked before about having training and exercise be part of that. That's the sort of yin to the yang, so to speak, because you need both. And so if there were additional positions by, for example, novik, couple of your um excuse me, councilman Novik for a couple of your amendments, I think we'd be looking to fill those training and exercise positions if we could go above and beyond to fte with this 400,000. I would just add to the nuance of planning and the and the cihub nexus. I know that's something that councelor Clark has mentioned, several of you have mentioned that's absolutely on our minds and focusing these planners on cihub. I also want to adjust expectations again just to make sure it takes a long time to build those plans and then exercise them. We're talking about 6 to9 months maybe even to hire the right person plus them to be oriented and develop the plan. We're looking at a yearish. The reason I bring that up is because where the funds come from, if they are one time only, right? So that that's the nuances I want to make sure if they were, we would still take it because then we'd make the argument next year we need to transfer it into ongoing position, ongoing funding. If it's ongoing, even better. But regardless, no matter what you can help with, it's going to be a huge help for our tiny little department. Thank you, councelor novik. Any additional questions? No, thank you, councelor Smith. Yes, thank you, madam president. Um, and I thought your you had a need for additional resources, whether it be fte or external services to help out with homeless um when you go on calls. I think we talked about that. We don't have that need now even for homeless support. There's some of the work that can branch into that. For example, in an emergency situation. I just wanted to make sure because I know we talked about correct priorities and so I'm hearing something different. So I just wanted to make sure that you know we were getting your particular priority. Yeah. Okay. And I've shared with council before if we had everything we would love to have it's 55 fte and another $10 million that would go to support a lot of programs. We're talking about what would be our first and foremost priority today. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, of course. Councelor novik, are you in the queue again? Oh, no. Sorry. To take myself out. Okay. Councelor canal, are you in the queue again? Yes. And I'll keep it very brief. 483,000 divided by 2ftte is $241,000. If you look at the memo that pbm sent to you, councelor novik, that you sent out to council, not a single position in that costs more than $241,000 a year, including all benefits. Uh and midpoint plus 50. So it absolutely covers the cost. Thank you. [music] councelor Smith, are you back in the queue? No. Colleagues, is there any other discussion to the newly amended new version of canal 15? Keen, could you please call the role? Can public safety is a very broad area of work. It includes park rangers and includes the dispatchers that get them to the parks. Um, pbm has taken cuts for 3 years and is a completely underutilized, underresourced part of our public safety system. We have done a lot to shore up the parts that everybody thinks of first when you think of public safety. Um, in other parts of the budget, and it's time for us to shore these parts up, too. Um, and I'm very grateful for not only the time that you uh gave us both uh in in our offices and up here, but also in the case of pem coming to the community and public safety committee and speaking to your needs there. I vote I Ryan. I look forward to a budget note eventually this year resolution that really connects the dots between the dispatch work with the rangers and our public safety system. We have to improve in that collaboration. So in the faith that you'll be there in the hope that that the counselor that's bringing this amendment will connect those dots with me and others I will go ahead and vote I I mario this covers two areas I really care about pbm parks and I know how much our parks rangers do um to take care of public safety issues so I novik I'm actually going to contradict myself because um the the the issue I have with this is merely we wanted sort of prioritization and timing. Um I wanted to get all 625 for pem and then try to get the money for the parks rangers in a separate amendment. So I'm going to take a bird in the hand and vote yes on this and then try to get money more money for eba in a subsequent amendment. So I Clark I like that bird in the hand. I vote I Green. Hi. Zimmerman. Hi. Avalos. Hi dunfy. Hi Smith. I guinea no. The amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote. [music] colleagues, we are in the public safety service area. Would anybody like to bring forward a priority? Councelor Avalos. Hello. Um, I would like to move Avalos 3. Um, and I can talk about it, but maybe I need a do I need a second first? Uh, why don't you give us a brief overview so that folks know what they are deciding to second or not? Okay. So, um, and this changed a little bit, um, in that it was another number that I'm not remembering, but now is going to be $15 million worth. So, this amendment would move 75% of the overtime budget at 15 million to council oversight. Um, it doesn't eliminate funding, just requires approval. Um, it my intentions behind this are one, um, I just in general believe that transpar that taxpayers deserve transparency on how these overtime dollars are spent. Um, I also have great confidence in dca bobcazy's experiences and helping to helping boeek uh reduce overtime and I believe that this is an opportunity for um the new dca to help prove that they're making progress by having this regular check-in. Um, and this creates some more checks and balances while ensuring that funds are available when they're truly needed. And the current system has led to millions in overruns um in in the over in um in the overtime with very little oversight. So, um boiling it down to this is not about what is that um this is not cutting police funding. We're just adding accountability to spending that's consistently over budget. So, that is the rationale. Thank you, counselor. Is there a second for Avalos 3? Second. Okay, councelor Green seconds. Councelor novik, are you in the queue for debate on Avalos 3? No. Colleagues, is there any discussion on Avalos 3? Councelor Zimmerman. Thank you. I'm would like to know where in the budget I can find the overtime line item that this would be taken from because we're citing $15 million of overtime, which is 75% of some overtime budget, but I'm I'm not sure where that's at. Can somebody point me to the line item of overtime? Uh, director lavine, I see councelor Avalos looking your way. Is that something that you could help her with? Maybe owen, because he was helping with this. I don't know if he's here or available. Yeah, sure. He's upstairs. Um I think the um the numbers are based on what PPB has currently budgeted in their overtime um commitment item, which is about $20 million. And so I think we just calculated 75% of whatever they have actually budgeted in there. Is that separate from the so does that $20 million is that separate from the overtime is used from vacancy savings? No, it's all one pot. So, they pull their vacancy savings out of personnel and they move it into overtime. So, it becomes part of their overtime budget. So, it's just one line item that says overtime. But those $15 million are tied to an fte position within operations somewhere in the police bureau. There's vacant right now. And the police bureau in their budget has to indicate they are expecting to use about $20 million of of vacancy in overtime use. Is that a fair act uh an accurate description? Yes, except for the fact that not all of it is backed by that personnel savings. It's some of it is just straight budgeted um from from other resources, if that makes sense. Um, so, um, and I would defer to the pssa budget folks if they're here on on kind of explaining that further, but but the the mechanism you described is correct. Yeah, I wouldn't mind hearing from somebody within either the bureau or the uh, public safety service area. I guess my point here is that um I've I've lived under a situation for a public safety area where they came back and reported on overtime and that was one thing, but that was because that that department had an overtime line item for authorizations, but I think we're bumping up against the fte hires here again as we did with another topic last a couple weeks ago. And so, uh, this would certainly give me great pause if this is being pulled from that area since that's where overtime money is generally drawn from. Director csy, would you like to chime in on that? Yeah, thank you. Um, for the record, I'm bob cay, dc public safety. Um, I have a few thoughts on this and I appreciate really appreciate uh the importance of accountability. I can uh really resonate that with that and uh have had success at boe uh specifically along these same lines specific to the actual um budget impact nathan ley is here. Uh hopefully count uh councelor Zimmerman to be able to answer your question. Yeah. So in terms of structurally um for the record I'm nathan ley. I manage the budget strategy and performance team for the public safety service area. Uh in terms of the way that the budget is structured, you know, the the Portland police bureau receives its uh cal target at the beginning of the year. We then uh forecast the number of filled positions that we expect to see within the bureau uh and then have generally reduced the salary line items as well as benefits, taxes, other costs that would be associated with filled positions for any positions that we expect to be vacant in the upcoming year. We have then taken about half of the um the dollars that are required for overtime to maintain the current service levels uh and we pull those dollars out of salary. We put those into the overtime line item. Uh so in terms of the question of whether we would bump up against that uh it's going to be highly dependent on what the overtime needs are. Uh if there were increased protest response or other responses that the bureau needs that could push beyond the 20 million we currently have budgeted. Uh if the bureau were to build hire at a faster rate than we had forecast uh or if separations happened at a slower rate, we would potentially bump upon that. Um so there is a fair amount of uncertainty here uh in terms of the question of whether or not putting this into a set aside would actually get us a hard stop in our budget system. Uh this would be unusual. Uh in my experience in the city, we have not had this sort of framework where we're asking for dollars uh retroactively to to budget things in. Uh but we would potentially hit that depending on sort of when the expenses come throughout the year. To be clear, when you say this would be unusual, policy set aides I understood were pretty common. So I was going under the framework that we tend to use for policy set aside. So can you explain why you say this is unusual? Yeah, generally I mean in the time that I've been with the city for seven years generally when I've done budgeting uh policy set aside has been when there's been a sort of unknown cost uh that we might need to ask for dollars uh for sort of future things. Some of this seems like it might be retroactively. So, uh I don't have the budget note open in front of me right now, but if we were asking for uh transfers to take place on a regular basis from that policy set aside for spending that has already taken place, if the bureau were to not get that approval afterwards, then it would need to scramble to be able to balance things out in the remaining time in the fiscal year. If it was asking to anticipate what that spending is and sort of build out that plan, uh, that would put it more into the sort of usual framework. Thanks. So, um, I appreciate that. I just I would encourage colleagues to understand that there's no such thing as putting money in the contingency and not having removed it from the bureau. You're either in the bureau's account or you're not. And so by setting this money into contingency, we are directly defunding by another 15 million the Portland police bureau. I very much recognize the desire to um monitor overtime usage. I think that that mechanism can exist whether it be in the community and public safety committee, finance committee, or this entire council. But just because the city of Portland has a term we call policy set aside, which is just an asterisk on a line item budget, it is ultimately increasing the contingency by $15 million and it can be used for anything that this council deems necessary in the upcoming year. And I think that's very very risky. I think that governing bodies will look at contingency funds in moments of emergency, moments of need, and it sends a message that that those funds were not needed in our operational bureaus. And this is a $15 million pull from the bureau into contingency, even with the best intentions to give it back each quarter or whatever. Um, I would really encourage folks to v vote no on this. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Counselor Smith. Thank you, madam president. I think there is a way for us to um separate funds within a bureau within a bureau's fund. And I think we did a little bit of that at multma county because we were constantly putting money in um in contingency for the sheriff's office. So, that being said, but I think we have a bigger issue here. Uh, local news station did a um kind of expose on on the city of Portland and found that we spent this last fiscal year $50 million in overtime. And as the chair of the workforce and development uh committee, I want to look at how we can reduce overtime costs across the board because that is unconscionable that we have 50 million in overtime costs. Now, while your your costs are are 20 million, uh you almost make half of of our um overtime costs. And and I understand and I get it. Um I don't necessarily support this particular amendment, but I understand um sitting in this seat and and I'm looking at a 50 million overtime. See, you all are the kind of uh you know, people like you. It's it's it's it's a sexy thing to talk about the police and their overtime, but we're not talking about these other folks who have a huge overtime that we don't talk about at all. But I think we need to have a 30,000 foot question about overtime in general so that we can keep those gaps that we have in the budget to make sure that we're paying for those uh necessary uh uh services uh that the city provides which is infrastructure. And so that is the conversation that that I'm trying to that I will be trying to get to. Um, I get it, but it it's going to put you all at a um at a deficit trying to get us. And personally, I don't want to I I don't want to keep your overtime. I don't want to tell you what you what you need to do and how to how to do it. I got enough to do in my own little four person office. So, no, I don't need that responsibility, but I do think we need to have a bigger conversation with you all included in it and to see how we're going to how we're going to uh reduce those costs overall. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Counselor Clark. Thank you. Um I agree with councelor Smith. I think uh the issue of overtime and transparency and accountability can really be handled in our substantive policy committees that we can ask for regular reports on overtime. We can ask for regular reports on recruitment. Um, I have found the bureau to be very transparent, to be very accountable, and I don't want to tie our hands in any way because overtime, in my understanding, is just related to the fact that we have a recruitment problem that we don't have enough people to fill the hours, and that's why we have overtime. It's pretty simple. So, I'm uh inclined to vote no against this. I I appreciate what candidate uh what uh councelor Avalos is trying to do, but um I think we can accomplish this in another way. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Ryan. Thank you, madam president. Uh yeah, real quick, I'm just uh definitely voting no on this. It's really clear to me that this is a cut and also I'm continue to be concerned that this council is diving in to a very micro level and telling executives how they should manage their resources and how they should manage their operations. Um we all know there's chronic understaffing, therefore there's going to be overtime. So, it'll be an easy no for me. Thanks, councelor mo. I have a few things to say about this one. Just because we throw the word defunding around because it is politically charged now does not mean that everything is a defunding as much as we would like it to be for political gain. Um, you can separate things out in bureaus so that the money is retained in separate accounts within that bureau. That's not a defunding. And secondly, again, I don't know why I have to keep emphasizing this. We are literally the city council. We have the power of the purse and we can direct agencies and bureaus to act in accordance to our budget notes and our amendments, which are again as legally binding as a resolution is. So, it seems very convenient when we say that we have direct oversight power and when we don't. And for some reason, that always happens when we talk about holding the police accountable. So, I will be supporting this. Thank you, counselor. Councelor Avalos, you were back in the queue. Yeah, thank you, councelor murio. I am definitely um not interested in uh slogans that just are trying to make a political tension out of what is a fiscal responsibility. Um we and I I think councelor Smith is speaking to that. I think all of us agree that it is unsustainable for our city to continue spending so much on overtime. Um that's any budget that that's going to be a problem. And you know what I maintain and what I continue to say is that there is an entire public safety spectrum that we need to get serious about filling. You know, I mentioned this in passing to a colleague, but I'll just daylight here that like we've talked a lot about Portland street response, which obviously I support. We need to talk more about chat. We need to talk more about ps3s. We need to talk more about what are the things that we are doing in the meantime because at the end of the day uh recruiting a police officer if it takes 18 months that is beyond one fiscal year and everyone keeps trying to district explain to me what they think my district needs. Again I live in my district. I am a person of color who lives in my district. Um so I don't appreciate being told that I don't understand the lived experiences of the people that I have those same lived experiences. Um, and so this is an opportunity for us to talk about how we as city council can direct um some have some direct oversight. Uh, and I agree that there are lots of ways and lots that many other budget amendments and notes that have passed that are essentially doing the same thing. Um, it's just politically charged because anytime we bring up police, we tend to turn into politics instead of what I'm trying to do, which is policy. To me, this is simple policy. I'll also note that I specifically chose 75% and not 100% so they can anticipate what comes down the pipe. They've got 25% to work with. That gives them a whole quarters worth of time to see where the trends are. I'm going to be holding the bureau very accountable through, you know, dca kazzy's leadership that I am very confident in um that we can start to chip away at that. But we need to start talking about how we're reducing those overtime costs and how in the interim while we are increasing our police force because again I will remind people I do the work to understand I was on governor brown's dpsst task force a couple of years ago specifically trying to workshop and figure out how do we uh increase this pipeline of getting police on the streets. Absolutely. My district needs um they need support but they also need lots of different things of support. They need somebody to answer the phone call and that's not always going to be police. So if everybody's definition of public safety is just police, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. And I think my district has been clear that what they consider safe is somebody answering the call. And what I'm trying to do is make sure that we're answering the call with multiple options. So back to this, you know, I feel that I'm doing my due diligence. I believe it is completely in line with the way that other people are trying to govern um through their amendments. Uh I believe I've given enough leeway so that we can be flexible and that the police have an opportunity to adjust. Uh and I think you know sure there's many other ways that we could do it. Yeah, we could do it through um having a conversation or millions of other ways but I am choosing to use my powers as a city councelor as somebody that is using this process to direct the bureaus about what I believe need to be the outcomes and that is what has resulted in this amendment. Thank you. Thank you councelor councelor Ryan have you spoken to this? I have. I just had a follow-up question. Let me check. Councelor Smith, have you spoken? You have not spoke. You have as well. Okay. I apologize. Okay. Let's get councelor ryan's additional question and your additional question and then I think the mayor had a comment as well. Councelor ovalos, I'm curious. Is there another amendment coming up uh with fire for fiscal accountability around overtime because theirs is actually more. Um so is this just focused on police or are you looking at other bureaus as well within public safety? Curious. Yeah, and thanks for bringing that up because I think I don't think I mentioned that at the beginning because that was the other change that I made, not just the 15 million, but I took fire out partially. I did that because um fire has a particular difference in the way that they staff because they have minimum staffing requirements. Um so, for example, the fire truck has to have four staff that's bargained in their contract. Uh and so they're a little bit more they're a little more rigid in how they manage that. And um fire has been consistently showing their uh attempts and and are being successful in actually reducing their overtime costs. So this is me putting another layer on police and saying, "hey, we need to see results." um and I'm using my authority as a city council to force that through this amendment. Okay, that's clear. So it's targeted just please. Okay. Councelor Smith, you had an additional question. Yes, I'll defer to the mayor. Mr. Mr. Mayor, did you want to make a comment? Yes. Thank you, madam president. I appreciate and counselors, I wanted to just point of clarification. We did increase chat. We did increase Portland street response. I've spoke to all of you at length about overtime. I share your concern from an operational standpoint. It's a workplace safety issue and I'm absolutely committed to address that and I know I've talked to you about that. What I wanted to just also mention is is that I respect the role of this council as the budget writing committee. I in turn ask this council to respect the job of the mayor and our ability to implement the budget as you see fit. If we have to come back to council for requests, it doesn't allow us the dynamic necessary for a fast changing environment. And today's newspaper clearly outlines that concern. We're concerned about going back to the past. It didn't work then. It won't work now. And I would just say if something goes ary, who do we hold accountable at that point? We want and the charter clearly explains the executive is in charge of the day-to-day operations. And I hope and expect to be held accountable as our bureau's perform. If council creates oversight, set aides for us to have to come back and ask for requests in a fastchanging environment, we lose that ability. And at the end of the day, what do our citizens and who should they hold accountable? I just ask that we're willing, we're ready as the executive to be held accountable for the operational results of our city. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Okay, the que's getting a little crowded here. Councelor canal, I don't believe you've spoken to this amendment. Yeah, I just this is not this is about some of the arguments that have come up here. I I don't think that there's any question that that the mayor shares the concern around overtime. I think he's been very clear on that. I I personally do not view this as a separation of powers issue. Uh any of these policy set aides. I think that the framing of it as either we have to give the money in the budget as a one-time conversation that occurs once a year and then never revisit it or not give the money and not have that third option of setting money aside with particular criteria on it. It can it that's a um seductive way of of putting it of framing it but it is a it it creates a brinksmanship aspect of it too which is saying either give the money or it is an actual cut and I don't think that I am I I don't I reject the binary of options there that we have to do it one way or the other. I also don't think this would be micromanaging um in the sense that it is applying specific criteria that's not really about I frankly I share the problem statement here. I will speak to my thoughts on the solution statement when we get to a vote and I'll just leave it at that. But I I don't want this conversation to be framed around convers philosophy of governance that I think doesn't align with uh our role as legislators which I think councelor mario has has stated a couple times here in a way that makes a lot of sense to me personally. Thank you. Councelor modio, our role as the city council is both legislative and quasi judicial. And according to our own city published presentation on what the city council is allowed to do is power to make appropriations, raise revenue and make laws, power to apply laws and policy set of circumstances. Um the the mayor does have executive and administrative things to do but the entire point of budget notes and amendments is that we are directing bureaus to do certain things. We were elected to represent certain districts. So uh this is asking for I think very basic it is an extremely basic request to ask any bureau to be responsible with their overtime. I don't know why it gets police are treated like a very precious bureau in a way that no other bureau is when when they're using their overtime too. The overtime goes towards overpolicing protests that don't exist. We spent millions of dollars on protests that did not come up last year and now we're in a big budget deficit. So, uh I think this is a very basic request and it's well within our power to request it. Councelor Zimmerman, thanks. Um, I agree that it's within our power. I I actually don't have those those concerns. I would ask what do we think the what will be the parameter to award the additional 75% of the overtime in quarter 2 or quarter 3 when the police bureau comes to give it. I have seen no indication from anybody anybody on this dis um about what is a qualifying event. I worry about that because I think that makes operational decisions then directly tied to the politics of whether or not there's the votes to get overtime money for an event. That worries me a lot. I think that we've we've hired these sworn uh chiefs and commanders based on their both their legal and constitutional duties to make the best decisions that they can. And when you set aside money in a contingency fund, we will either end the year with that fully intact or we are going to spend it on a variety of things. And at this point, the council doesn't seem to be indicating that they would award any additional funding to the police bureau. And I do want to say one last thing, which is there was a statement made by the sponsor of this that we're we're spending all this money on overtime as if it's some new pot, but we've already heard time and time again that we've allocated this amount of money to the police bureau for their vacant for their their authorized fte. So if you take that money and then because it's not going to be spent, some of it gets used in overtime. It's not like overtime is new money that's being pulled out of the general fund to be spent. That's not occurring here. But we keep using it as if sometime some way that is what's happening. But if the bureau has been funded for x number of of officers and staff and they have to use overtime because they don't have enough of those officers and staff, they aren't they're pulling it from the money that they already have. And so to to call this new money or that we've got to get overtime spending in check, sure, to some extent, but it's not a new draw on the city. It's not a new draw. The the city, Portland police bureau will use overtime funds from what they're being allocated even if they were fully staffed up. So, um, please ask yourself what what in the future would allow you to vote in favor of authorizing additional overtime funds when they come to us in quarter 2 or three and they request that they need those. I think that's an important test here. Colleagues, I also don't believe that this is an overreach of our powers. I do think we have this um this power and this ability and I I don't believe that our police are to use my colleagues words precious in a way that our other bureaus are not. I think we have a lot of really important people who work for us at the city. Um, I in fact don't always agree with their decisions, but I do know that sometimes the decision on whether to uh assign overtime or step up the number of officers in an area is based on sensitive information. And I am concerned that if we do this, it will put us in the position of asking the chief's team to bring forward sensitive information in a public meeting in order to ask us for more overtime. And having worked in roles where I deal with sensitive information before, that's not something that I'm willing to put us in a position of having to do. Deciding whether to allocate more overtime isn't something that we can do in executive committee. And I certainly don't want to set something up where we're receiving information behind the scenes and making decisions that we can't justify to portlanders because we've received that information behind the scenes. I would highly encourage our chairs of the community and public safety committee if this fails to have regular check-ins about overtime with our police. I hope that dca kazy and the chief would be open to those conversations. I think there are other ways to get at this accountability that many of us uh would hope to see that doesn't put us in a an awkward position of needing to make decisions with information that we maybe can't discuss um on the dis at the time. Madame president, if I can uh chime in very quickly, I also want to mention that uh we have regular meetings with all of the public safety directors and chiefs and share budget information specific to overtime on a recurring basis. Uh so I have had my eyes through that forum on uh ppb's overtime as well as fires overtime and of course boe. Uh, one thing I want to mention is also that it is absolutely my intention of communicating that same information regardless of the outcome of this vote. I take the uh importance of accountability to heart and I really do want to help PPB. I want to help the entire service area uh to really um get a handle on what overtime spending is and name the dollars uh rather than have a pile of money that we just take from and and we really don't know what it's intended for. Um I want to name exactly where that money goes and uh over the course of this next many months. Uh that's exactly what I plan to do. Thank you, director. Uh councelor novik, are you back in the queue to this amendment? No. Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, keelin, could you please call the role? [music] yeah, just to reiterate, I I believe that there is uh I I see much of the same problems that councelor Avalos and counselor Smith raised. I do think this is within our power to do. I I do think that that we uh do need to focus where there's been issues. I don't believe that this is the right way to go about it. Um, and I'm looking forward to having the conversations about later uh narrower focused approaches to the overtime question in multiple bureaus within public safety. Um, and so I'm going to vote no on this while reserving my right to reconsider it if needed. Ryan, thank you for your work on this. Councelor Avalos, I vote I. Mariel I. Novik. No. Clark. Public safety is one of the most critical functions of government. And I think the mayor raises a very important point that we're living in very uncertain times and we need maximum flexibility. I'm voting no. Green. Thank you for your leadership, councelor Avalos, I vote yes. Zimmerman, no. Avalos. Thanks all for the discussion. I mean, obviously I I truly do understand where everyone's coming from. I think reasonable reasonable people can come to different um places on this. I think what I'm encouraged though to hear from my colleagues is that we all understand the problem and I will certainly be pushing this issue over the next year. Um yeah, there are many ways um to address this. This was my attempt to do it in this process. Um, so regardless of the outcome of this vote, I will continue to push this and I'm glad to hear a signal from my colleagues that you're also interested and I'm going to hold you to that. So I vote I done no Smith. No. Proto guinea. No. The amendment fails with four yes votes and eight no votes. Thank you. Council novik, are you in the queue with a priority public safety amendment? Yes. Okay, go right ahead. Um, so I'm proposing an amendment which I anticipate will subsequently be gutted and stuffed by an amendment to the amendment that councelor Green is going to propose. Uh, novic 12 is a motion to amend the budget to transfer police bureau general fund um from one-time revenue from the 2425 budget to fy 2526 to fund efforts to bolster recruitment to increase staffing and also efforts to maximize the value of public safety support specialists. Um this uh this would restore money to police for recruitment efforts and uh for steps to uh enhance the value of public safety support specialists which would include having leadership for public safety support specialists from within that category rather than police sergeants. Um, and what this would do is increase bureau personnel expenses within the Portland police bureau general fund by $1.99 million and increase beginning general fund balance the general fund by $ 1.991 million. Um, the this money is available because of police underspending. Uh, I actually would ask director lavine to identify the current amount of police under spending and I'll explain how this fits into that. Thank you, director lavine. Before we get a second, could you just let folks know what that looks like? Sure. So, they're uh projecting about $3 million in under spending in the current fiscal year in um 202425. And um am I correct that you have begged us not to try to take all of the $3 million for new expenditures because you want to save half a million, you know, just to be safe. Yeah, I think it would be good practice to save half a million. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Is there a second? Councelor. Okay. Councelor Clark seconded. Is there discussion to councelor novik's amendment? Councelor Smith, are you in the queue for discussion? Yes. I'm trying to figure this out. Didn't we vote to take 1.9 million and councelor novik voted to do that? So, I'm trying to figure out what's the difference between what you took out earlier to give to parks and now you want to put 1.9 back into it. It it is the it is the same amount. I stand by my vote to give money to money to parks. Um, since then, two things have happened. A different funding source has been identified, which doesn't mean reversing the money to parks. And also, I've had conversations with chief day where I feel much more comfortable with where they're going in terms of recruitment strategy. I feel more certain about what the strategy is. I like what he's doing in terms of enhancing planning to do in terms of enhancing the value of the public safety support specialist what they think been underutilized. One thing I'm counting on them to do and we'll have conversations about that in terms of recruitment is to do advertising and marketing to try to appeal to people who don't want to be cops just because they like carrying a gun to sort of expand the pool of people who are interested in policing. And I'm going to harass all of you with a new zealand police recruitment video from 2017 which exemplifies such a strategy. Thank you so much. And I I wonder how is this going to impact the mayor's budget because wasn't his budget contingent on taking the the underspending um from bureaus to be able to pay his I'll defer to the mayor, but the mayor's office is my understanding is okay with this proposal. Director lavine, could you explain the underspend question there? Sure. Yeah. So, this is under spending that um sort of became um known in the last couple of weeks and the reason for that is that um so you'll recall that in the spring technical adjustment ordinance, council allocated 3.5 million to the police bureau. Part of the reason for that was um potential um needs for overtime surrounding mayday and the rose festival, which have now passed and didn't require significant amounts of overtime. So essentially, this wasn't forecasted at the time of the mayor's proposed budget. It's sort of new year-end underpending. It's also worth just noting that $3 million is about 1% of the police bureau's budget. So that's kind of definitely in the range of what we would expect of year-end under spending of this type. Thank you, de director lavine, and thank you for for bringing this forward, councelor Green. Uh thank you, madam president. Uh councelor novik, I I I can't support the amendment as it's introduced, but I've I'm prepared to offer a counter amendment at this time. Thank you. I'm colleagues, I'm going to I'm going to distribute a four amendment language down the deas here. Uh can you send this to the clerk, please? Uh this is Green 13. This what I'm calling a public safety policy set aside. The language would be read as follows. Motion to set aside $2.2 $2 million from the Portland police bureau's fy2024205 budget in support of recruitment and capacity building requested by bureau and program directors within the public safety service area including pem chat Portland street response, boic, Portland fire and rescue and the Portland police bureau. Um increase general fund contingency and fund and debt management by $2.2 $2 million to establish a public safety recruiting and capacity building set aside. Increase beginning fund balance in the general fund by $2.2 million. Update attachments a through h as needed to reflect this change. And colleagues, the reason why I'm posing this alternative approach is that I actually think we need to move past this practice of rolling forward vacancy savings in a bureau. I think as we've moved to this new enterprise organization, I think we need to think about vacancies as pools that exist at a service area level. Um, I think this will help us address, and this isn't just for public safety, but maybe this is the first attempt at doing this kind of model. Um, I think that'll help us address the issues I think are associated with this struggle between vacancy savings on the one hand, but if you lose them, then you need to contract out, right? That's a problem I see for labor. That's a problem I see for good budgeting. Um uh I would also note that public safety is more than just police. Um it's this whole service area and I think that there are other elements within the uh public safety service area that also need capacity building um resources. Um and so the way this is written is the bureau and program directors would go to dca kazzy. They say I have a targeted need. I've got an opportunity to hire this fte. Uh I want to do some recruitment spend to try to accelerate our pipeline. And then the director kazzy would request from council to draw upon that set aside and have the resources to do that in the fiscal year and that those are set aside. Um uh this this amendment does not divert funds away from public safety, but it does move us closer to that more efficient enterprises. So for those reasons, I'm I'm offering this this alternative and I would I would uh request your support for that. Councelor novik, this feels a little too different to be a friendly amendment, but you could choose to pull your proposal off the table or you could choose to not do so and we would continue with debate on your amendment. Um, well, I was going to describe it as a friendly complete replacement, but if tech if technically that's not appropriate that I can withdraw mine. I want to say that I encourage people to support the u Green complete replacement. Um, and I want to emphasize what councelor Green said. My understanding is that technically the way this will work out is that at some point director kazzy will develop a some recommendations as how to spend this money and we'll bring those recommendations to council for our approval. Is that correct, director lavine? That's how it would play out. Yes. Yeah. He'd have to come back to city council with some recommendations. I also just want to note that um I had no 13 a budget note directing the Portland police bureau to develop a staffing strategy and analysis of curtain practices that I meant to be a companion to my amendment which I think is still relevant. But anyway, no matter nov 12 is withdrawn. Okay. And councelor, we would need a second to Green 13. I'll second Green 13. Give councelor novik first right of refusal. I apologize. Allow councelor novik to do that. Exactly. Given that he withdrew. Okay. So, councilors, we now have a new amendment on the table, Green 13. Um, councelor Smith, you already spoke on a general topic here, councelor novik, as did you. So, I'm going to go to councelor modio. Yeah, I will be supportive of councelor green's uh amended amendment of councelor novik's proposal. Um, I think it's a really smart move. I think it's a fair compromise around the public safety bureaus, but I do have to air out some grievances as far as what happened with this discussion this budget cycle because I think it was completely unacceptable. I am extremely beyond frustrated that uh PPB and some members of this council spent extraordinary amounts of energy fighting to keep $2 million of new unrequested funding increases that were proposed by the mayor and not yet enacted when our parks bureau is in dire straits and absolutely needed that funding. I also think it is completely absurd and insulting that the police bureau randomly pulled out $3 million of funds that were sitting unspent uh a week ago and that we just found out about that as the budget body. That is completely unacceptable. And I think that if any other bureau did that, my colleagues would be completely agassed and would throw an absolute fit about it. So I'm throwing a fit about this one. And when we talk about the existing resources that police have, we are still for some reason not having a conversation in any real way about the police's special revenue fund, which has over $6 million in assets from the department of justice that are required to be spent down. And that includes things for hiring on missions or things that PPB claims that they don't have enough money to support. So when the bureau is talking about being in dire consequences year after year while having a budget bigger than any other bureau and having more money than they ever had before, I wonder why it is that we're not looking at the special revenue fund or why it is that we were not told about this additional $3 million that were just randomly found last week. Would have loved to know about that as we were making our decisions as the budget body of this city. And this is all coming out at the heels also of our conversations around ice and policing and how our police are going to be uh protecting our city against a federal administration that is harming people that look like me and many other folks on this dis. And so I am really asking this bureau to be responsible and transparent. And I I will be supporting councelor green's amendment. And I'm not even full sure I fully like it because I I actually don't think that Portland police bureau should get any additional money until they can be more transparent about those dollars. I think that if you are a bureau that can randomly pull out $3 million from under the couch cushions, then maybe we should say no again and see if you can pull out another 3 million. I would love to see what would happen if we did that. But in the spirit of good compromise, I'll be supporting this. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Zimmerman, we noted that 3 million is what's coming back and I'm just curious why this was written for 2.2 and then I have feature after if there's a response. Yeah, good great question. Um in kind of this last minute communication with ruth lavine and others to try to figure out kind of what's the balance of monies at play. I think the understanding was uh would really not be comfortable with much more than $2.5 million of this um of this money uh that would be sort of um rolling forward in this fashion being allocated. So 2.2 felt felt like the right number there. Okay. Thanks. So the reason that it's not comfortable with it being allocated gets to all bureaus are shaking the cushions. And while that was a spirited speech, I will just say yesterday we heard from the fire chief that they have a $10 million under spend, which is 5% of their budget. Police, this represents about 1% of their budget. Parks yesterday told us that they have over a million dollars just in materials and services that's not going to be spent as an underspend on 15 million. And I don't know the percentages of 1 million to 15 million, but it's a percentage. The point is is that every bureau in my career at this government and others turns money in at the end of the year given a variety of reasons. To think that this is some sort of grand conspiracy I think is disheartening. This city deals with under spends generally in the fall bump in the technical adjustment. And so let's not benign whatever I was going to say. Let's not let's not take it out against one bureau who is saying we have a fix to a thing that you all did last week when all bureaus are going to come forward and say here's the savings we had from the from the last fy which I think should be a good practice. I hope our bureaus all don't get into the practice of it's may, we better run the credit card and get to zero. This is not the federal government in a we only fund you for what you previously spent. So, I appreciate that all the bureaus generally turn things in. That's a normal practice in city government. I appreciate this um this use of it. I I'm actually not sure where I am on support for this because I think repackaging it in a service area and keeping it in contingency is not a refunding of what happened 3 weeks ago. And I don't think that this council is going to authorize our dca to spend money to recruit police officers unless he puts up an equal recruitment budget for the other areas which have in terms of scale significantly different scales of what we're talking about. Um we've got 14 new psr employees to hire up because we funded those and I'm looking forward to that. We have fire and rescue to hire up. Frankly, boick's history of hiring up has been great and I really appreciate that. But I don't have faith that if we put this in contingency contingency just like the last time that this council will actually do any action in the future to support our dca kazzy and the police chief of executing those funds in support of a police bureau hiring. Uh and this this gives me great pause here. I want to be supportive, but this gives me pause as a we we defunded 2 million three weeks ago and now we're going to put this little bit of out there to kind of uh make folks feel comfortable. But this still feels like um we have taken away I think what was a good a good effort that the mayor put forward in his proposed budget to keep us on the path of continuing to hire more officers, fill vacancies, and and be on the upside of what has been a down five years. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Counselor canel. Um, just a couple questions here. Uh, so the to clarify, there was $3.5 million originally. There is a request here to allocate 2.2 2 of what appears to be $2.5 million that could theoretically be allocated because I think I understood this as saying half a million would be preferred to leave in uh this year's fiscal year this fiscal year's budget for PPB. Can can you explain where the other half a million went? Is that was that spent? Yeah, I think u maybe nathan can come up better to answer that. I I before we bring people up because we really y'all we are taking a lot of time on things right now. I believe what we heard was that we needed to leave at least a half a million. There was 3.5 and our colleague decided that 2.2 was the best number. At one point I had heard we should leave up to maybe a million. So I I believe this wasn't a where did it go. I think it was just a choice by our colleague who brought this forward. Is that correct councelor Green? Okay. So then there's 800,000 still not described. Um, and I just want to remind everyone um that that when this came up in the technical adjustment ordinance, we were told that part of the reason why we had to do this is that some of that money had already been spent. And that's that's an important note here. Um, and I I this has nothing to do with whether we vote yes or no on this question, but I am a little surprised to hear that none of it was spent when that was not what we were told back during the spring technical adjustment ordinance. Um, I'm going to support this. I I want to uh answer councelor zimmerman's question from just now and also in the last item. Uh for three plus years I've worked in the public I worked in the public safety service area and repeatedly asked the question about what is the barrier to filling vacancies and I learned that information. I've supported filling the vacancies in the police bureau this entire time. Uh and I I still do. Um I think that it is it is a very valid use of overtime to um fill the precinct patrol backfill category. Um when there is money that is being spent or depends on where you put it. But the paying for the the services that a vacant position would be performing while th those positions are being filled and those officers are going through roughly 2 years uh to get to the point where they're uh out you know um done training. So for me personally, and if that helps with the the sort of theoretical speculative vote counting um on this question, I I would be very supportive of the idea that use of overtime um for recruitment, training, hiring, all of that should be released when that comes back. I have for as as it relates to everything else, the particulars I would bring up are in the proposed budget note I'll be raising in a moment on canel 10 as to the use of it. But I can just pledge here in public that in the event that it is uh to release these funds for use for hiring um for uh recruiting for training as well as a lot of the other things that I wrote a note to prioritize the things that are listed in the first paragraph of canel 10. I will personally vote to release this money there if that comes up. I also think it's really important that we have some available as needed elsewhere. I know that uh I'm going to use the old title director kazzy in this context of him uh being uh boac director has has talked about some needs over there. I know that there's been some needs raised at pbm and so we might need to talk about position authority in those contexts too because they don't have the fte to fill but I I'm grateful that there is a an option there as well. So I'll be voting yes on it and I said that in public. Call me out if I don't do it uh when it comes back up. Councelor councelor Avalos is next. So, okay. Um, yeah, I just wanted to point out actually that I agree with you, councelor Zimmerman. It would really personally be my preference that any dollars that are left over go through a regular process of the towel, right? And some of that like we don't know, we can't know what all the leftover is going to be until technically after the fiscal year ends. I think the reason this is coming up this way is because there's there was movement around trying to restore that 1.9 million. So, this is a choice that's being made because of people trying to restore that 1.8 million. I actually agree that I don't think we should be doing anything with taking any money that is left over and doing anything with it now. That's why we have the tow or the bump process. Um, but this, you know, again, this feels like it was a result of clearly counselors being pressured to put police money back. Um, so that feels frustrating for me because my choice would be that we just wait and that they can make their case in the fall and they tend to, right? History has shown that the police tend to come back for the bump processes and ask for the money and they tend to get it all. Um, so this to me is, you know, a negotiation around like people wanting to put the money back into police, other people not wanting to, how do you get to those seven votes? How do you get to larger consensus? And people have come to this conclusion of, well, why don't we just take the money and have it ready for all of the public safety bureaus? So, you know, I'm leaning towards supporting it because of that larger philosophy, but I do in principle don't like that we're doing this because I agree. I think every bureau should put their money back into the general fund and then we get to decide what to do with with it through those bump processes. So, this is going around that process to do this, you know, by this pressure in my opinion. So, that's where I'm at. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Smith. Thank you, madam president. I do agree with uh councelor Zimmerman as well. Um, and this does not put it back and it doesn't it it it kind of I'm I'm getting some defunding vibes because the people who who had the under spending will not get a chance to spend it. This will just be a one-time spend because there is a budget that's approved with the entire amount that the mayor put in. So, this wouldn't, you know, putting ftees in it, it would not transfer over. Do do you see what I'm saying? Okay. Thank you, councelor. Uh, I just want to be clear to both councelor Smith and councelor Zimmerman that you're right. This is not a restore of what happened on may 21st. And that's actually not my intention. I'm not intending to restore and undo what the council took as action on may 21st. Um, I would note that uh this and this is a philosophical change in direction. I would note that the monies that were approved in the fall tow and the spring tow were one-time resources for overtime for additional overtime. And so this just says let's take the underspend of that let's put it again in a one-time set aside so that way dca ksy can support the surge uh operations that um are are identified as necessary to bring our overtime dollars down over time. But with with the opportunity for more than just the police to come to the table. So, that's the intention behind my my my thing and I just wanted to make sure it was clear that this was not intended to be a uh a reversal of the previous council action. Okay. And and just to be clear that this was this was money and the reason why we got the the money, we didn't use it during the rose festival. That's what director lavine said. So, it's it's not like they were they were trying to be disingenuous about the money. And I think that um I agree that we may want to keep this for the bump because everybody keeps talking about waiting for the bump to um pay for things that we're not paying for right now. So I I I I wouldn't be supporting this. Councel Zimmerman, I'm just curious if the authors would be open to just allocating this money directly to the dca for public safety service area instead of placing it in contingency so that we can keep that funding in in the public safety service area that serves all those units that that have been identified in it. I my understanding director from director lavine is that it doesn't really can't really work that way. There's that we actually asked about the option. Can we just give it to the service area as a whole? And I think we can't do that. Well, all service areas have a service area director's budget. I'd like to know about this then. Yeah. I mean, you could put it in the the office of the dca. It's just the in order to pay for police overtime or police personnel. Um it would have to go into police's budget because the office of the dca has um other programs in it and like their business management uh business services division and their um so I think I appreciate that. So I think the me mechanism that I'm trying to understand here is that if I if we can use the money from the dca's office to execute the recruiting retention hiring type events. I'm hoping that the other side's listening to this. All right. The the concern that we heard with the reduction of $2 million a couple of weeks ago was that we want to keep on doing the recruiting events. We want to make sure we're doing everything we can to fill vacancies and we're going to stay on that. And that means we may not execute some overtime missions because we want to we want to preserve the money for recruiting. If we place this money instead of in contingency but just into the director's budget and the public safety service area executes recruiting retention events on behalf of all the departments that exist underneath that service area. So that's pbm chat etc. Portland police fire and rescue. Then that I'm trying to understand if that would allow the chief and the command staff at Portland police bureau and at fire and others to not have to use their operational overtime for those efforts because we have put recruitment funds in the dca's category and they can do that from a service area um instead of this idea that we're going to use the we wouldn't be using the dca's funds for operational overtime certainly but we also would eliminate the need for the bureaus to use those operational funds for recruitment efforts. And I feel like that would achieve the concerns we heard about the reduction while also allowing the dca to use this money actually instead of just coming back to us, which I think is going to be a very long drawn out process. I'm curious what thoughts are. Council president, direct response. Go right ahead. As as the author of this amendment, I'm not comfortable with that change, but if you wanted to amend something else, we can consider that. Can I direct respond as well? We cannot direct respond to everything and get through everything. We are at almost noon. I allowed councelor Green to do that since he is the carrier. I'm sorry. Councelor Zimmerman, are you I'm good. Thanks. Okay. Councelor canal. Thank you. Yeah, I think there's a a conversation I'd love to have about the question over recruitment and and perhaps giving some um some back and forth in the community and public safety uh committee with uh the service area about whether or not to some degree centralizing um or not centralizing hiring makes uh or recruitment efforts makes sense. I think that's an ongoing conversation um that I think is is of interest to me and I think there's reasons it's been done the way it's been done that are not just siloing reasons. There are unique needs I think that the police bureau has versus other um bureaus as well. So I I'd love to hear that. I think that's a a good question to ask uh to councelor Zimmerman uh and your point. I I also wanted to clarify that uh it was not the police that said the thing I called out earlier about uh that some of the money had already been spent. I don't want to um imply that that they were misleading us. That's not where we got that information during the spring technical adjustment ordinance conversation. And so I I I don't want that to be misconstrued. Um, but as it uh relates to this, I think the only other thing that's worth talking about, and I'll be talking about this when we get into the later conversation, is that um there's a a national monuments conversation going on as it relates to overtime and where within the categories things would be uh reduced or not increased. Um, and so the conversation and that's that's why I'm bringing up my note canal 10 to ensure that those missions that keep getting brought up that we're going to cut human trafficking if there's not um whatever the the particular dollar amount that's being brought up in the moment is is not it doesn't have to be that way. And so I think the guidance we can give and I'll have some more information when I propose that amendment and uh the paired note um to to say no, we don't need these missions to be cut. And I want to say one other thing that's not that is related to this and I apologize to the administrator for using you as a reference point here, but the budget right now is the same dollar amount that it was in the city administrator's budget recommendations. And so supporting 316 versus 318 has been characterized as defunding or in in a very ludicrous way as as abolishing. Um, and I think nobody's ever accused city administrator michael jordan of being a police abolitionist for supporting $316 million for police. Nobody's ever accused mayor wilson of that for trying to swap 9.5 million out and and 12.5 million in in the decision packages. You can see that it's it's absurd to say that about people supporting the exact same dollar amounts um and for the same exact reasons. So, I I just want to get that out of the way. This conversation has gotten a little unnecessarily even. I do think this will be a really good support for recruitment and um hiring and training and I'm going to support it as a result. Thank you, councelor novik. Yeah, I just wanted to get director kazzy's respon dca kazy's response to uh councelor zimmerman's comments and just to ask you, can you work with this amendment as written? Um just, you know, give give us your thoughts. Yeah, thank you uh bob kazzy for the record and director dca. Um I go by both right now. Um yes, I I definitely can work with this. Um, you know, having only had my eyes on it this morning and, uh, consulting with my team and, uh, as well as the, uh, police bureau, uh, recognizing this helps build a training pipeline for all public safety bureaus that need a training pipeline. Um, it also will help with recruitment efforts across the board. Um, you know, the the the concept of direct to the dca, I I greatly appreciate that in particular. I think it would be helpful certainly uh to perhaps cut out some of the red tape. But with that um I mentioned accountability uh before and I absolutely plan on coming before council in various forms of committees or or full city council uh with updates and reports and the needs of all public safety bureaus. Uh so yes, we can work with it. I do want to um make a clarification though on um you know the the three million three and a half million uh really uh chief day and his team have done a a excellent job the past many months really um putting their arms and and efforts around overtime management and that's something that is absolutely going to carry forward. That's part of the reason why there is money left over. Um it really isn't um you know the analogy of couch cushions. Uh that's not what happened. And uh they've done a really good job in my opinion um really unpacking the overtime elephant and figuring out how to eat it. Thank you, councelor murio. I would like to move for us to vote on this. Second. So that would be a motion to end debate. We do have one other person in the queue. Councelor Smith, would you mind us just moving forward since that'll be fast? I just have a quick statement. I just want to thank hold on. Hold. We we have a motion on the table to end debate. Uh I I would like to hear what councelor Smith has to say. Okay. Are you withdrawing your motion? Yeah. And then I'm going to put it right back up. Okay. Everyone is forewarned. Councelor Smith. Not really. But um no, if you believe that you can do something with this, then I change my understanding of it. Thank you so much. Thank you, counselor. Uh I believe there is no one else in the queue. So keeline, could you please call the role? This is on who? I'm missing the number now. Councelor, is this counselor Green 13? Okay. Green 13, which replaced the amendment that novik put on the table, which would take $2.2 million that was left over in the end of the police budget and use it for recruitment and capacity building within the public safety service area. Canel. Yes, Ryan. Thank you. Uh uh director kazzy, you're plugged right in and I we we need you. I coyama Lane. So, we're all learning a lot through this budget process. I don't know. I might be learning the most being the newest. I truly hope next year that a lot of things look different. I'm known to be someone who listens, holds space, picks up the phone even with people that I don't agree with. I will pick up the phone for president aaron schmoutz often. Um, I think it's important and I'm also uh someone who supports people having conversations and compromising and I helped support some of these conversations. Um, and at the same time as I it's I believe it's important to listen to others. What I'm learning personally in this role is I also need to trust myself and vote with my gut. I told president aaron schmoutz that uh while I supported folks having conversations that I did want to stay out of this, it felt like it was getting messy and also because I believe that this will pass without my vote. Um it feels right for me to vote no. Maria, I think it's really important that this amendment changes it so that public safety is prioritized in all the ways, including that this money could go to Portland street response, it could go to chat, or uh if the police can finally fund their finally fill the 91 fully funded vacant positions that have sat empty for the past 5 years, then it can help with that, too. So, I vote I. Novvic, I. Clark. Uh, I'm not really happy with this amendment. I wanted to restore the 1.9 to the police bureau. Uh while I appreciate what councelor Green has said about a new model, I think that has merit in the future, but I feel like I've been put in the squeeze shoot. Um and it forces me to have faith in director kazy to do the right thing. Um so I will vote yes. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. Hi. Aalos, like I said, I really wish that we could have just done this in the towel, but I appreciate this amendment because I think it helps force the council to have a more holistic view of what public safety is. And yes, we put more money into psr and chat, but they are still not at 247. And that is what I'm going to continue to strive for. I think this is a good step forward towards that. So, I'm going to vote I Smith. I. The amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote. We are still in the public safety service area. I believe we have heard from canal Avalos and Green. Does anybody else have anything you'd like to bring forward? Councel novik, I believe you put something forward also. Um, yes, I I want to make sure that everybody who has something forward who hasn't has had a chance at their first choice. I've got a couple of things. We'll come back after we do the other policy areas for additional things. Okay. Um, councelor canal, I thought you had moved to public safety before. Did I get that wrong? No, I I proposed my amendment in parks, but I'd be happy to go after the other person in the queue, which is yourself. That's that's me. That's a bit awkward. Um I'm happy to be differential. Why is that awkward? Who are you or a counselor do? We're going through we're giving everybody one shot in each service area. So, councelor canal is right. He had first proposed the last one in parks. So, go right ahead. Counselor for public safety. I'm going to move the amendment canal five and the paired. Note canal 10. Um and so uh we have discussed canal 5. It was briefly in the president's package in an earlier form. It was uh then debated without ever being proposed. It has not actually ever been proposed except briefly as part of the president's package in the first thing. It was uh it has been adjusted significantly. Um and uh it is being reproposed at a smaller uh dollar amount. It would convert ongoing overtime dollars uh that are in the uh police bureau currently to one time. And in return, it would create $500,000 of ongoing funding um instead of one-time funding for obp, the office of violence prevention and ceasefire uh and their grants program. And 1 million of the $2 million for the chat program would become ongoing putting this into the um ongoing city budget for the very first time. Um and then there is a paired note canol 10 which uh I have some data on the uh as it comes up I'll talk about um and it is instructing the police bureau to prioritize which we all we've already talked about recruiting and training being the first priority but beyond that prioritizing retail theft stolen vehicle operations investigations gun violence reduction street racing human trafficking and traffic priority projects which are the precise categories that police said they would be dep prioritizing uh I also added sexual and domestic violence and property crime broadly uh and instead deprioritizing the all other uh item which is where demonstrations, crowd control events and community presence goes um as well as to document those and say it uh and and and uh be able to report separately on those uh in the future. Um, I also would like to note explicitly that I'm very open to adjusting the funding source for canel05. Um, if there is a better place to find ongoing money for chat, I have asked uh pssa for that. Um, and and multiple bureaus within it. Um but uh I I would like to have the conversation and perhaps pursue those ongoing conversations as well um beyond these amendments too. Thank you councelor. Uh councelor canal has put canal 5 and canal 10 on the table. Is there a second for canal 5? Second. Second. Jinx. Okay. I believe councelor duny seconded both of those councilors. Is there debate on canal five or 10? Councelor Zimmerman. Have we resolved the difference of opinion between the central budget office and the bureaus and this per central the uh service area for what the impact of this so-called ongoing fund which doesn't exist actually means for fte reduction to the police bureau because the last time we heard about it with the larger number it was 17 a.5 and there was argument between the two. I would love to get a more clear of an answer so we know what we're actually voting on. So, councelor, do you have somebody specific you would like to have answer that or should I look to the budget office or should I tell you my memory of where we are? I am uninterested in your memory of it given how much they have. I think that the discrepancies between the business representatives and the cbo and the chief and the dca and the mayor all have to be discussed. What does this 1.5 actually mean? Because 3 weeks ago it meant 17 12 fte. Please, I hope there is a clear answer on what this means. Director kazzy, could we get you and your business services folks here? And I am hoping so that we can move through a little bit more before we have to take a lunch break that we can get a concise explanation as to the effect of this. Nathan, you go. You happy to take a first start. Uh nathan ley, I manage the budget strategy and performance team for the public safety service area. Uh ultimately, the discussion we had in one of the work sessions around the budget uh is that this would not lead to an immediate abolishment of positions for the police bureau. Uh but it would make worse an issue the bureau has as a whole. Uh there are positions that are currently unfilled and whether they are funded or not is uh not going to be really able to be determined until we establish what the ongoing overtime needs of the bureau would be once the bureau is able to get to full staffing. Um I think what is you know ultimately the spirit of of this amendment uh obviously a swap for one time and ongoing dollars does matter. If if not, council canal would not be bringing it to be able to provide the sort of assurances to chat staff by having ongoing funding for those programs. Okay, I'm going to stop you right there. So, I need to understand a part of it. So, it it may be a pipe dream that we're going to hire 90 folks in this year. Sure. But what we're saying is by removing the the ongoing money, we're removing that authorization for whatever year we were to hit that. So if our authorized fte total in the Portland police bureau is 901, this will have a direct authorization impact on the size of the authorized positions of the police bureau. I want to make sure I'm understanding that. As you noted previously, the the city of Portland does it somewhat strangely that authorization for fte and dollars is a separate process, but city policy does say any ongoing authorized positions need to be funded with ongoing dollars. So, if we broke city policy, the best case scenario here is that we'd have the same fte authorizations, but no appropriation to pay them if they were hired. Correct? That's me being generous with the description of what we're being asked to do here. Okay, I'm good. Okay. Uh, counselors, is anybody else? Any other discussion on the amendment? I'm in the which one are we on? Five 10 together. Councelor, I had really hoped to support this and when you first brought it forward, it was my intent to support it. And frankly, there has been so much movement of money that I'm not sure I can right now. I'm going to spend the next 30 seconds thinking about it. But because I had told you previously that I had hoped to, I just wanted to note that now. Councelor, are you back in the queue for discussion? Yes. Go right ahead. Okay. This swap of ongoing to one-time has occurred before. If you look at the uh the mayor's proposed budget for may 5th, there are three documents. There's the proposed budget, then there's decision packages, the numbers, decision packages, the explanation. If you go to the decision package numbers on page 20, you can see that the mayor took $9.35 million of recommended and requested ongoing funding, it's the fourth line on the page, away, and replaced it with 8.05 05 million of onetime funding in that fourth line and an additional $4 million in the first line also onetime funding. That's the line that was subsequently increased to 2 million. So that's $9.35 million in ongoing funding replaced by $10.05 million in onetime funding. Effectively doing what this amendment does, but four times more. By the math that was given to us, if the $2.5 million swap would have led to 17.5 positions becoming limited duration, a $10 million swap would have also led to 70 positions becoming limited duration. But when the mayor made his budget proposal, which again did have that 2 million more at the time, no comment was made that 70 positions were going to be converted to limited duration. There is a narrative here that I think is really important to bring up and I I want to point out that on the may 28th 2025 budget work session and if you're watching the video it's at the 2hour 57 minute 55 second mark the budget lead for PPB said and I quote there is no mechanism that says that if ongoing dollars are swapped out it has to come from those vacant fte. It's just the most straightforward place for the bureau to take dollars from. End quote. That is a choice. And that's why there's an important budget note paired with it that to say no, we don't want you to take funding away from these positions. We don't want you to take funding away from human trafficking and all the other community needs. There's other places in this that I have sent when I'll talk about it when we start talking about uh amend if if this is a separate conversation around the um budget note where we have seen that there are 79,000 hours of overtime in the budget for two categories collectively marked all other and there are no zero proposed decreases to the overtime hours allotted to those categories. 100% of the hours that they're saying will be uh reduced are being reduced from precinct patrol backfill. And while I'm saying this actually uh keelin, I don't know if you have the the file we sent over to share. Um if not, I can share it. Um sorry, if you can do this without a presentation, that would be very helpful. It is 1217. Sure. Precinct patrol backfill, retail theft, stolen vehicle operations, gun violence reduction, street racing, precinct crime reduction, human trafficking, traffic priority projects, and investigative overtime would all take a hit in the way. And that's again a choice. We just got that quote. But all other which has 45,000 hours in it, and another all other which has 34,470 hours in it would take zero reductions. Right? This the entire conversation we're talking about here is a net of under 35,000 hours and there's 79,000 hours in there uh in these two places and so that's why the budget note is so important because budget note 10 speaks to this exact prioritization and I think uh to quote well paraphrase uh one of councelor zimmerman's points uh in in other conversations we don't have a budget problem in some of those places we have a prioritization problem and so as a result, the first paragraph of canel 10 says to prioritize all those things I just listed and to disagregate and report separately over the course of the year with no change in the funding to this other than it goes from ongoing to one time the demonstration and crowd control response which is part of all other and the hours spent by patrol officers on on community presence. Um, and again, there is no reduction. If the budget for police is 316 million right now, which it is, and this were to pass, the budget will still be $316 million. All we're asking for is for the reduced amount, it was 2.5, now it's $1.5 million to be asked for again next year. And in return, what do we get? We get the ability to make the office of violence prevention and ceasefire grant recipients who do the community violence intervention that we heard in testimony earlier today at the top of today's meeting be able to have contracts that go beyond a year, a fiscal year. And more importantly than that, even the community health assess and treat program or chat would be ongoing for the first time. Those employees would not have to be begging for their jobs every year or looking for new jobs every April. And and also leverage that money for external funding because the funding sources that I've been talking to for chat want to see the city put skin in the game by which they mean put it into the ongoing budget and commit to this program and make sure that it's a long-term program just like we've done about a year in advance for port and street response. Thanks counselors. Is there any other discussion? Okay. Keelin, could you please call the role on canel five? Canel. On canel five, the amendment. I vote I. Ryan, no. Cleana Lane. I mario. I. Novvic. No. Clark. No. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. No. Hi. Deny. Hi. Smith. Portal guinea. No. Point of order. I'm going to change my vote to a no so I can move to reconsider later. Keyn, could you please call the role on canal 10? Could you please call the role on canal 10? Canel. So again, this is the again, this is the budget note. This is the one that says we support police spending their time on human trafficking, stolen vehicle missions, all of those things. And I want to be very clear that that's what we're voting on. If you support that prioritization, you should join me. I vote I. Ryan, no. Coyama Lane, yes. Maria, I novik, no. Clark, no. Green, yes. Zimmerman, no. PAvalos I dunfy I Smith no guinea I the amendment is approved with seven yes votes and five no votes um a colleague what happened with I am next in the queue with a public safety amendment now that I've pissed off half my colleagues on one vote and half on the okay, I mentioned that what was the outcome of the the first canal one? Yeah, the first one was 65 with one absence. It did not pass. Canal 5 was 65 with one absence. Correct, keelin? Yes. And can all 10 councelor canal does the count that does the count that was just stated for I'm sorry you changed your vote so it was 56 with one absence I apologize it was 56 with one absence y and the second one can all 10 seven seven yes five no councilors councelor Zimmerman are you in the queue for a point of order or can I move forward with my amendment I have an amendment I'll wait after you okay, plegine 16 I passed out a few minutes ago. We no longer have the funds for this that I was hoping to move forward, but I still would like to put it on the table because I think it is an important concept to raise. This is a motion to increase rather than maintain the contract levels through the office of violence prevention and ceasefire. These are programs that work with people who have been victims of gun violence and that work with communities to try to reduce gun violence. These are critical programs in my district. And when I talk to folks in my district about what they need, this is one of the things that is brought up repeatedly because the positions in these offices receive the treatment that all positions in the city do um of cost of living increases being included in the base budget that moves forward. But the contracts do not. The buying power of those contracts decreases over time because the reality is that the people we contract with have increasing costs over time. I had hoped to increase the contracts by the same amount that we increase our colas so that the buying power would not be decreased. This would cost a total of $180,000. Those were funds I was hoping to take from the contingency money left over, general fund contingency, from amendments that I brought forward on the 21st. We've chosen to spend that money elsewhere. I'm not looking for a second and a vote because we don't have the funds to do this anymore, but I want to point out that this amendment is here is on the table. I'll second and I would love for us to be able to come back to it at some point. I'll second it, madam president. There are other places you can get the money. Well, that was point of order or question. That was what I was going to ask. Like, I hear you. And is it in general, aren't we operating at this point that things can be out of balance because we can find it later and then we'll have to fix it later? Colleagues, we are $700,000 in the hole on contingent on um general fund right now because one of the amendments we passed yesterday we were told was in balance and it was not. Separate issue. So I am now going to withdraw my amendment. Councelor Zimmerman, the floor is yours. Thank you, madam president. I'm making a motion to amen amend to move 1.2 million of opioid settlement funds into a contingency policy set aside intended for access and payment to multma county for the future operations of a 247 drop off sobering center once opened. The city of Portland has been a longtime participant with multma county in designing and crafting the new sobering center program. City services desire a better alternative for severely intoxicated people and a sobering center offers that solution. As a primary user, the city of Portland commits with funding to helping multma county to bring a sobering center to the Portland community as soon as possible. Thank you. I would enjoy a second. Second. Point of order. Is this in the public safety uh area? Thank you. I can answer that point of order. Actually, yes. Sobering services are considered part of public safety and the police bureau has traditionally paid for the old sobering center, but that stopped in 2019, which is why multma county is trying to reignite it. So, it is public safety related. Thank you, councilors. Uh, councelor Smith, are you in the queue to discuss this amendment? Yes. Uh, councelor Zimmerman for this. Do we have money left over in the opioid settlement pot? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. I don't I know I had a uh opioid request and I didn't um it didn't pass, but for this one, tell me why this is this is urgent at this moment. I appreciate the question. So, um, for 23 and 24, me many members of Portland, uh, staff, including police, mayor's representatives, psa, the public safety service area, have been at the executive table of mult county's sobering center work. Mult county received $25 million last legis legislative session from the state legislature to help with this. They've used some of that for the deflection and they remain will use the remainder of it as they stand up their sobering center. The it is estimated in that planning that a couple of things will happen. One is that mult county plans to create a cheers style van like we've seen in other communities and like we used to have here. Mhm. Two that they expect that there will be times when police officers during their interactions will have will will think that sobering is a better alternative than for a jail hospital or leaving them on the streets. And it returns us to a pre209 kind of situation where we used to have this type of service and because of the nature of the drugs that have hit our community, the sobering services were shut down. But that service used to be paid for by Portland police from their budget. And this, I think, is a good faith effort given that the previous city council has uh had $ 1.9 million actually allocated. But in this proposed budget by the mayor, he pulled out that 1.9 uh because that sobering center is not yet open. I think it's important to signal to multma county that we will stay in this game with them if they are able to open it up because it is a very critical need and they expect to open theirs by the end of this upcoming fiscal year and into the next one. We had it. It was there. I don't think that carving it out in the proposed budget was the right move and this is a fix to do that. I think you may have seen a letter from multma county chair this week. I think that some of you may have received calls from oklahoma county commissioners today and I'm hoping for the city of Portland to signal that we stay committed to opening a sobering center in this community. Councelor Smith, anything additional and this will go into contingency? Yes. If mult county fails to open the site, then then they would not have the ability to to pull these funds. But if they open the site and the city administration feels that our payment can go forward for that, then I would support that authorization. Okay. It is similar to where it sat in contingency previous budget. Councelor Smith, anything further? No. Councelor Avalos. So I'm having a a similar moment to councelor president where uh this was money that I was intending to bring forward to use for um for a health and um I think that what is important about the difference in what I am um suggesting and how we use those dollars is that for health is providing a permanent housing solution as well. And so, um, fora already has a sobering, you know, essentially sobering center. Uh, and then they the capital dollars that I'm intending to use with the 1.2 million, um, that I was going to introduce in a later category because I understood it was under another category or else I would have introduced it now. Um that um those dollars are to stand up 46 new beds in a moment where we are in a dire housing crisis and it is intersectional with our direction crisis. Um that to me feels like the more appropriate use um all the stuff with multma county. I mean honestly I'm not interested because I think this is a duty we have as a city um to put some dollars into work that we're doing. This is something that obviously affects my district and I care a lot about adding this capacity in d1. Um, and I think that it is also an important key to kind of a a corridor in my district with between adventist health and for health to have this permanent supportive housing option um that will be moving people into a more stable housing solution because sobriety beds are not a stable solution. And those are intended to be you know you come in and you go whereas for health uh the fora health option is an actual stable solution and that is what a lot of our communities need is they need housing and they need an opportunity to do that in with permanent supportive resources which is what fora does which is also related to addiction. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this so that I can introduce for health um with this 1.2 million which I believe is a better use. So I will be voting no on this for that reason. Thank you, councelor. Councelor cayama Lane. Thank you, madam president. Thank you, councelor Zimmerman. I appreciate your perspective, especially as the counselor appointed by mayor wilson to the soc, the steering and oversight committee, and someone that does have a lot of experience in multma county. I am curious if and how you've worked with our administrative side on this, and if not, that's fine, but then I would like to hear from them. Thanks. So, as I mentioned, for the last for the last two years, the city administration has been fully at the table for planning of the sobering center and the mayor's representatives, the police chief's representatives have been at that table. Members of our public safety service area have been at that table. The funding cobbled together to open the sobering center relies on Portland contributing to that service. I want to be really clear when people say that there are other sobering sites around. There are not. There are no such things as other sobering sites in this community. There are detox sites, which is a very different service. There are treatment beds, which is a very different service. There are no sobering beds, and we may be one of the largest, if not the largest urban community without a sobering site. And that's why the Portland administration was at the table for the last 2 years. The mayor is aware that I was bringing this today. Commissioners are letting you all know right now that fora health is getting $6 million from multma county. They do not need this 1.2, but we desperately need a sobering center. These are different services and public safety. Our position in this is why we should be involved in this and it's why multma county should be involved with fora health because that is the long-term treatment long-term beds for that side of it. This is clearly within the public safety wheelhouse which is why the city has been in the planning of this all along and why the city is not in the planning of the fora treatment beds because that's not in our line of business. So I think you kind of answered the question about how you collaborated. Um I also am hearing talking about working with the administration for over two years. Mayor wilson has been in this position for five and a half months. I know that you are um working on being very strategic with your choices and relationships. So I would like to hear from your team as well. I mr. Mayor, would you like to respond? Certainly. And you're right. This has been a a fivemonth arc. It started with conversations with uh the chair and with commissioner Brim edwards asking for support. Um we were both challenged county and Portland with meeting our obligations to one another. County owed us for srv and test sites which they were unable to. So we went to start filling that gap. So we utilize those funds for the srv. So to pull them back would uh take money away from that. So that was a very difficult choice. We had noted to county that we needed these open now and they had noted 2026 was when they were going to open. Now they pushed 2027. So we had noted to them they were for ongoing support of that operation which is not expected till 2027. Worked with counselor Avalos this last month I would say. She brought forward the use for the opioid. She asked if I would support it. I thought it was a great move because again our focus is beds. We need beds. We don't care if they're overnight beds, 24/7 beds, recovery beds. We need beds. So, it was a very good move. Um, yesterday, councelor Zimmerman brought this to my attention. I received a call from commissioner Brim edwards this morning noting that they have $6 million going to fora health. She explained that that's a county prerogative. That's a county funding. And so um I believe that we have both now solved for if the Zimmerman amendment goes forward. We're able to provide funds for for at the rate of 6 million which was per brim edwards the nexus for the county and to councelor Zimmerman the 1.2 that he brings forward is the nexus for the sobering center which was something that PPB as noted paid for as it's a public safety response as well. So, can I clarify? Are you feeling supportive of this? Yeah, so long as I know that the for health I think that it's a good choice and I believe it was always a county prerogative, a county funding and brim edwards uh confirmed that they are and do have uh funding going. They didn't cut it. Thank you. I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Ryan. Oh, thank you, madam president. My hand was up for the actually the same dialogue that the the vice chair the vice president asked for and I I appreciate you uh taking time to explain that fully and it took me a while to figure out if you were actually supportive of this amendment but you are correct. I just want to hear it again. Okay. Yeah. The closure of the sobering center in 2019 by the city and the county was a was a big mistake. Yes, there were new drugs but we should have responded with um a better plan at that time. We've unfortunately it's been closed and we're allowing uh people on the streets who uh want to just navigate sidewalks to have to see that. So the humanitarian crisis u didn't just show up overnight. It was those kind of mistakes along the way. So yes, this is urgent and I will be supportive of it. Thank you councilors. Well, I know that um these funds may not have initially been in the budget because the county isn't there yet. I think it is really important that we continue to put the pressure on to get there because a sobering center is absolutely critical and making sure that we have the funds available uh as soon as they are ready is a way that we can help to do that. Thank you for bringing this forward, counselor. I'll continue to be supportive. Councelor Smith, thank you. Thank you, madam president. While I do support the idea of uh assisting with this because it's a huge issue and a lot of folks who are indigent and who are homeless, they need these services. But I got to tell you, I am troubled by consistently, you know, passing city money over to the county. I don't think that we should be underwriting the things that they should be paying for. And so, here we go again, y'all. This is their thing. This is what they need to be paying for. They have the extra money from metro to pay for these kinds of things. And for me, it's just like I'm done with it. And um they have reigged on some things that we have been in the uh works on and I don't feel like they get rewarded for not meeting their obligation to the ig and everything else. And then we keep continuing to give them money. We have other things. And the reason why I'm a little I'm also a little teed off because I asked for the money for summer jobs to help do additional summer jobs for kids who had legal troubles that poic needed and that we were going to do training on on the importance of not um not taking drugs, not selling drugs, not human trafficking and all that. And I would much rather spend that money in that way before I give multma county additional funds from us because they have not been a fair partner. And I I agree with what you're saying, but I I just don't know that I want to do that at this point. Thank you, counselor. Um councelor canal, have you had an opportunity to speak? Go right ahead. I I have two questions and one of them is going to sound like it's saying something that it's not saying. So I want to just preface it up there. This was proposed to be money given directly to the county and you're saying that in the past it used to come from the police bureau. So my question is the first question is would we not put that new money into the police bureau? Be very clear. Put the new money in and then have it be an expense that we direct. What why would it be a direct give instead of and again, this I'm not talking about having them use existing money. I'm just curious why it's not a past. Yeah. Um so this gets to the heart of the sobering center. A sobering center is in every community considered part of the public safety apparatus. It's not considered part of the treatment continuum. It's a really important distinction. Soberine, unfortunately, is not reimbursible by medicaid the way that that detox and treatment is. So that that line is a line of delineation. Most so in our history, because of that need existing, Portland police have have paid to have that service stood up by a nonprofit previously. And because it got so dangerous with the type of meth and fentanyl that are on the streets today, it was not safe for the people being taken there, it was not safe for the people working there. And so it shut down. We've seen what those five years have felt like on the streets. A couple of years ago, the county said, "okay, got it. But we still have to have a solution to this." so they undertook a planning process to restart a sobering center. They didn't used to be in the business of a sobering center, but they are now getting into the business of a sobering center. So, this is this is them recognizing this this hole that was created by by everybody shutting it down in 2019. Um, and so I don't think that it needs to be Portland police who pays for it. I think that it used to be, but times have changed a lot in the last six years. And so I think if we just do a direct allocation when they're ready, that's fine. And I and I do think it is different than the social services as it relates to the housing continuum, the homeless services continuum because I think this one falls directly into line with public safety because right now if you're intoxicated to the point you can't help yourself on the street, most of the time a person is just is left there and we hope they don't decompensate. The other option is a hospital visit which in this plan group by the way the hospitals are sitting out as well and said coming to the hospital is also a bad idea. We it's not serving them well and and the last course is is a trumped up jail charge and where the jail's not going to take that person anyway because they're so sick. So the option ends up being this is why so many people are left on the street and the county is trying to solve for that and I think the the port the city of Portland apparatus is trying to say we recognize we're going to be the number one user of this and we'd like to make sure it gets open and that's why I'm supporting us remaining with skin in the game and a signal. Um and I and I do not dispute some of our other social services issues but I think this one falls into a public safety service which is why I think we should have skin here. And then my my other question, thank you. My other question is, is the $6 million for for health, I know that the county is approving their budget tomorrow uh or adopting their budget tomorrow. Is it in there right now or are we just counting on it being added? The conversation that I had with her today was that she andor confirmed that the 6 million was going from county to fora. So, I can only just go off of that. So, it's in the email. You're saying it's in the approved budget and it'll be voted on tomorrow to to finalize or that someone's going to amend that $6 million in tomorrow. It's in the budget. Her point note was it's in the budget and that was money that I believe was assured. Okay. I want you can I just use the point they the way they might signal this is they won't say it's going to for what they'll say is we're creating an RFP for a 27 bed uh detox center to be built and we want to contribute to it. Like that's generally how they would signal this. But from the chair and from from brim edward, excuse me, commissioner Brim edwards, it sounds like that and that's a longterm relationship that they have there. I was lobbyed by them when I was over there as a staffer. Like that for a building is is happening, which is not a surprise. That's within their line of business. Thank you, councelor Avalos. Actually, councelor, I'm going to go to councelor duny since he hasn't spoken. I'm sorry. Sorry. I just I don't know if anybody knows the answer to this, but was fora anticipating that $6 million or is that does this $6 million act keep them whole or were they anticipating both something from the county and something from the city in their ask? Do we know? Okay. Councelor Smith, are you back in the queue or still in the queue? Yes, I'm I am back in the queue. Um, it does not mean that we can't do both things. So, are you going to suggest that we continue to you the to use the opioid money every year as an ongoing source because we're we're going to get it for the next 15 years. So is that what your intention is? My intention is that we not back out of the commitment. If previously it was in the budget as ongoing contingency set aside six years ago. No, not six years ago. It was in it last year. It was removed by this mayor in this proposed budget. It was in it last year. In the current year we're sitting in right now, there is a tap a fund they could tap today, but but they because they haven't opened. So I'm trying to keep it there even though this is a reduction. I'm trying to keep some semblance of a funding payment there. Okay. So are you trying what I'm trying to figure out so are you going to try to get this 1.2 every year or because it is this money and this is what I what I've talked about the un the unassigned dollars that we're expected to get for the next 15 years should be considered ongoing money. So I'm trying to figure out are you trying to get this for ongoing money? Uh, fair. My my my proposal today is a one-time only. I would encourage and I will encourage the mayor to include a payment. I think it's appropriate to come from the opioid opioid settlement dollars, a payment to the county moving forward, but that's not what I'm asking for today. I'm asking for this one-time set aside in contingency so that it um in the general fund contingency policy set aside of 1.2 2 million so that it can be tapped and a signal to not have to carve out new space next year because it got pushed out this year and I think it should keep its space in the budget. Okay, councelor Avalos. Well, I'll just first state my frustration on the record. Mayor, we've been working on this for a month. Hearing this as a surprise in the das, I don't appreciate that. I have been working with you on this because I believe it leads to our goals that we both share around adding more beds around making sure that we can have addiction and recovery services. The solution that I'm proposing is adding a more permanent solution instead of fitting filling some hole. And I agree with councelor Smith. I mean, there's a larger discussion we need to have here, but I believe that the city's book of business is building, you know, these buildings and this is adding housing while also accomplishing the goals and the mission of the opioid uh settlement funds. And just to be clear, uh, director lavine, is this just so that it's on the record, is what this amendment is proposing within the use within the proper I don't know what do you call it? Uh, the for example, is to support crisis stabilization centers as an alternative to hospital emergency departments. So it would appear to fall within use. I believe it would fall within an allowed use. Yes. Thank you. Um, so, uh, yeah, frustrated that this wasn't a discussion. Um, considering I've been talking about this for weeks. So, council Zimmerman, I'm frustrated by that. Um, again, I feel like I continue to experience this from you and we're going to have to talk offline about it. I'm upset. Um, I think ultimately, uh, I'm not going to support this because I still believe that adding 46 new beds in my district is super important. It's something that I've been working um with for on and um it doesn't even sound like you know there's a lot of is it going to happen is it in multma countyy's budget. I'm not interested in taking that risk right now. I think it is my responsibility to use what's within my budget within our budget and uh I believe that this these dollars need to continue to go to forest. So I'm going to vote no. Thank you councelor. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, keelin, could you please call the role on Zimmerman? What number is this? 15 now. 16. 16. And 16. And I just I want to make sure I clarify it um that if there was any question about this, says a general fund contingency policy set aside increase 1.2 million and updates attachment a through h as necessary. We've got all the technicalities taken care of now. Thank you, councelor. And this is a one-time use of dollars. I have one question. Councelor murio, you have a question. I'm so sorry. Can we just get one final clarification? So, did is the county's 6 million fully funding fora or not? I have no idea. For doesn't didn't come and lobby me about any projects that they want. What I know is that they have a buildout that they've been trying to do and they're cobbling together money which is pretty normal for for groups. I don't know the size of their project, but my amendment wasn't about fora. My amendment was about a sobering center. Okay. Mayor, do you know since you've been in discussion with the county? I don't. That information came to me this morning. I'm just writing a note to provide information to councelor Avalos after this meeting once it becomes clarified on their budget. So I I don't know that. Okay, I guess we're flying blind. We're not flying blind. I mean, the sobering center is a choice as it stands alone, and I think that's an important choice that this city for a long time has has been in. And so, I know it's being compared against, but I don't I don't consider these to be a compared against idea. Both of these things are going to happen. Four is going to build out and I would love it if we could get a sobering center to occur. I think we've called the vote though, right? We have and we have additional counselors getting in the queue. Councelor canal, is it very quick? Yes. Otherwise, we're going to move to the vote. Yes. Robert taylor, uh, is there a legal requirement that we spend or assign these opioid dollars in this budget? Like, does something bad happen if it's not assigned to either? I I don't believe we're required to spend them now. We can spend them in the in a future budget or in a supplemental budget. So, I don't think you have to do this right now. Kayyn, can you please call the role? Canel. No. Oh, okay. Um, I would like to figure out what's going on here a little bit more. I I think uh I was not lobbied on this. I haven't gotten any information on this whatsoever. Same with the fora conversation, but at least I'd read that one earlier, but I didn't know the new information. Because we don't have to legally assign it right now, I think I'm likely to vote no on both of these uh and and then understand um for a potential supplemental budget on it. I strongly support the idea of a sobering center. I just want to understand the opportunity cost on the other side of it. And with the county not voting on their budget till tomorrow, I think it's it's vi vital to um to try to get some more information here. I share uh councelor smith's concerns as well. So, I'm going to vote no on both of these. There's only one thing on the table. Let's be clear. Sorry, that that is accurate. I vote no on this. Thank you for clarifying, Ryan. Yeah, the mayor and council zimmer are at the table. Um I vote I coalain I maria. I wish that we had more information from the county on if uh I understand that there these are both good ideas and I think they're both things that our community needs. I think our community does need the combination of beds and sobering and like long-term care more than immediate sobering. And that's something that we really lack. And so I'm going to have to vote no on this. No. Vic, I'm just voting against things that are surprising to me. No. Clark. Uh my 93-year-old nextdoor neighbor is a former multma county sheriff and when he found out that I was going to run for office, the first thing he said to me was bring back a sobering center. So with this vote, I'm fulfilling my obligation to my 93year-old neighbor. I vote I Green. I'm I I'm going to vote now to preserve the option to reconsider later. Zimmerman I you know, making sure that you that you um your commitments that you honor your commitments to people is is great, but this is only for one year of operating funds. And I find it very unconscionable that the mayor would work with my district colleague and support her and then flip on her in the during the meeting. That's not acceptable. That is not cool at all. In no way. And if you were at the table, if you and councelor Zimmerman were at the table, you have the ability to write the first draft of the uh budget and you failed to put money in there because you didn't think that it was important or it was critical. And and besides that, I am so tired of multma county not adhering to the ig. I'm not giving them anything else. And we need to go back and check that as well. So, you know, shame on you, mayor. Shame on you for doing that to her. I vote no. Guinea councelor, I seconded this and voting no in order to be able to bring it back after we have more conversations with a few of our colleagues. The amendment fails with four yes votes and eight no votes. Colleagues, I'd like us to finish up public safety and then take a lunch break. I was hoping we'd get through community engagement first, but I think folks all need a little downtime. Are there any is there anyone who has not brought forward their top priority in public safety who would like to do so? Okay, colleagues, seeing nobody else coming forward, we are going to take a 45minute recess. Before we go, I just want to lay out what to expect when we get back. When we get back at 1:45, we will have about two and a half hours to get through the community engagement section, housing and homelessness, and if there is anything else on the other section that we haven't gotten to to get through budget notes and to come back around to additional amendments. While we are scheduled until 6, I'm going to need us to close out a little sooner than on our amendments because as you remember from yesterday, we actually have a number of things that we'll need to come back to. Um, and I'm not sure how long that will take, but I'm guessing that I will start getting pressure from staff around 4:30 or 5 to move in that direction. I can try to get an update on that number by the time we get back. So, please be back here by 1:45 to continue our work. Thank you. [music] okay. Hey, hey, [music] hollywood. [music] good girl. [music] heat. Heat. [music] I I [music] out1. [music] down heat. Heat. [music] okay, [music] heat. [music] okay. [music] I love you. Hey, hey. [music] heat. [music] uh-huh. How [music] you. [music] claud [music] I think we're doing [music] I [music] I want you [music] know [music] down all we are slowly making our way back in to reconvene our Portland city council meeting to adopt amendments to the budget. I am going to stall as I pull my things up. Um, counselors, we have okay, shalan huddleston with us now in the hot seat keeping track of everything. So, shalan, please let us know if folks are making amendments from the floor and you need us to slow down a little bit so you can capture things. Um, and if numbers are not adding up in the way that we are saying they are so that we can catch those mistakes in the moment, um, feel free to just catch my eye, turn on the mic and interrupt us, whatever you need. We want to make sure that it's working for you. Thank you. Um colleagues, we are oh, my zoom turned off. Uh we are picking back up in the community engagement portion of our work. And we have a number of amendments here. And I believe we have some combinations of those amendments that folks have been working on. And I cannot see hands up because my zoom isn't up yet. Are you first in the queue, vice president? I am. Okay, councelor quayama Lane. Why don't you go ahead and get started? I'll message our colleagues who aren't here yet. All right, colleagues. Hello. I'm bringing forward a budget note and two amendments. I'm passing it around right now. I'm bringing them to you in service of building a shared action plan and finding a common pla path forward between our council and administration specifically related to civic life and engagement but also including equity, sustainability, and communication. I've spoken with councilors, city staff, and community members over the past week or so about this topic, gone really in-depth on it. And while everyone has their own unique perspective on what needs to happen in terms of engagement with the community, I have heard some cons consistent themes rising to the top um and some consistent awareness and interest in the following areas. Improvement to the functions of the programs currently under civic life. Maintaining current funding levels for those programs that benefit our community. Ensuring that the vital programs that are currently housed in the office of civic life have the opportunity to be adequately supported and to achieve their vision. Avoiding potential actions that might lead to adversarial relationships between the city administrator's office and council and co-creating a unified strategic vision for what engagement, equity, neighborhood connections, and communications all are, how they connect. I think many understand that the office of civic life has had many different paths and bumps and challenges. I've learned that there has been a lot of work to um in this area. At first I kind of thought it started closer to 2017 2018, but the more I learned this is something that has gone back for decades and that many different commissioners have had different ideas about. I've learned that there's been a lot of work to create recommendations for change. Most of which have not yet been implemented and some of which are now being used um aren't being implemented but are really used to define needed changes in structure and reporting assignments and streamlining. So I have had the opportunity to see a preview of some of those upcoming changes. From my understanding, a pause button has been hit knowing that there are amendments relating related to this topic that are that were forthcoming. To me, it feels important to allow our professional staff the time to bring them forward to council for presentation and consideration before taking big significant action through the budget process. So for instance, in this new role that we have for our engagement officer, I have learned that there are over 100 city employees throughout our whole city doing different types of community engagement work. And it's been something that has been a hope of councils for a while that that can be more streamlined and it can be something that is more unified and that when you are talking to um doing community engagement with the fire department that it looks similar to community engagement that you are doing with um a bureau in public works say parks. So ensuring that there's a consistency in approach and practice makes a lot of sense to me. That um seems critical and it also takes leadership and management. It's my hope to find a common ground where priorities for programs are honored through funding and we also give some time to allow changes to be to be presented and considered. So I'm bringing forward three things. Should I read all of them? They're a bit different. If this is a package, why don't you read them all? Okay. So, coyama Lane 9 is a motion to add a budget note for the city administrator, the office of civic life, and related programming. Um, and it motion it motion. Yeah. For them to work collaboratively with council in development of a single unified plan that addresses structural and programmatic challenges within the office of civic life with the engagement officer, the office of equity and human rights, the office of sustainability as outlined in Avalos 9, but adding in sustainability. And those different positions are ones where we have um leaders who are chiefs but are outside of bureaus. This outlines that collaboration will begin with the first briefing to council about these changes and connections no later than August 1st, 2025 on current structures and staffing. Key recommendations for change from previous processes and any proposed changes to structures and staffing. In addition, regular briefings will then continue in alignment with briefings to council as outlined in mario 10. Restructuring should include reference to a community partnership support framework c. Clark 3, motion to amend attachment d. This should also add a focus on culturally specific and culturally responsive community-based organizations as well as a citywide focus on creation of the community partnership support framework. Partnerships with community- based organizations should be part of a city-wide engagement strategy as Clark outlined in four yeah in Clark 4. Clark 7 outlines using measurable data and outcomes to support and increase volunteer engagement. This is something I've we've heard on the dis come up a lot with special attention to the parks bureau. These efforts will be documented and regular regularly reported quarterly to council. This is an opportunity to be intentional in how the city values and supports volunteers as important partners. All right. 10 and 11 are amendments. This 10 is a motion to amend the budget to restore funding for diversity and civic leadership program district coalition offices. Small grants motion. Small grants. Yep. Sorry, it's all blending together here. Using the proposed fy25 to 26 civic life budget resulting in no net change to the budget. Funding restoration will be through reducing personnel costs, not through program cuts as Zimmerman requested in Zimmerman 6. For the next budget for fy2627. The dco RFP process will in will address insurance needs. Like many of you, you might have had um I have had folks coming to me saying, "are we giving insurance to all the neighborhood associations? Um it's a it's a small amount. I believe it's $80,000." I have felt like, "why aren't we just doing this? Should I just pay out of my own office budget?" what I learned is they are already covered for this for the next 12 months, but they pay their insurance on July 1st. So, they would like to know that they will have insurance for the following year. That's fair. And also, they are they are made whole for next year. From my understanding, there's a plan for there to be an RFP process for these different coalitions. So this specifically says that for the next budget that RFP process will address insurance needs and through all of this funding is restored to the office of community and civic life. It's in the office of community and civic life. Um restoration goes to diversity and civic leadership program district coalition offices and small grants. Sorry, one more amendment and then I'm I'll stop. All right. This one is a motion to amend the budget to move one fte from the office of civic life to council operations. The focus of the position will be to be a liaison to staff and key partners working on community engagement across the city. Position and funding will be identified using proposed fy2526 office budget resulting in no net change to the budget. City administrator to report on this move no later than July 31st, 2025. So that just decreases the onepoint fte from office of civic life and puts it into council operations. Councelor novik, are you in the queue for questions on this package? Yes. Right ahead. Um, councelor kalain, I don't see how how does kyle Lane 10 balance? What I see is increase program expense by 477 949 and I see something saying funding restoration will be through reducing personnel costs, but I don't see where the 477 is coming from. From working with um folks from the city administrator's office, from the chief of uh who is at the head of the office of community and civic life and also seeing the new um structures that are forthcoming. There's going to be a ton of movement and so it will be from positions that are reclassified. Okay. I just or and if you look here, there's including vacant positions. Council, would this come from reductions of other positions or vacancies within the office of civic life? Yes, councelor novik. Um, that I confess I'm still worried that that seems too vague. Um but uh thank you councelor canel. Thank you madam president. Um I have I'll just say I think 11 is a is a slam dunk for me. I'd like to talk about 9 and 10. Um and by the way I withdrew my amendment canal 9 because of your uh work on this issue that led to 11. So thank you. Um, so I just want to reference the the what's referenced in coyama Lane 10 uh talks about personnel costs and references Zimmerman 6 and Zimmerman 6 talks about uh removing uh or I think completely eliminating one of the program offers if I recall correctly uh in the office of civic life which is the 5ft fte there. So, because that would reduce expenditure by 1.35 million and this uses 477, I'm going to guess that one of two things is true and ask you which it is, which is does this free up $900,000 that's unassigned because the full the same thing that's referenced in Zimmerman 6 is happening or are you asking for some sort of reduction within the pool the same way that the 20% reductions are being actualized at 9.5% this year or something else. Is it okay if I bring up um someone else who wants to go right ahead while they're coming up next? We have two people coming up right now. While they're doing that, I'll ask the next question which is can you explain in number nine what single unified means? I recognize the conversation around having some sort of common purpose, but having done community engagement on multiple of these bureaus's behalf, I can tell you the type of trauma that people come into community engagement around public safety from various sides of it, uh, specifically as it relates to policing or lack thereof or whatever is very different than when you have someone giving community engagement on other topics. And so I I'm not sure there's I have a I've for years had a concern that that trying to make a one-sizefits-all approach to community engagement in the city is not the best idea and also that the way it is now is too siloed. So single unified might be an overcorrection, but I'm not sure. Do you have a suggestion of different wording or is it just more a comment? Come back to me on that. Okay. Yes. Um would you all like to answer councelor canal's question and then if you would like to answer councelor novik's um or speak to what he was saying about his concerns around it not being specific exactly which positions. Yeah. Go ahead and introduce yourselves and jump in. Hi, good afternoon. I'm amanda garcia nell. I'm the engagement officer for the record. Um, so I I'll take a a um a poke at it here and see if this is getting at what you're uh looking for. So part of um I'm I'm pretty new just to uh preface that. I've been here for a few months, but part of the my understanding of what had been conducted in the past around uh assessments for uh equitable community engagement uh strategy across the city has been through um Portland engagement project and uh the efforts internal and external to identify what this my position should really look like and do. And so my understanding is that the um the plan for that is to uh uh is for me to work on that effort across the organization. So there are still a lot of conversations to have to develop that strategy. But um the intention I if I'm uh as my un as my understanding is that the intention is to uh develop a unified strategy for equitable community engagement. Um yes a one-sizefits-all is not does not work but engagement is multiaceted. There are lots of different types of engagement and so there would be opportunities to um really look at how that should be conducted and implemented across the organization. Those conversation those uh in addition to the assessments that have already been conducted those would come out of conversations with uh leadership across the organization as well as direction from you all. Okay. Thank you. Um, I I don't know if this is in here, but I I will say I'm I'm pretty um concerned that and I I've never been uh fully behind the idea of applying the 20% uh reduction to community engagement at all. Um, there are dozens of people who do specialized community engagement work around the bureaus for specific advisory groups, specific types of projects, and I want to make sure and I I've been one of them. I want to make sure that um that that that works specialization is recognized. So, I'm a little concerned about that being a reference here. So I I think as it relates to 10, I might prefer to have a little more clarity that this would be targeted at the same uh five positions or some portion thereof. Uh that the referenced proposal Zimmerman 6 talks about. Um I think that would help me get to a place where we could clarify that this is the administrative side or to be more clear about another particular source. Um, and I'll leave it uh there on 10 on nine. I I think uh con comprehensive and integrated are two words that feel better to me than single unified because it recognizes some aspect of the fact that is a plan that's going to cover multiple things that might be a little bit different but have to work together. And uh I recognize that we've had the same conversation on a couple other documents recently as well about words that that convey the same meaning to or different meanings to to the same people. I appreciate it. And I would be amendable to a friendly amendment to change a single unified plan to a comprehensive citywide plan. That's good with me. And just to follow up, I have heard from dca moresy that for kama Lane 11, it would need to be a position elimination and position creation because it would go from a represented position on the executive side to an at will position in council operations. Thank you, madam chair. I would just speak briefly to um councelor coyama's integration, if you will, of my budget notes uh three and seven. Um you can read it for yourself, but uh pretty simply, it's really meant to encourage more a development of a volunteer program uh with public private partnerships. Given what's happening with parks, we have some models around the city that we can actually pursue. And as parks is moving into the public works service area, it makes a lot of sense to have this in public works. We also have a peabot director, millisent williams, who's quite familiar with volunteer u programs, which something she did in Washington dc. Um, and you can read it for yourself. There are several different components to it. Um, and uh, coyama Lane 9 references those. Clark 7 really is very straightforward. It's an outgrowth of a conversation that I had with mayor wilson about the reduction that we've experienced in uh volunteerism in Portland over the last few years and the need to re-engage with the community on volunteerism. So, um we're asking that we develop some metrics in the parks department to actually measure how we're doing with uh parks volunteerism. So, that short and sweet is what those two are. Thank you, counselor. Councelor mariel. Um I think I like the budget notes for 9 and 11. I'm still sorry I know folks have explained this already. Can you spell out exactly where the funding source for this is coming from? So we're going to be cutting a position. Do we know what position to move to another one for coyle 10? Go ahead. So, um the uh yesishish is the short answer for that. Um, we would want to think about um what all uh meets your needs as well as uh future conversations with um dca leadership to make sure or service area leadership to make sure that we're understanding their needs in addition to what has already been um collected in terms of uh assessments around uh un or a um a citywide approach to engagement potentially. It's a neighborhood program related connection because it seems to be there seems to be interest at least from what I um have observed in your conversations around uh that connection but we're certainly open to you know taking that direction from you more conversations okay thank you did you have anything else counselor councelor cramelain you wanted to add something I just wanted to add that um I hope it's okay that I share that I've gotten a peek at some of the new org charts and to see some of these changes. I know that there is a hope to be considerate and for city employees to not see those for the first time right here or hear about them from us on the deis. And so I think there's a piece of uh we're not showing those yet and they would like to be able to show the team first and get some feedback and have those conversations. Um, but I was able to see those and can probably share them with you privately. Councelor Zimmerman. Not thrilled with my Zimmerman 6 being put up as some sort of version that that was cutting a program and yours won't. But money does have to come from somewhere and what is not in any of these amendments is a reduction anywhere. So I seems a little disingenuous. Um, you are referencing a set of amendments that I proposed relative to the reduction of the office of civic life and community so that we could restore the diversity and leadership program, improve the immigrant refugee program, restore the neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood associations operations and small grants. But I was able to offer those amendments up because I had cut somewhere in the budget. But there is no cut here and you'd be asking us to put ourselves further out of balance if we passed these. So since you put my name in your in your note or in your amendment, I um as somehow that you've solved the problem I was trying to solve in a way that doesn't have a a negative fund balance. I I'm trying to understand it, but it feels like the this is a positive note, right? Puts positive programs back in but without any consequences because somewhere we're going to have to give and I don't think we have an amendment that goes along with this. Councelor Zimmerman, would you like councelor to address those concerns? Sure. First, councelor Zimmerman, I apologize. I did not mean for this to come across as disingenuous. When you and I spoke about this and I asked your priorities, I was under the impression that a high priority for you was that the funding was restored to these programs and that you genuinely cared about these programs. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I'm happy to strike your name from this. Um, I did feel like I was trying to take when from that conversation genuinely take that hope from you and try to still achieve that. I would like to point out that there is no net change to the budget in this and that in the very soon forthcoming changes we're about to see, we will see that the rearranging of positions and the reclassifying will make it so we will be able to eliminate some of these positions. We um will be able to look closer to the neighborhood program, look at that program, and we will be able to do what I think I've heard a lot of counselors up here say, including you, is really important to them, which is restoring the neighborhood program and the cuts that all of these programs were. Yeah, I I appreciate that. I think the intent was good, but I hope there are no other bureaus or other offices who present and then think that their org chart gets to change on July 1st. That is not a mechanism from which we do this work. We approve fte counts today to be executed in the upcoming year. So while it sounds like the bureau plans to move a lot of stuff around to meet what you're talking about, I think that is a step too far. It probably is unauthorized because the fte count, the org charts, the budget that they're going to be receiving from this county, from this body for next year is all part of the bake of the budget process. So we don't write a blank check to an organization with no fte count, no mission statement, no program offer, and no org chart. So that seems a little bit strange to me that the bureau would want to basically go untouched and say in the future year we'll adjust to what what it is that that you want. That takes amendments. And I'll remind you that this this is the group who came forward when they presented their budget to the finance committee. They said they preserved staff over programs. And so we're sitting here having to refund neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood associations because they chose they made the choices they made. And I think a lot of us have said we'd like to find a way to restore the neighborhood coalitions, but that takes an action. And that isn't just a please rejiggerate. This is an official budget. This document came forward and what you're describing is not something that was in the proposed budget, which means that it's not been something that was either blessed off on from a mayor's perspective or has been blessed off from this budget committee. Um, I'm working with a couple of colleagues that I, you know, you've all seen mine. I've heard some feedback. I I think that if there's time to get into an alternative, I would be happy to share that. But I don't know that this restores the programs the way that I was hoping to. But I do appreciate the effort particularly in the civic life diversity and leadership program and the small grants. But we have to pay for it from somewhere and I don't see a debit in credit here. I first just want to really really appreciate councelor um vice president coyama Lane because I think what I appreciate about the amendments that she's proposing is and what I have seen from her throughout this entire budget process is a willingness to bring all of the partners to the table and help us make strong decisions that are informed by the staff that have to execute them. And that's what I'm seeing and how you've crafted this. I really am grateful to you for doing that. I had a lot of concerns with the other way that some of the amendments that you're naming in here um how they were structured and I feel like you did a really good job of consolidating all of that and achieving the outcome we all want while also ensuring that we have a good um you know that we are working um collaboratively with our city leaders to uh minimize harm, right? And so that's what I'm seeing in these. I am absolutely going to be supportive. But I just wanted to put that on the record because everyone should know that vice president coyama Lane is uh emerging as a really strong collaborative leader and I just appreciate it so much and I think it's the kind of leadership I want to see us do more in next year's budget because I've been and I've shared on the dis I've been very concerned about certain programmatic changes that are happening without collaboration with the bureaus and um I think this is an example of the way we should be doing it. So, I wanted to appreciate you on in public. So, thank you. I will support your amendments. Councelor Smith. Thank you, madam president. Um, thank you, vice president [ __ ] mlain, um, for putting this together. I do have some of the same concerns that, um, councelor Zimmerman has. And so what I'm not clear on right now and so there's an assumption that we all know the workings of what civic life is right now and what was taken away. So it is civic life was it taken out of a particular service area and put somewhere else? I I don't think counc issue that the reason why you're here sarah is because it is under your under your um uh service area that she would be taking some staff and adding to civic life. Uh annie vonberg, assistant city administrator for the record. That's okay. Thank you councelor Smith for the question. A note. Currently, right now, civic life resides within the city administrator's office under the assistant city administrator. So, here's here's the bigger issue. I don't think that neighborhood association should be in council operations. I just council operations should be just that. It should be operations as it relates to our committees and how we bring things forward and to to to look at our resolutions and that that is what council operations is. It's not it's not civic life. That's not what we should do. We have to keep those things separately. And if there's it's I'm I'm I'm looking at you, but I'm saying this to the maker of the motion that when it was brought up before, I had some concerns about it, but I'm just I am so unclear about this particular um about all three of these and where money is coming from and where it's not and why would we just take one person and put them in council operations to to civic life. Madame vice president, could you explain to me councelor creamelain? Do you want to um address the um crayomal 11 and what is included there? I actually agree with you, councelor Smith. I heard a lot of different perspectives. At first, I thought, oh, counselors are we're the ones with constituents. We're doing a lot of work with them. Maybe it should be under us. And then as I spoke with especially district coalition leaders and different folks from neighborhood associations, I became convinced that it is important that there is a separation and that um neighborhood the neighborhood program is not on our side so they can really be a neutral convenor. And so this one position for quoam Lane 11 um that's not someone that would be running the neighborhood program. They would be a liazison to the neighborhood work that would still say stay on the executive side. Well, we're still trying to figure out what council operations does for us right now as it relates to community engagement and what we what resources we can get. I've talked to um I've talked to you several times and it's been great and wonderful, but we were limited on what we could get from you unless it was a citywide uh event whether or not we could get you to send out emails or any of those things. So, I'm really confused by how this will better help us in in um in doing community outreach because we all have uh field representatives in our office now to do that field outreach. And I just think council operations needs to concentrate on council operations and how we um bring the budget forward and all those things. We need more people to help us with that because I think people are really good right now with their um outreach. It seems it seems off a little offbalance to me. I appreciate it, but it just to me it doesn't um I I just don't want to see that in council operation. I think they have a different they're a policy oriented uh operation and that's what it needs to stay stay at for co Lane 11. Yes. Um for coyama Lane 10 I am open to working with uh mr. Biri to come up with the number of fte to specify what that would look like in order to cover those costs if that would that help some of my colleagues looking over at some of them. Madame president, I was about finishing, but but I so the the the issue is I mean we called out people earlier to ask them if they were working with administration um and and councelor Zimmerman was called out a couple times and asked about that. So I think the work that you're doing right now is the work that we you need to do before you get here so that you can explain it to us and you can have them explain it to you to do it. This is this policy step and creating policy and and understanding who the stakeholders are and who you how you need to do it. It has to be fully baked when you drop it on how it's how it's going to come where where the money's coming from, how you going to do it. And you got to have folks that that are going to be in these bureaus that to be able to back you up if if need be. But I know where you're trying to go with this and I appreciate it because I think community engagement is important and we've made it a um we've made it a priority in our office and I think there needs to be more of it but I think this is not baked enough yet. Councelor Smith, anything else? Nope. Okay. Um, councelor qualine, I appreciate the work that you did to try to bring folks together on this. I'm still absorbing some of the specifics. Um, I was looking at the same thing some of our colleagues were in coyama Lane 10 where it looks like we don't quite have the specificity yet that we need. And I'm wondering if you would be willing to have some conversations about making sure that crayon Lane 10 has the specificity. I see it seems like you were trying to make it a balanced amendment. And if that's the goal, then I'd like to make sure it is actually a balanced amendment. Um, and I'm wondering if you would be willing to take the time to try to figure out what we would need to do to make that change. Absolutely. It's being worked on right now and it looks like it would be around three or four fte if we need to specify. Okay, I'm happy to do so. Um I'm concerned with coyoma Lane 10 colleagues. I know that we all had a lot of frustration with our budget engagement process that ran through the office of civic life. And I learned a lot about how we need to make sure we maintain control over those things in a way that I I thought we were going to have partnership and not have to. But I don't think that the solution to that is moving somebody into council operations. We have some great staff there who I think can support us with this work and we are making some other changes that we've already voted through to support this work. I I wouldn't be opposed to expanding capacity there in the future if we decide that's needed. But as we try to balance our needs and the needs of the administration as a whole, this feels like it's responsive to one action um one incident that didn't go well. And I think that there are I think we might be able to improve the coordinated work on engagement without an additional position. Councelor canal, I believe you've spoken to this, right? Okay. Councelor Green. Uh thank you, madam president, and thank you, vice president kamine. Um I see what you're doing here. I think it is the work of trying to bring together um some very strong opinions about this this very important part of our um of our city. I'm going to support this. I'm going to be looking for reacting to kind of the balance of all the changes here, but I just wanted to offer my support. I think it's important. I think it's okay to do this level of direction at this deis and operate in this kind of relatively uncertain space when we know that we're going through a big reorganization in the city and so we can get ahead of that and say this is how I want that vision to be implemented. So that's that's a big part of why I'm supporting this today and so um curious to see how the rest of the conversation goes but I'm I'm ultimately supporting the the spirit of it. Looks like we're back to people who have spoken previously. Councelor canal, did you want a a second opportunity to speak? Yes. I just asked questions earlier. I I think um I I think I agree with the concerns around 10. Um and I I've I've heard a lot of different arguments here. I think those are those are compelling. Um I actually think that one of the challenges we face around 10 is um we have a bureau that is very small and consistently taking these little adjustments and changes that seem to reflect a desire a a long-term desire to not have it as a separate bureau but an unwillingness to just do it upfront now. Uh that's predates any of the current structure. I'm looking at a few years of this this conversation around uh civic life. Um I know a lot of the folks who work in civic life, we shared an office and I I know that a lot of them do very very good work and I'm sure everybody else does too. I just don't work with everybody closely. Um so I I'm I I do see that 10 kind of continues the the maybe kind of that I'm not clear on um for for the future of this bureau. I do want to really strongly defend 11 though. Uh, I view I think you can view community engagement as a part of implementing a policy and that's great and it is often part of implementing a policy. Um, and and taking a a vision and a clear direction and applying it into actual concrete actions and I think we we sometimes do a good job at that in the city and sometimes not. But I think what's missed often is that it's a part of policy development and not as a box we check, not sitting here listening to people give testimony before we do what we were going to do anyway, but because it's a part of actually shaping how we think. And the people who are setting the direction and doing the legislation, policy development are city council. And I think that having on principle as well as in practice, having the administration be the the place where all community engagement is housed doesn't make sense as a filter between policy makers and uh the people who are trying to weigh in on policy development. So I I do want to very strongly um support that. My original amendment created two positions um and I think this is already the compromise. Um getting it down to one. I'd love to have a second. If there's a conversation around how to do that, we should, but I I do want to strongly strongly defend that. As it relates to nine, I think, um the change to comprehensive helps me. I I don't know and I'd like to see maybe it be le less either less referential or for us to understand if our intention is to like would we still vote on Avalos 9, mario 10, Clark 3, Clark 4, Clark 7 or is the idea that this would capture all of that as well? And I think in the event that we did uh want to capture all of it, I think it might make sense to just literally make it an omnibus, copy paste it in. Um, otherwise I I'm I'm confused by the referential nature of it, but I still like the concept. Councelor, is your intent with these references that when this is written into the budget and we're not talking about amendments that no longer exist? Is your intent that the language of those amendments would be included here or that it's just referential? And is there a a way to make sure this is um clear when those amendments are not before us? I'm open to suggestions and what what makes the most sense. It does seem that if other amendments are referenced that it could be some sort of an attachment to and including those. So is your intent that we're voting on the full content of those amendments as well? For example, I don't believe your intent is that we're voting on the full content of zimmerman's six. Is that okay? Especially since many of these say as similar to or as outlined it in and it's just part of it. Okay. We may need to figure out a way if we're going to pass this to make sure that it's clear as a standalone document. And as a standalone document, all of the information is here. And so my intention was to show the collaboration and and intention to include some of these different pieces. And so I also am fine if my colleagues are fine with not attaching those. And I'm also fine to strike anyone's name as they're referenced if they prefer. Great. Councelor canal, were you done? Yes. Councelor Green. Councelor Clark. Thank you. I would prefer that um they actually be included. Um I don't know if that's a footnote or an attachment or however it is that the all the language is there of um Clark 3 and 7 and assume assuming avalis 9 as well. Coyama, I also just wanted to clarify that this is not about civic life. This for me as I learn more is really about making sure we have an equitable engagement strategy that includes systems across all service areas and are actually built into being of service to the community. So my expectation is not that we're holding um to what we currently know as the office of civic life. Um but is that we're holding the administration accountable to these new systems that serve portlanders better hopefully. And I would like to see this realignment process that I know a lot of resources and work has gone into. I'd like to see it have a chance to move forward and have a better understanding of what a comprehensive plan could look like before we make massive cuts and resources to a whole area. Counselors, we have three amendments before us. Um, it sounds like there's a little bit of cleanup on cralane 10 that councelor kramolain is working on language for. Um, councelor, do you want a little bit of time for that and we can let others propose other amendments in this area? Is that helpful? Or we can vote on nine or do you think it's coming soon and we should vote on the others while we wait for that? I heard look working on it. Looks like there may be yeah. So working on it. Okay. I asked jonas for an amount of time but need to give him the space to work. Is it possible to go ahead and vote on the others? Uh meaning 9 and 11. Yeah, we can move forward there. Um on crane nine, is there any cleanup around the names or are you planning to attach those? If this is adopted in I would like to attach those. Okay. There any other discussion? Can I just get a clarification on what's being attached? Yes, please. So, I believe coyama Lane 9 references other amendments. This isn't something that we've seen done in a budget note. And those other amendments may or may not be adopted. So, we can't have a budget note in our budget that references things that are not in existence. So I think what we may need to do before this budget note is officially entered into the budget if it is adopted is take the language um and rather than saying as outlined in Avalos 9, say as outlined in footnote one and have a footnote with the language and instead of as outlined in mario 10, say as outlined in footnote 2 with the language. Um, restructuring should include reference to a community partnership support framework and then a footnote that just includes that rather than saying Clark 3. Um, partnership with community- based organizations should be part of a citywide engagement strategy that may not may or may not need a framework uh or may or may not need a footnote. And then use measurable data and outcomes to support and increase volunteer engagement with special attention to parks. And again, that may or may not need a footnote depending on the specific language there, but that we not refer to other budget notes and amendments. Madam president, mario 10 passed already, so I'm not sure that's necessary to add that as a footnote. Okay. I think rather than saying mario 10 though, because it's once it's adopted, it is part of the budget. So regular briefings will continue in alignment with briefings to council period perhaps or we can add it if that if that is helpful but that will be included in other places already in the budget. [music] okay. Councel p was just going to say I really like your idea of the footnote to have all the language in a footnote. So, counselors, I think what I'm going to ask is that we vote on this knowing what the intent is, but ask our colleague to write it slightly differently and turn it back into the clerk's office and the budget office. Um, so that it refers to information that's included here because in the final budget, we don't list things by amendment and some of these may or may not be passed. Um, so that we have a clean document. Point of order. Um, madame president, that's not how we do this. We have to do it inside our meeting right here so we can see what's clear. Sorry. So we can see what's clear. That you can't come back and then put something in. You got to put at least the core of what your language is so that we can vote on it. I wholly understand. I'm trying to move us with what we have. And we we did this similar. I know um the alternative is to move on and not vote yet. But I had a few people say, "can we vote on 9 and 11?" okay. While we wait. Okay. But ju just to clarify, madam chair, we can take the language in Avalos 9, Clark 3, and Clark 7 and create footnotes to this coyama Lane 9. Correct. The core language of the budget note would not change. Everybody has that language now. Correct. But it's not in this spot. This one spot together. No, it's just referenced. Yeah. Okay. Is there any other discussion? Helen, can you please call the role on coyama Lane 9? Um, may I ask who seconded these? Second. Yeah. Canel. Yeah, I'm willing to accept that structural issue here and I'll vote. I no yes. Mario I novik I clerk I Green I Zimmerman. No Avalos. I dunfy. I Smith. No, colonel guinea. I the amendment is approved with nine yes votes and three no votes. Councilors, I think we're still waiting a few minutes on quyama Lane 10. So, we are going to move to quyama Lane 11. Is there any more discussion on quyama Lane 11? Okay. Qin, could you please call the role? Canel. Although the new information that it would have to be a separate position is concerning to me, I think it's really important that we have capacity for council operations to assist in community engagement. And I hope that we uh have them also look specifically at if should this pass at advisory groups and how they can support those that are and lies with those that report to council. I vote I Ryan. No. Hi, mario. Hi, novik. This is 11, right? I Clark. I Green. Hi, Zimmerman. Hi, ollos. Hi, deny. Hi, Smith. I like this and I think this would be something to work with the mayor and the executive team on because they're doing civic life and and and changing these decrease. I think there's some other conversations that need to be had because government relations has tribal relations has international relations. So we need to figure out where are the outreach organizations where are they going to lie. I don't think they need to be under the city administrator's office. I think we need to find a place for them and that is that doesn't have a conflict of of interest. And I think there needs to be a group of us to work with the mayor as he's developing the new structure to identify how we um how we get to where this coyama Lane 11 is. And I'll vote I guinea no. The amendment is approved with 10 yes votes and two no votes. Councelor cyomalain, are we in a place where we can get an updated version of cyomalane 10? Please move on to some other amendments for now. Okay. Councelor Clark, are you in the queue to propose a community engagement amendment? Okay. Counselors, does anybody else have anything you would like to propose in the community engagement policy area? I do, but a question. We're just doing one thing and we're just doing amendments. We're doing top priority amendments and I'm not seeing anyone in the queue, though I saw two people nod their heads. Okay. So then, uh, hold on. I'm just double checking. Yeah. So, I have two, but they're both notes, so I'll wait. Okay. Councelor Zimmerman, are you nodding your head that you want to bring something forward? I certainly do. Thank you. Uh I'm the reason I was hesitating. I'm I'm looking to see if my co-sponsor wants to do this and I will read it in and let that person take the chance or take the opportunity. So um previously I had a number of amendments that restored civic life related programs while eliminating the civic life overhead. So with some changes to those and given what just occurred to repackage those in an amendment to reduce the 5ft fte in civic life by what was previously 1.35 million and since we just took an action I have to do the math in public that's always fun from civic life and use it on a full uh restore of the diversity and leadership program that was 180,000 to restore for it. Increasing by one fte, the immigrant and refugee program, another 160. Restoring the neighborhood uh operations and grant funds in the district coalitions and an additional $70 $70,000 on top of that for insurance reasons. So that's 380 total. I made no changes to the youth council, no changes to the adapt program, and one additional uh position, excuse me, one additional position for a that was the position from councelor Clark and councelor canol on the ci hub. I'm going to call them employee of $170,000. That along with a community engagement person at $181,000 spends what looks to be about a 1 million of that 1.3 and repackages those amendments from before. But given what was just voting on, we're doing math in public and that becomes confusing. And I will give a chance for my potential co-sponsor if that person wants to make any comments. I'm going to second it. I'd like to speak to just the couple kind of questions around it here. I think it's worth discussing here. I think the math adds up to 1,71,000 roughly and would create a $282,000 surplus this way. Uh I have some questions around the inclusion of the ci in this versus a different amendment. I support getting it. I just want to have that conversation. And I also have a couple questions for um I'm guessing our aca or our chief engagement officer as to some clarity because the org chart I'm seeing does not have five administration positions on it. And I want to understand um without naming names the positions that are in the administration program offer before uh committing to vote for it or not. But I will second it because I think it's worth a conversation. And councelor, I think at some point in discussion, we're going to need to look to you and counselor quayama Lane to understand the overlap and differences between her amendment on the table and yours. Um, councelor novik, are you in the queue for discussion? Yes. Okay. I'm gonna ask while you are um asking your question or making your statement for our aca to come up to answer councelor canal's question about the administrative positions. But let's have counselor novik speak first. I'm just making a blanket statement that I'm going to vote against adding money to anything or restoring money for anything even if there's an offset until we've addressed the $700,000 gap that the Green nihilism amendment created yesterday. I think that any savings we can find should first be addressed to closing that $700,000 gap. Uh, period. Can I direct respond to that? Because it's both on those. I was the co-sponsor on both of these. Let's let's hear the answer to your question. We will get to a response there. Annie, would you mind introducing yourself? And we have a question on the table. It sounds like the amendment being put forward would eliminate five administrative positions. Is that correct, councelor Zimmerman? Yes. In the budget book, civic life notes that they have five fte in civic life administration in a budget of 1.35,895. And that's different from what we see on the org chart that councelor crayola Lane sent out. So, I think we're I don't know if this is the org chart that was submitted to the mayor when they devised the budget or if this is the org chart that was being talked about that they want to come up with after we pass this budget. So, what we're looking for is a crosswalk. We just need a crosswalk between these two things. Thank you, council president annie vonberg for the record, assistant city administrator. Um I I have not had a chance to talk to councelor Zimmerman, so I'm unsure exactly the um positions he has identified. What I'm deducing from the language there is that it's not included in one of the programs that was identified. So that does give us uh an idea. Um I'm not sure if you would like those specific positions. Um it does put us in a curious situation of individuals being there are five positions in the civic life admin. I take that to be the administration of that office or that bureau. That's way the that's the way your budget document reads. So I'm talking about the five admin which is a program a separate program offer within the office of civic life that's where my reduction and that 1.35 that's that's where I was talking about for clar I think that helps I'm still not entirely clear what positions those are since we don't break that out um operationally I will say the the org chart that uh council vice president quay on the Lane showed is not representative of the future your state. Councelor canel, I don't know if that helps your concerns at all. What you just heard a little bit. Um I I think this isn't about I think we weren't trying to clarify what councelor Zimmerman was saying here. We're trying to clarify what was put into the book. We didn't make the book. So if the book has the positions, I I don't think it's on the legislative side here to have to answer about what the executive presented to us. I I think you should I would like to understand that says this 1.353 that's pretty clear uh in terms of the the dollar amount but I think we're seeing an orchart here and I'm trying not to show cuz I don't want to be talking about individual people but I I think in terms of understanding the positions I do want to understand that and I I do think that's on the that side of the day as to answer maybe not you specifically I don't mean to put you on the spot. Yeah, I I could read through the personnel cost that's listed under the civic life um in comm's um she document this how to site this document and I'm going to give you a minute to look at that because I I do want to respond to something else. Uh I I just want to remind everyone of of our council rules 3.02.040 part b part 1b6 uh about refraining from personal criticism. I think referring to an amendment that is creating a surplus, by the way, to help offset that exact concern of $282,000 that would go towards deferring that by directing a comment at another counselor and saying it was a nihilism amendment is well outside of what we're allowed to do, I would argue, by law. And I think that's uh something that we should try to avoid doing, especially when there are attempts being made to resolve that exact thing. But the sequencing of these amendments is not designed in a way that is necessarily conducive to it. So I just I want to point that out here. Um, and I'm hoping that we can get to a place where we can understand that maybe we're not going to solve every problem in one fell swoop, but that maybe we can defay $282,000 of a 700ish potential surplus uh, sorry, potential deficit that none of us knew about at the time. Uh, and then maybe work to get the the rest of it figured out over the course of the day. Councelor, we have a lot of other things we need to work out over the course of the day. Agreed. Um, councelor Clark, are you in the queue with the question? Yes, please. Uh, thank you, madam chair. Um, councelor Zimmerman, can you just one more time go through the separate pieces of this because you did it pretty quickly. I didn't catch them all. Thank you. Am I reading option one or option two there, samir? Uh, I'd prefer two. Okay. Reduce 5ft fte from civic life which is 1,353 million and some change as in the civic life admin. Restore the diversity and leadership program by 180,000 because that was cut. Increase the immigrant and refugee program by 160. One additional fte restore and then some the district coalition small grant funds and operation funds and their insurance fund at $380,000 because civic life is home to the youth uh youth council. I made no changes there, but just noting that they'll they'll need a new home in in city ops, increasing the uh community engagement and council ops by 181,258 and the ci hub. No, excuse me. Well, that's not in it. So, the co-sponsor's asking maybe not the ci hub person. So, I misspoke on the first one. Apologies. And the money for those restores all comes from the reduction of the overhead of civic life. Councelor Smith. Yes. Now, who's here from civic life? We have the engagement officer, amanda garcia snell. We also have shannon fairchild here that has a little more details that we can speak to those individual positions if you'd like. Right. So those five positions, how is that going to impact your your office if you take them away? Um, I'm trying to be thoughtful about this because we haven't u fully worked through the realignment conversations yet. And so um I anticipate that we will be able to meet the needs of of you all and uh service area leadership through um fewer positions. But without having those conversations, I'm I'm reluctant to say I think there is a lot of opportunity for an equitable a city-wide equitable community engagement strategy that can look different um very different than how it looks now and be in service to community. Um how can can you answer me this how many ftes do you have altogether? Currently there are 14 in civic life. So with this cut you're going to go down to nine. Some of those two of those positions are currently vacant, but they're talking about five positions. Yes. The so it so well, my understanding of what those five positions of those five positions how that would impact is um is that then civic life would not have a a director. It would not have admin administrative um positions that support those individual programmatic functions. So it it's confusing to me and it sounds like it's putting civic life upside down to me. That's just to me. I understand what my my colleagues are trying to do, but because we haven't had a clear picture given, we just came in and we just start cutting. And I'm not comfortable with just cutting right now until I see the up and over and how it's going to be redesigned. And so it's it's one thing if you take one fte and move it, but when you're taking five and now civic life is not going to have a director as as a result of the new mayor's budget. No, no, sorry. What I thought you were referring to the amendment with the five administrative positions, right? So, but if if that happens, your your um director, your executive director is going to be gone with the with the new five that we cut. If I'm understanding the amendment correctly, yes, that would be the case. The engagement officer would be included in one of those five. Wow. Okay. I'm I I don't think that I don't think this is where the space or the place that we should do this right now. I just don't it it feels very uncomfortable and it feels like we've cut so many ftees um from this budget to begin with from the permitting down to the parks and now to civic life. I think all of us have ideas on how the city should be run and I'm just going to repeat a little bit a paraphrase of what what mayor wilson said and that's their responsibility. I think it is our responsibility to put together some sort of of work group to work with him to let them know how we see this running for the next fiscal year trying to do all these amendments. It is. I'm I'm telling you, for me, and I can keep up with stuff, but this is causing me not to be able to keep up in a way that's meaningful and voting on things that I don't think I should be voting on right now, that I should be a part of a work group to work with um the city manager and the mayor's office to see how this is how we want to see it so that it is it is developed in the way that we want it when the budget comes out again. So we won't be in this situation of peacemealing things together because I don't have a clear idea of what your department actually all does and so we don't have enough time to talk about it. That's why I was asking you what what the uh the number of ftees will be and and h and not having an executive director within a department that seems odd to me. Who's going to be leading the charge? Point of order. Madam president, I'd withdraw the amendment if the seconder would be okay with that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, councilors. Um, anybody else information? Does that mean we're are we going back to tkl 10? Uh, right now we do not have a motion on the table. We are waiting for our colleague to have um the language that she needs for amendment 10 and in the meantime we're moving through other amendments. I guess ekl10 is on the table but it has been set aside until she has the information that she needs. Councilors, does anybody else have a community engagement amendment that they would like to bring forward? Councelor Smith, is that the purpose for which you're in the queue? Uh yes. Yes, ma'am. Um madame president, I would like to do some housekeeping with Smith 12 and we have to increase the appropriation for the albana displacement lawsuit settlement. And I would say that that is that would be a community one. I move to amend the budget by increasing operating expenses to align with city council's decision to increase the settlement for the emanuel displaced persons association to and related plaintiffs. In particular, I move to increase operating expenses in the insurance and claims operating fund by 7.5 million and reduce the contingency by 7.5 million. Future budget actions, including a supplemental budget during fiscal year 2526, will be required to allocate general fund resources to reimburse the insurance and claims fund and ensure adequate resources exist to pay potential future settle settlement claims. Councelor to clarify this is a technical um requirement because we made the vote for that um that change in the settlement after our budget documents have been put together. This doesn't change anything to the settlement. Is that accurate? It's accurate. Okay. Do we have a second for Smith 12? I'll second it. Um, councelor canal, are you in the queue for discussion of Smith 12? Just a question. Um, is the first million because wouldn't this just be 6.5 million of additional dollars? 7.5. I'm going to look to our budget director, director lavine. Originally, the settlement was for 2 million. We added 6.5 million more, and this makes an adjustment by 7.5 million. Is that what we need to be doing or does this need to be only six? Madam president, we're not approving prosper's correct. I think our money for the 1 million and then adding the 7.5 million. That's correct. I think it um it all is coming out of the insurance and claims fund. I think I'm I'm a little unclear honestly how they had budgeted that first million. So this just covered our bases. Um this includes the first million by intent. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Counselors, is there any other discussion on Smith 12? Keyn, could you oh, councelor Green. Are you president? I I am. I'd like to have a little bit more discussion. I'd like to answer ask some questions. Okay. Go ahead. Uh dci, can you please address the das? Uh I I would just like to understand a little bit more about the behind thescenes accounting of what we did on that day versus what's being proposed and in your view just kind of help help us understand this. Um yes, thank you councelor for the record. Jonas berry dca budget finance and chief financial officer. Uh so that settlement um which added $6 million for the city's portion from 7.5 from uh from sorry from a million uh to 7.5 um isn't accounted for in in the risk and uh claims fund forecast. Um the way that fund is typically replenished is it's a um somewhat convoluted but intentional uh kind of four-year replenishment plan. So the funds uh in the city that typically have claims pay into that. Um that may not be the optimal uh allocation method for two reasons. Um the typical allocation method one, a four-year time frame of repayment may not be adequate to replenish uh that risk and claims fund so that it has resources to pay out upcoming settlements and claims that are coming. So, we may have to look at shortening that replenishment window uh and dispersing those costs uh citywide uh on a more of a one-year or two-year time frame. Um so, that's one challenge that we haven't yet figured out uh in the last week. Um the other challenge is that that allocation methodology might overweight the responsibility to uh bureaus that typically have claims and underweight to bureaus that typically don't have claims. And so that might not be the optimal allocation. So another option is to run it through something more like a general fund overhead type model that disperses it citywide. Um and that will have impacts. Uh so we're still working on identifying what those allocations would look like, what the right um repayment recommendation would be, and we will have to come back in the fall bump and uh recommend that those adjustments be made. Um to be clear, that will be uh reductions to budgets citywide. Thank you. And with the proposal on the table, are there any second or third order consequences that you're aware of? Um, I'm sorry. I want to make sure I understand the question. So, the counselor is asking us to just make the transfer now out of a draw down of a of a contingency balance. I'm asking if if there are any things that we need to think about in that regard. Um so that balance uh includes uh um a contingency a reserve amount that's recommended by an external actuarial uh expert about the amount that we should keep in pocket uh to accommodate unexpected claims and that um that amount is already funded at a at an amount lower than the recommendation. I believe it's around 70 75% of the of the recommended level. So we will be increasing the risk uh to the city by uh carrying uh for a short time a balance that's lower uh lower than uh we would typically prefer. Um we we think we hope that's manageable. It's a relatively short time frame if we can realign this in the in the fall uh technical adjustment ordinance. Okay, that that's helpful for me. So it's just really a it's it's kind of a risk. It's not a solveny question. It's just sort of a a risk of the relative generally accepted guidance. Yeah. Yeah. I mean there's certainly risk in having a lower balance than would be recommended. Dca barry, we did something yesterday where we borrowed from the uh systems development charges from the parks. So this is not like this is extraordinary in terms of strategies to make sure that we're we're made whole. Um and you mentioned that um it would be less money to um bureaus if we take it from the the fall bump. But the fall bump is extra that is not taken from any operating budget for fiscal year 2526. Um if is there if there's a question in there? No, I just wanted to make a statement and say that um I didn't understand your your response um when you said it's going to take from bureaus, but we're we're doing the operating budget and this this is how we normally pay for uh risk claims, but this is the first time that I've seen that you all have done it in this manner because we approved a $2 million request last week, a $1.6 $6 million request, a $598,000 request, and I've approved over millions of dollars since day one. And this is this is becoming an extraordinary challenge for you in many ways. But I think it should be just as easy as you have done everything else. So, c counselor, you're correct that this is a um it's it's a very unique circumstance. To my knowledge, it's the first time that the city has experienced a circumstance where we had a claim that was um um planned for uh and and we had moved through um the combination of allocations across the city and planning for and expecting that uh and um and managing that reserve level, etc. Uh, and to my knowledge, it's a very unique circumstance that we're not well equipped to respond to because it's the first time that to my knowledge that that's happened where a claim like that has appeared at a um six times responsibility uh without having the typical level of forethought. So that is correct. Um and and so I just would acknowledge that that this is a very unique moment. We have a risk fund. We have a risk fund that pays out whatever the we approve. And just understanding that we're not a rubber stamp to whatever you all give us. That should be understood. And we're not going to rubber stamp everything you do. But we have to date done everything you have asked us to do. But when there are extraordinary circumstances, then we took the opportunity to expand this extraordinary circumstances. So, I really wish that the sentiment and the tone of how you're explaining this should be one of we did harm, we have to pay. This is the route that we see best. We took $50 million. 50. And we only needed $44 million. We took $50 million from the parks, you know, and then yeah, you can roll your eyes, counselor. Councelor, I apologize. I'm absolutely not rolling my eyes at what you're saying. I'm looking at but I'm just trying to make a point here. I agree with you on the merits and benefit and value of the settlement. I am only describing the financial impacts of that councelor and dca. I want to draw us back to the amendment before us. Thank you. We voted on a settlement. It's done. And in order to cover those costs in the budget, we need to have a place technically where it comes from. And I think we've gone down a road of what happens later that we probably ought to discuss at some point when we're not staring down a timeline on our budget. I agree, madam president. Councelor Clark, did you have anything further? Just a simple question. Where is this amendment coming from? This is Smith 12. It is in attachment I. Um, it is the updated attachment I that was uploaded, I believe, last night or this morning. So, it may not be in printed documents that you have from the day before. It's in the it's in the it's in the printed one. Yes. On page 69. Yeah, it is in the but I believe councelor Clark may have something from before this was added. June the 9th. Councelor clerk, while you look for that and perhaps your colleague next to you can see if they have it pulled up, I'm going to go to councelor Ryan. Oh, thank you. Uh, hi jonas. I just have a question, a clarifying question. Um, what percentage do you project this will mean for reductions next year to the general fund? Uh, councelor, it's a good question. I I don't think we know that yet. Um we're doing a couple different types of analysis and different allocation methodologies um to present to be ready to present some options to council. Um I mean it it would be um if we imagine $6 million and maybe that's able able to be spread out over a couple years as I mentioned um we do have uh a obligation to keep that risk and and claims fund uh solvent because we anticipate there will be more uh things coming down the pike. Uh uh so I think it's probably going to be to your allocation 3 million a year uh citywide just if you want to think about a order of magnitude. Um at this moment it just I wanted to get a ballpark. Yeah. Yeah. That's all. Thank you. Thank you counselor Avalos. I think mostly my question is just do we need to do this now? Like it seems like there's some options that we have maybe in the towel or other things like does it have to happen in this budget? Council Avalos. Yes, we this was just a technical um fix that we had to put in so that they could get their money in July. And so I want to make sure that they get their money and that it's not put off until fiscal year 26 2526. That's all I see. Okay. Councilors, is there any other discussion? Councelor Clark, did you have any followup? Okay. Keelin, could you please call the role? Counselors, this is Smith 12, which moves 7.5 million from contingency to the insurance and claims operating fund so that we can pay out the settlement that we've previously approved with a note that we will have to come back to address refilling the uh contingency at a future time. Canel. Yeah, I was a little concerned by the piece about the possibility of moving towards spreading settlements across the whole city. I think our current process does allocate it where the settlement comes from and I'd like to see that maintained. Just wanted to reference that. That's outside the scope of this amendment though. Just it came up in conversation. I wanted to make sure I spoke to that. Thank you. Do I vote I coyama Lane? I mario. I novik. No, Clark. Hi. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. He's stepped out. Thank you, Avalos. I dunfy. Hi, Smith. I guinea I the amendment is approved with 10 yes votes. Thank you. Colleagues, does anybody else have a community engagement amendment to bring forward? Lane, are you ready to have us return to cooama Lane 10? I am. Thank you colleagues for your patience. I am ready to strike the words after funding restoration will be through reducing and then striking personnel costs not through program cuts Zimmerman six and replacing it with the fte within civic life and those positions will be manager one coordinator one and coordinator too. The things listed in coa Lane 10 [applause] counselor because we had some slip ups with on the dis amendments yesterday. Do we have confirmation that this balances? I worked on this with the budget office. Director lavine, do we have confirmation that coyama Lane with this change will still balance? That the elimination of a manager 1, coordinator 1, and coordinator 2 position will add up to at least 477,949 in funds that are available to use in the ways outlined in the amendment. Answer that because I was out. Please introduce yourself. Is this on? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um, hi, I'm owen sates, budget and policy analyst with the city budget office. Um, sorry, I'm tracking a lot of things. So, the question is, we had some slip ups with onas amendments yesterday. I just want to confirm that the elimination of a manager 1, coordinator 1, and coordinator 2 will add up to at least $477,949, and that the funds will be usable for the three programs laid out in coyama Lane 10 for the expenditures. Um, and the three programs are, remind me, and civic leadership program, district coalition offices operating grants, and the small grants program. Okay. Yes. Okay. Does it come in at exactly that number or does it leave any extra? Um, well, when you write an amendment, so as the amendment is written, you would move the three fte and the budget separately. So, you can the fte it's an approximate uh projection. So, you could the 3ft would turn to would it balance? Yes, it would balance if you add the amendment as written or as described. Thank you. Councilors, is there any discussion on coyama Lane 10? U madame chair, can you just rep repeat the three pieces again? Increases. Which three pieces? So, coyama Lane 10 as written increase bureau program expenses in diversity and civic leadership district coalition offices operating grants and the small grants program. And it is paying for that by cutting three fte within civic life specifically a manager one coordinator one and coordinator 2. Is that correct counselor? Thank you. Councelor canal, did you have a discussion on this amendment? Go right ahead. Yeah, I see the the coordinator one is vacant, so it's good to to know that. Um I I'm assuming that the coordinator 2 is the pio position, but I'm not sure. And just wanted to flag that um that at least one of these is vacant already and I thought that was helpful to know. Thanks. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Ryan. Yeah, I'm just curious who you spoke with in civic life to make the decisions on what positions would be cut. Mostly amanda garcia snell and then different uh community work community members who are connected with our district coalitions positions again are I'm looking at this right okay yeah because they made us name them manager one coordinator one coordinator two from my understanding there are a couple of people who have um out of the neighborhood program, the person supporting district one is has left or is on leave. So, they're also, you know, managing personnel, things shift. Okay. I had the opportunity to oversee civic life for one year. It was a really hard assignment um because it the the bureau was quite um depressed if you will after a couple commissioners in charge um had that assignment and restructured it quite a bit. Um we had to we had the assignment given to us to help restructure it further. This is personal because I know these people and I haven't had a chance to um talk to them. So I will definitely be a no on this as for me it's an example of diving too deep into the org chart and making decisions up here that I don't have the context of. I would have had that context in the one year I had this assignment and would have been very careful about such behavior. So I just have to say for my own values this is something I can't be participating in. So I will be voting. Thank you counselor. Councelor I I don't believe councelor Smith has spoken this round. So councelor clayaline we're gonna go to councelor Smith and then come back to you. Go right ahead councelor Smith. Thank you. I wanted to find out in this version if there is an executive director. I'm going back to uh given that you said manager it's going to be manager one man coordinator crling. Do you want to speak to that? The positions that our vice president named off were a manager one, coordinator one, and coordinator two. Uh the engagement officer serves as the director here, so I don't believe that position is cut. Okay. Thank you, councelor clamain. Oh, you took yourself out of the queue. Did you have something to add, counselor? From my understanding and I can get some clarification is that the intention is that through the reorganization and reclassification that folks would be reclassified and would not be losing would not be without a job. Is that something that can be reclassified where now that we're down in the weeds of this? I'm kind of curious. I I see our aca coming forward to address this. I don't want to be in these weeds, but here we are. All right. Thank you, annie vonberg, assistant city administrator. At this point in time with the realignment process, we know that there's going to be reclassifications. We know that this is going to look very different. It's too early to tell though exactly what those cost savings will be. Uh we'll have a better understanding right now. We're hopefully uh around the fall uh budget adjustment. Thank you. I do appreciate the attempt to restore the funding for the grants. I wish that we could do that, but this isn't the pathway that I would want to take. Thanks, council chamele. I appreciate that, councelor Ryan, and appreciate your what your expertise and your experience that you bring, and I would love to bring you in on more of these conversations, too. This is connected to somewhat of the advisory body's work that you and I are working on in the governance. I realize that and this has all been very rushed and, you know, we just got this information after lunch. So, thanks seeing no other discussion in the queue, uh, keelin, could you please call the role? Canel. Based on the knowledge I have at this moment that two of these are vacant, I'll vote I. Ryan, no. Oyama Lane. I'm really hopeful that this will pass and that a lot of this funding can be restored to our community. I vote I mario. Based on the updated information, I vote I. Novvic. Based on the updated information and my blind faith in Tiffany cayama. I I thank you Green. Hi, miss Zimmerman. No pavalos. I duny I Smith no guiny I. Amendment is approved with nine yes votes and three no votes. Colleagues, are there any more amendments folks would like to bring forward in the community engagement policy area space? Should say policy space. Okay. Councelor Smith, I believe that's a legacy hand. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, colleagues, we are going to move on to amendments that are related to housing and homelessness. I know there are a lot of budget notes here. We do have a couple of direct amendments as well. Councelor Avalos, do you have something to bring forward? I do. So, I would like to move forward with Avalos 4. Um this is uh I'll go ahead and share and then see if I have a second if that's yeah. Okay. Um so abalos 4 is to uh move $500,000 uh into the pilot program for homeshare into preserving affordable housing units in the north and northeast preference policy. So, the north and northeast housing preference policy is designed to provide housing opportunities to residents displaced by urban renewal in historically black neighborhoods of north and northeast Portland. These units are currently in need of short-term financial help to help them catch up from years of reduced rental income from COVID years, but also from extended vacancies that were required by the policy. And uh there's been some discussion around the policy issues and we've been in close touch with um the housing bureau around this and um you know some of the policy issues are around the time required to keep units open etc. Um these are all being actively addressed by phb and will be in place within the next couple of months. Um I you know the home share idea I truly think it is an idea we should explore. I just don't believe right now is the time to take a new program or start a new program um with resources that we can't afford to um lose, especially when we have uh units that are at risk of being lost. Um so I'm just choosing to prioritize saving units before adding a new pilot program. I think it's something we can dis explore in the future. Um and especially to when uh other organizations and the county are providing similar types of programs to homeshare. Um, so I also want to keep an eye on that and see if we can be a partner there. Um, but ultimately this is about keeping families in existing affordable housing. I believe that's uh more important right now than starting new programs. Um, and I I feel adamant about proposing this as well just because there weren't, in my opinion, a lot of things in the budget that were working to preserve more housing, add more housing. Um, so this is my attempt to uh save critical units before they get lost. Thank you, councelor. Is there a second? Second. Councelor Clark. Thank you, madam chair. Uh councelor ellis, is this redirecting the 500,000 that's in the mayor's budget? Uh and we do have a home share program. I believe that is um I don't know if it's citywide, but it needs to be citywide. Um I think a county there's a county program. Is that the one you're referencing? Well, there is actually a private program going on in my district, a home share program. Um and I thought that the mayor's 500,000 for homeshare would go out in an RFP for organizations to apply for. Is that correct, mr. Mayor? You mind if I ask? Yeah. It was originally a $3 million program that because of budget challenges reduced to 500,000 and then donnie olivar, our dca was to stand up the department to primarily look at renters's right, rent the rights to begin the program and then any additional would go to credits for helping homeowners open up their rooms for uh borders for yeah. Right. I I continue to see a real value with this program that is in your budget and um that it is citywide. So, I'm going to be a no vote on this. Councelor Ryan. Yes. Thank you, madam president. Mayor, I'm glad that you're here. I'd like to hear more from you on this because this is something you put into the budget. I realize that this is a great tool especially for elders um looking for housing and um so I just want to hear more why this was one of your priorities to put in the budget. Because it looks like it might be taken away here. Yeah. Thank you, council Ryan. Mayor, we have a deeply affordable housing crisis like many crises in Portland. It is very difficult to find housing that is at 7 or $800 and ssi and ssdi payments are not keeping up, forcing many people uh into homelessness. So, this is a program in which to begin to open up those 200,000 empty rooms that are in Portland. By doing this, we're trying to create a program to incent. The reason why homeshare or padsplit or a host of different names that are used around the nation is important. Um, councelor Avalos and I, we hosted padsplit, a successful app in atlanta that has 7,000 rooms for rent today that allows a person to get into for about $400. Compared to an apartment where you need first and last month's rent and furniture which is going to cost 4,000. This is an immediate opportunity for us to open up deeply affordable housing in Portland. These funds, as I noted, aren't 3 million because that's what we had hoped to do to not only stand up the program to have dca olivivera created to create renter rights, renty rights to make sure that all parties were going to be cared for, but then we also wanted additional funds to create credits a,000, 2,000, 3,000 to start incenting homeowners to begin opening up their homes uh to address the housing crisis. So, I could go on, but I'll leave it there. Councelor Ryan, anything further? No, I I needed to hear that from the mayor directly. Thank you. I won't be supporting this. I'd like to keep this in the budget. Councelor Avalos, you've pitted two things against each other that are both very important to me. The north and northeast housing preference policy is, I think, one of the best things our city has done. I also think that we need to increase ways to find naturally occurring affordable housing, that affordable housing that is not subsidized affordable housing, and the mayor is attempting to do that. I agree that we need to find ways to invest further in the north and northeast housing preference policy. I would gladly work with you through the year to find ways that we can partner on an expansion of those services and a retention of the apartments that we already have in my district. I can't support an attempt to move away from a a program that will allow us to have more naturally occurring affordable housing as well though. Councelor Clark, I appre appreciate that comment. U madam president, I would just like to add that there's a flip side to this too and uh it's really represented by my great-grandmother who was poor in the south and rented out rooms to actually survive and uh rent them to itinerate workers, homeless men, one of whom became my grandfather. So I think there there's definitely a role for this both for affordable housing as well for for lower incomes to bring in income. Councelor canel. Thank you, madam president. Um, I have two questions. The first is to the mayor. Um, could you I was uh you mentioned that it was to be used to incentivize homeowners to be a part of it. So, this money would be paid out to people who own homes in order to augment the amount of money that they're making in rent through those $800 examples you were giving. Yeah, this program is already successful in like atlanta. They have 7,000. Padsplit has 40,000 rooms that are available. What we were doing with the incentive was to supercharge it to get these rooms open within months or a half a year. It's not traditional due credits. So, I pulled that back. The 500k is to set up the program to make sure that we are protecting renters and rentes to make sure that the relationship is solid. So, that's what we're doing right now is setting an fd up in um Portland housing bureau. Now, if there were any extra funds, I would hope that dca olivivera would maybe open it up and and offer some credits, but it's really designed for elderlys trying to stay in their house that are struggling with their taxes uh by opening up in a uh a home share or a room share program. So, it's designed not only for those that are looking for deeply affordable, it's trying to help elderly uh age in place as well by providing a way to augment rent. So, and our our elderly is the fastest growing homeless population in the city right now. So, you see it's kind of a a twin approach. Help our homeless, but also it doesn't you don't have to be homeless to participate. You could be a high school kid on a minimum wage job and still be able to live in the city you were born in. So, it's a host of uh solutions for different populations. Just to clarify, you're saying the first chunk of the $500,000 would be the personnel cost set up for one fte in the housing bureau. That's what uh dca olive and and frankly I think it would be best if uh if you don't mind. Sure. Yeah. And the second chunk would be to payments to the renters. No, sorry. To the to the landlords. Yeah. And I don't think we have enough for that second part, counselor. And so if we chose to do it, we would come back to you at some later date. And I'd love to know what classification gets to 500k with benefits and not leaving anything left over. Yeah. Uh thanks for the question, counselor uh daniela for the record. So as the mayor was explaining, the 500k would first go to we've already started some very high level analysis around the country about the different programs uh where they've worked, where they've been regulated, unregulated, but we need deeper analysis counselors. So there'll be one fte for that and then subsequently with the remainder because you're right that's just one fte is probably fully loaded maybe 200k but that's probably off by a couple uh you know a few thousand uh would be then is that uh incentives for homeowners is that uh you know vouchers for for renters is that for us to actually develop the code that would come to you all for your you know consideration as a council if we want to put something in place. Those are all things that we have to evaluate over the over the course of the year. So, I think it's fair to say that there is a a portion of those that 500k that would go to either the homeowners or the renters as the program that you all would adopt would, you know, would allow. There's still there's still some there's still some evaluation that has to happen. Okay. I to clarify, mayor, because I just heard something slightly different. There would be a portion of this money that went to renters perhaps. I to be very clear, we we haven't I think it's premature. There are programs in atlanta, getting the specifics here, uh chicago, uh houston that we're aware of that have different that the cities and the governments provide different um resources. What's right for Portland is still tbd. Sure. And and I I recognize you have to say that that way because we're deciding um sort of our our policy here through this to some degree. Um and my second question is is to councelor abalos. Um what are the risks if we don't uh put this money into the north and northeast reference policy? We're going to lose a lot of affordable housing. And so I just strongly feel that at a time when we're in both a dire budget and a severe housing shortage that we can't afford to lose those in particular for a program that is serving displaced black portlanders. Um I again I'm not against the goal and we all agree that these are both two good programs but going back to z winners and losers whatever if that's the framing we're using. I would like to ensure that uh black portlanders can keep a critical act critical access to a resource for housing before we start investing in a new program. Um we don't this home share program it would be new to be clear. Um it's not it it would be right starting it up. Um, I've expressed some concerns about rental protections. That's a whole other thing. It would just kind of depend on how it was structured, which is kind of what, uh, dca ala is talking about, but, um, I'm definitely concerned about that, but that's not the reason I'm doing this. I am trying to protect housing that will be lost. Thank you. I I think maybe one of the conversations that we've had in slightly different context is whether or not it's it's the first thing we need to do is protect the housing and uh, responses we already have before we start expanding new things. And I think this falls into that category. Thank you, councelor Smith. Thank you, madame president. Um, dca aliveros, could you come back up, please? I had I had the wrong understanding of the program and I'm wondering, this sounds like an initiative that someone in the community and economic development office can do. It's a project. It's something that they could set up because I was under the understanding that some of these funds, the 500,000 would go to the renter to subsidize the housing that they would be sharing in a home or to the home owner. But this is administrative totally. And um I think this you can have someone in in the Portland housing bureau work on this and put it together and then put the $500,000 towards the the subsidy. Councelor don oliver for the record. I want to acknowledge that the the housing bureau as we know it today uh perhaps doesn't have the the policy capacity frankly to do the analysis and and what the mayor's uh amendment was uh pushing us to do is to do that evaluation to ensure to address counselors's point. We want to ensure we understand the impacts of the program. We see the the opportunity there, but what's actually right for the city of Portland and its residents. We don't have the answers to that yet. And I think it's it's the due diligence part that we're asking for those resources for. And once we come back to council for that program, then we would have those resources to implement. It'd be a shame for us to do the the analysis, do the work, come to you all, we rebuild the program with no resources to implement. But that's what you're doing right now at a very high level like and and just enough for us to say that this is a potential for the city, but not enough to do any sort of programmatic investments. Okay. I yeah. And so I was really excited about this program because I was thinking that um we were going to place some seniors in homes um with the subsidy from city of Portland. That's what I was thinking was going to happen in fiscal year 2526. I didn't realize this was all administrative. I I think there's a possibility that we can start the program but without resources to even I know I know but this not not the future resources but the resources that are in the mayor's budget. It's a it's I thought it was an actual subsidy that was going to go to seniors to help them live in other folks homes and do either a subsidy to the homeowner or andor the u the renter. So, but this is an administrative thing. So, which I think could have been done with the fte and not $500,000 there. So, some of the money is for fte and some of it would be used once a program is established for those. So you're trying to build the program as a pilot to grow it so that you can put more money into it in 2627 or even in 2526. So you're thinking about the fall bump already. And so no no counselor the the 500k is for an fte and resources to run a pilot once we've established a program. So when you tell you're confusing me when you tell me a pilot, you're going to try to run the pilot so that you can create a program, but earlier you said this the money is not going to be a subsidy yet until we get more money. No, not more money until we establish what the program is. The program doesn't there's no program right now, right? I know that doesn't exist. Exactly. So we have to create something and once it's created, there would be resources available for either the homeowner or the renter depending on which program we establish because there's various programs around the country. We're not going to be building this from scratch, but you can't do that on $500,000. I I think we I think we can, counselor. So, are you telling me today that some of that $500,000 that there's going to be some seniors that are going to go live with other people and they're going to have a place to stay, whether it be 10 or 20 people that in out of this budget out of this budget. Yes. That there's going to be people that are going to get a place to stay or get a subsidy as a result. Correct. Okay. Sorry if that was not clear initially. Okay. Councelor Clark, are you back in the queue or was that yes, I'm I'm back in the queue. Councelor Avalos is back in the queue. Okay, Clark and then Avalos. Okay. Um, this is a little more than I thought it was. I thought we were putting out an RFP to the organizations that are already doing home share. Can somebody can you clarify that for me? Either the city administrator or the mayor. Mr. Mayor, would you like to address that? Councelor, it would be all the above. So, you have home share, you have padsplit, you have some other applications. What we would want to do is come up with a boilerplate expectation to protect renters and rent to really harmonize all those to make sure we're caring for Portland. And then like uh dca oliver had mentioned any excess would be to create some incentives to get the program kickarted so we can start seeing how it works. Well, it would it would be my thought, my hope, my desire that we actually place people u now in the programs that do exist. Absolutely. That would be the goal. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Avalos, which is exactly why I'm proposing this because it is not going to be going directly. It's not a onetoone. There is a lot of administrative costs. We'd have to start something up. All of those things that, you know, even if we had some money that would be able to go, we don't know how much. It would depend on how we structure the program. There's lots of ways to structure it. There's a lot of rental concerns that I have about it. So again, I just feel that this is an opportunity to invest directly in something we already have that we're going to lose without it and that we have time to explore this and we have there's other ways that we can explore it in the way that councelor Smith was saying um because there you know if the businesses want to come right the the home share type of businesses want to come and establish there's other ways other routes to do that instead of allocating a significant amount of money to a pilot that I don't know how much is going to go to housing people directly right now because it has to get stood up. So that is why I'm choosing to prioritize investing in protecting a bunch of housing that's going to be lost and it's going to impact black portlanders in particular and I'm worried about losing that right now when we are so desperate for more housing. Councelor Zimmerman, I'm just trying to understand how 500,000, which is about one unit, maybe two units, the most affordable, how that is going to help us not lose units. I just want to note the housing bureau's equity and business operations manager said that on average 10 to 15 units or two 2 to 3% of the roughly 470 units subject to the policy sit vacant at any time. I I'm trying to understand 500,000 in what's been a, you know, a pretty large program. I I don't feel like there's something at a loss here. And I do want to say I think we are absolutely at a loss for potentially opening up a new pilot project, which by the way is the only way to start a new thing that is recognizing a change in the market. I I'm supportive of a $500,000 pilot. I tried last year at the county to get the home share type of pilot going because of some really great advocacy work. It takes money to match up families and renters. I know a person who left because the only route for her was using her extra rooms in her house. And um so I feel like the program itself is at risk if we don't fund with this 500. And I think we should take I frankly, what what currently exists is not working. So, why wouldn't we want to invest in some pilots? And this one seems like it's a good shot. But we keep getting said that some units are going to be lost in the northnortheast program. And I am failing to see the correlation between this 500,000 and saving a unit that potentially is where is that risk? I I don't understand that. I'm happy to forward a memo I received from php director explaining all of that. And so the phb director when they developed their budget developed their budget $500,000 shy of being able to save those units given $500,000 is a big number to any one of us as an individual, but in a phb's budget, that's a pretty small fraction of a thing. So I'm trying to understand why they need this infusion or why they can't start the pilot. So tell me what's going on there. The problem is that um the the problem is the loss of units because of all of the policy issues that have been happening right that I mentioned at the beginning like there's all these uh issues that were creating longer vacancies. They weren't able to get people in. The policy was creating a huge barrier to them getting people in and as you sit vacant right these that is why they're getting they are at risk and so they have been working really hard on fixing the policy. They've made really great progress, but fixing the policy is not going to affect the fact that they don't have the influx of cash they need to protect those from not um losing their affordability status. So again, I'll pass the policy. They self-inflicted that wound. They wrote that policy. The Oregonian, by the way, what I read earlier was from the Oregonians article on may 19th. But they they are the ones responsible for this policy and now they need a bailout. But I don't understand why they can't just adjust their policy and be more rigorous in terms of getting those vacancies filled if they have a what turns out to be a very long list. It sounds like no, it's not that they well, first of all, policies of course always have issues and they're fixing it. So I don't get the logic of they wrote this policy and it's not working and that like yeah it's not it wasn't working and they needed to fix it and they are but at the time when in all of the time that was lost by the policy not working is where the financial issues have been coming up and this is so fixing that policy is not going to fix the fact that they have this huge hole and this is going to be to protect that. It is a small amount, but uh it is it will really put them over the top and again we'll preserve um housing that we have now. Uh and again I'm just choosing to preserve that instead of trying something new right now. Councelor Green, I will try to keep this brief because I know that we are under a time clock, but I must say here uh as an economist, sorry, counselor, um that the $500,000 is intended to create sort of a vacancy set aside to support the balance sheets of these distressed units. Every affordable housing provider, frankly, every housing provider of any stripe in this city right now is dealing with cost pressures related to COVID inflation. And so, this is a sort of liquidity problem. And the memo that I'm reading uh says that, you know, this this amount of money could support approximately 250 months of rent at the 60% ami. And so, this is really, I think, a pretty efficient way to stretch those dollars. Um, if it was about the replacement cost of the buildings, it'd be pretty suspect because you wouldn't be able to build the one unit, right? But I think this would be a much less expensive and therefore much more efficient way to preserve a housing stock than if we let them uh go into receiverhip and then they go back to the market and that's a loss of affordable housing. So that's why I'm pretty compelled by it. I'm also quite torn because I mean we do need to have ways to connect seniors who uh that's our fastest growing um almost population. So I just but I wanted to put in the record my my observations of it. Thank you resident economist for explaining in words I can't counselors seeing no one else in the queue we will move to a vote. This is a vote on now I'm going to lose the number. Uh Avalos 4, which would shift $500,000 from creating a home share program to uh funding northnortheast housing preference policy units. Keelin, could you please call the role? Canel. Yeah, thank you uh to councelor Avalos for putting this up. Mayor, you uh have really actually given me a lot of of things to think about through this process. I I did not originally think that this was even a conversation. Uh and I think there is value to the home sharing pilot, and I've definitely um been at least partially convinced by that. Uh and I think part of this is the question over what do we value more? And I I have to look at this as uh the high value of overhead and the fact that more of the uh subsidization and the conversation here has been going to landlords as opposed to to renters. And compare that with protecting uh a very limited piece of affordable housing stock in my district, which uh supports the um the communities that of the communities of color, specifically the black community that have been displaced. We've been talking about this what feels like uh in five different conversations over the course of this month. My position remains the same. It wasn't elected by padsplit. I was elected by the people of district 2 and I vote yes. Ryan, that was a good conversation. One of the better ones today. Thank you, councelor Avalos and mayor wilson. I I think both things can be true. Like a lot of the conversations we've had, we we tend to focus on the false narratives way too much. So, I'm going to explain why I'm going to vote no very quickly. Uh, I knew someone really well and I called them on a Saturday and they were down. I could tell they were really upset and finally I found out that um they were injured and they couldn't do their part-time job that supplemented their social security. So, their rent was due soon and they didn't know how they were going to pay it. And it was hard for them to have enough uh pride to tell me that. Um, so this was my mom and so we helped her with that the rent that month and then we asked her to consider putting up maybe something at the church she went to and within a week or two she had a new apartment lined up through someone in her um church who just was recently widowed. And so then both of them um you know it was a win-win for both of them. That was organic. Those organic stories are out there and we need to have a matchmaking system to build that and having administrators work on something to build something is not a bad word and you got to start somewhere. So I'm going to vote no on this knowing there'll be more conversations about it. That I'd like to get the party started in the city of Portland to figure out what can be a very low overhead system to set up this matchmaking system, especially for those who would like to age in place in the city of Portland. So, I vote no on this. Camela, I really appreciate the conversation and the work by both of you. Um, I'm just going to say here what I've said to other folks, which is I don't always see eye to eye exactly with the mayor about how he's getting to his goals, but he does have very big goals and he does have a lot of support and he has also made some promises about doing this in a year. And so I have told him I'm going to try my best when I can to support you especially in this this year. Um, I've also said if we're chipping away at his plan, I want to make sure that there are seven votes. Um, I also don't want to get to a one-year point and um, the mayor's able to say, "look, look how council didn't support me in my plan." I don't know. So, I think what you're fighting for, council aos, is really important. If I'm your seventh vote, I would be willing to reconsider, but right now I feel like I need to vote no. Maria, I really appreciate this conversation and um my chief of staff and I were talking earlier today about how it feels like we've gotten to the point in the budget where there are only terrible choices before us because everything is important, everything matters. Uh, and it's quite painful and hard. Um, with that being said, I think it's really important to maintain these historic programs that have benefited black portlanders for so long. Uh, we do have an aging population that's one of the fastest growing populations of unhoused people in the city of Portland. And also, black portlanders have the lowest median income of anyone else. And there's a reason why we only have around, what is it, 6% people who are black actually living in our city. Uh that is a problem that is not going to get fixed unless we make serious investments and it is clear that the north northeast plan they are doing everything they can to rectify the program and make sure that it's getting up and running and I have faith that they're going to get that done and it's something that will be immediately beneficial which is what we need. Um, as much as I want to invest in other things right now, I think we're in a position to kind of plug some holes here, uh, rather than try to start new programs before we have benefited the ones that currently exist. So, with that, I will vote I novik. Um, I told the mayor a while ago that I was going to be with him on this issue. Um, I was partly influenced by a county employee some of us know who said that the county had a home share program in the past that didn't work, but it was that that was without incentives and she thought it was worth giving incentives a shot. I shouldn't apologize for making that commitment without having conversations with councelor Avalos or anybody else who had alternate um uses for the money. So, I'm not, as council mario rio said, I'm not easy about this, but I'm going to fulfill my commitment to the mayor and vote yes and hope that this moonshot works. I'm sorry. Vote no and hope this moonshot works. Councelor, can you just clarify for our clerk your vote? Vote no. Sorry, clerk. So, in honor of my uh grandmother and my greatg grandmother who were poor women who rented out rooms, I'm voting no. Green. I struggle with this one. Um I've had conversations with the mayor. I again I I really appreciate the innovation and the thought here. Um I did have to lock in as an economist there and what I realize is that it is less costly to preserve than it is to build new when it comes to affordable housing. So for that reason I am a yes. Zimmerman. On the flip side, it is becoming more and more expensive for people to keep their homes here, and this program could have been well on its way to helping more portlanders do that. So, uh, I'm sorry you don't have the partnership that you thought you had over here, mayor. Um, this is not a good amendment. We should be trying out pilots. This is it takes incentives to get people to get connected so that they can find each other in the home share program. This is different than other rent and landlord type programs. It's very different. So, I vote no. Avalos, I appreciate the discussion. Um, I think that I have uh shown my willingness uh to the mayor to go along with his vision and his plan. Um, he has a vision around the shelters that, you know, we all have complicated feelings about. So, I don't see this as me saying I don't support the mayor and his overall goals. In fact, I have the same goals. I want more housing. Uh, and it just feels uh really tough right now for me to uh invest in a new idea when we've got a lot of other new ideas um as far as I'm concerned. And this is just another one that I can't afford to invest in when so many people are at risk of losing delicate affordable housing. So, I vote yes. Don fee, I I firmly believe the mayor's sincerity in his efforts to try and do everything he can to create as much housing as possible. But I was in this building when a upstart appbased company came and said that they have a solution for seniors with a spare bedroom and students who need a place to stay. It's affordable. And now airbnb has come through and devastated our rental economy. I'm sorry. It smells like airbnb. It walks like airbnb. I'm inherently skeptical of anything tech based that is going to funnel money out of our community in a way that is deeply unaccountable. Um I I cannot support the helmshare problem. So I'm happy to vote yes. Smith, I really want to try to find some ways in which to help folks who live in district 2. And I don't think people understand what the the northeast uh policy is. Um, we're I think we're talking above people's heads and we're assuming that everyone knows what it is, but it's to bring back black portlanders who were originally in albina back to the albina area and to get housing. And I um I think we need to have a conversation in all of our committee so we can understand it better. I um the same way I I told the mayor that I was going to support this and that this is something that I think that we should try because there are a lot of single people um who who have homes and have three and four um rooms uh bedrooms and you know they're house rich and cash poor. So, I think that this we need to really give this an opportunity to see what we can do with it. And I will be looking for other opportunities to find that $500,000 uh council Avalos that that is needed. I didn't know anything about that, but I'm going to vote um no on this protot with my commitment to work with you to find other ways throughout the next year to support this program. I am going to stand by my commitment to the mayor to support his pilot and to give him a year to see if this works. I vote no. The amendment fails with five yes votes and seven no votes. Councilors, does anybody else have an amendment in the housing and homelessness area that they would like to bring forward before we move to budget notes? Councelor morio. Thank you. I would like to bring forward morio 16. Um, this is a motion to amend the budget to restore a proposed cut to the impact reduction program to offset investments in rental assistance. Second. Thank you, counselors. Councilors, is there any discussion on mario 16? I mostly put my hand up so I could have time to read it and make sure I understood the impact before we move to a vote. Um, I can explain it for the council. Sorry. I'm just trying. You said offset a restore to a cut to a thing. And I'm trying to read it. All right. Let me break it down for you, Zimmerman. Um, so the 8% cut that all the bureaus were uh asked to have is what uh ended up being restored. That um okay, I'm tired now. I'm going to explain it better. Okay, so all the bureaus were asked to have an 8% cut. The original uh 8% cut was one of these sweeps teams and then the mayor's budget restored this final sweeps team. Um to me I think it makes sense that if we're asking bureaus across the board to have an 8% cut that we would do it here. Um I also want to point people to the fact that uh this amendment is going to redirect funds that were previously proposed uh for the impact reduction program to expand rental assistance and eviction legal defense. And it prioritizes h housing stability and upstream prevention over short-term enforcement interventions. And keeping people housed is one of the top ways that we are going to reduce people becoming unhoused in our streets and actually promote community well-being. So, uh I think that the mayor's budget really largely focuses on shelters and more short-term solutions to homelessness, but we also need to address some of the upstream problems that we have. Um, some of you may have seen that there was a propublica article published today about the impact of sweeps on unhoused populations, specifically in the city of Portland, and it has been absolutely devastating to our communities. Um, I have talked at length about my own experience being unhoused and what I have heard from houseless youth who live in my district and the impacts of these sweeps on them have been devastating. The amount of times that I've talked to houseless youth who uh are defined as under the age of 24, who are trying to get back on their feet, who are displaced over and over again, who lose their identification, who miss out on job interviews, who miss out on job trainings, who are just unable to reintegrate, not through any fault of their own, not because they are incapable, but because things are stacked up against them. Uh, I think that we have a moral and a fiscal responsibility to ensure that we are preventing more people from becoming unhoused in the long term and I appreciate the shelter plans. I think that those are going to be really important in the short term, but we also have to do other things and that's part of what this amendment tries to address. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. I'm very clear in terms of what it is. Now, I um there are many many millions of of rental assistance between the city and county. I think that the impact reduction program got stood up because of a real need when it comes to the trash that portlanders are experiencing. Nobody wanted to create that, but over the last few years, it's become a need. And so, um I I hear you, counselor, on the on the part you're trying to fill, but I think this reduction would move away from the need that irp has to stay on top of the trash because I don't think portlanders yet are ready to say we should reduce that part of our part of our apparatus. I think I think we've come a long way. So, appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you, councelor Smith. Thank you. Um question, council merillo, where would the money go to? Would we send that over to multma county to do rent assistance? No, it would go to the Portland housing bureau. So, the Portland housing bureau is doing rent assistance as well in addition to the monies that we send over to multma county for homelessness because they spread that between rent assistance and homeless shelters. So, we're we're also doing that as well. Yes, that's correct. That was a program that was started throughout COVID and I think that as federal dollars were cut away, we saw that our communities are still in desperate need of them. So, it hasn't gone away. Um, and the need is still there. We have all of the infrastructure set up within the Portland housing bureau to continue to help our communities. So, this would be a very easy transfer for them. Uh, we spoke with them at length and they said that they were ready to take in this money if needed. I also want to point out that while uh the the pro the problem will become exacerbated. There will be more unhoused people on our streets, people cannot afford to live in our city. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,700 a month. My single mother who working a minimum wage with two daughters would absolutely not be able to afford that nowadays. That's just not possible. And the houseless people on our streets are not garbage. I know that's not what you meant to imply. Councelor Zimmerman, but this is impacting people. It's not just about garbage. And frankly, a lot of the encampments that I've seen are actually pretty well-maintained and they still get swept no matter how well they behave or what they do or if they don't do drugs. That's what what I've been seeing. And sometimes I kind of think that I don't know, maybe this is too personal to say, but it's weird bantering with people in the hallways that I love and care for and knowing that when I was houseless in college, if you found me on a park bench, you probably would have called the cops on me and made sure I was swept. No, ma'am. I wouldn't have. But I have another question for you. You. Um, so right now Portland housing bureau, they don't offer the program because they were using ARPA ARPA dollars to pay for it. And so the program is gone and the and the mayor decided not to put it in his budget. And so this goes back to what I'm saying again. I, you know, if I do a friendly amendment if you would take it from the 31 million that we're giving to the county, take $500,000 from it. Um, but but not on this. Um, I'm I'm I'm I guess what I'm trying to say is we're creating more stuff. We're creating more housing and homeless stuff that we have already agreed that it goes through multma county. And so, as everybody is coming up with their own thing, the mayor's coming up with his additional shelter, we still have the safest villages, we still have Portland solutions. Now, you want to go back and and backfill the ARPA money. And we can't backfill the ARPA money. But I would be willing to if you wanted a friendly amendment, I could take it from that 20 I guess it's $26 million now. Take $500,000 from there. Take another $500,000 for u the northeast preference policy. But I just think that we just need to either say what we're going to be. Are we going to build housing or are we going to um maintain all these so social programs that are supposed to be done by multma county? I'll answer it first and then I would love to pass it off to dca olivivera. Um, we are actually cutting sweeps or one sweeps team to do it. It's not anything wild. Okay. One sweeps team and we are not creating anything. We are reallocating it. First of all, this is a one-time expense. And uh, if dca olivera, if you want to explain what we do or don't do with a rent assistance uh, from the city, that would be lovely. Yeah, thanks councelor don oliver for the record. Uh so to take one step back, councelor Smith, um this isn't a new program. In fact, uh the 8% cut in this 465,000 approximately was uh about a 20% cut of the existing program. So um even with the 8% cut the housing bureau took, the program was still going to exist just at a lower service level. And the um number of households that would be served by adding this back in would range between, you know, 40 to 75 based on the level of uh eviction support um or uh uh rent rental assistance, whatever the service that we're providing would would be. Um the good news is is the infrastructure in the bureau already exists. These programs are going to continue to run and this would just be increasing the levels back to um not just uh co levels but these programs were in different forms pre-covid as well. So I guess what I'm offering is councelor mario's uh amendment essentially makes the bureau um whole um based on the 8% cut. Well, I know but you all gave up all of that a few years ago and so this was ARPA money that propped this up, right? Uh to a certain degree, but this again this existed pre um ARPA as well. It just increased our ability the the the need for and maybe I've been out of it for for a few years. Um I was for about five, but the last time I checked that y'all weren't doing any um rent assistance. The rent assistance is largely, but a lot of these resources is actually going to um eviction prevention. So, it provides legal defense uh fund resources. And I would argue that those are some of the most needed services right now. Uh to council marino's point, we're trying to prevent people from entering a houselessness state. And so the resources that we provide uh for legal defense is is probably the most significant of this. Not to say that rent assistance isn't important, but we sort of rely on the county for that. Um there is some as a part of legal defense. Sometimes supporting renters is part of that um package, but I would offer that the eviction defense fund might be the the core element here. And not to so are they help are we helping people to stay in their homes because of eviction or giving folks money cash money to stay in their homes because they can't afford to pay for their um for their housing or are we doing both? Both. Yes. People come to the housing bureau all the time for different needs counselor and this is just a resource that we that's flexible enough to provide um with our of course with our external partners. Are you using cdbg money for this as well? Not for this. Okay. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Avalos, did you have a comment to the amendment? Yeah, thank you. Um, councelor morio, I think, you know, especially after feeling disappointed that my last amendment didn't pass, especially given the conversation that we had about the albina settlement. Kind of hurts to see that and many promises are always made to help black people and trust that those promises are often not kept. Um, so I'm just needing to name that. And I say that in support of this amendment because people need to be kept in their housing, y'all. Like I I really don't know why we insist on um not doing the things that are very obvious, which is people cannot afford their rent. They cannot black people literally cannot afford rent anywhere in this entire city. And so this to me is an obvious choice to support adding some dollars back into a program that we've already had pre-covid as has been discussed and whether the county also provide you know what every government should provide rental assistance as far as I'm concerned because we have failed our constituents by not providing enough housing by letting the market go wild by decreasing their buying power by lots of and through lots of different ways not creating economic opportunities. We have failed people and providing rental assistance is the bare minimum that they deserve. So I will be supporting this. Councelor canel. Thank you, madam president. Yeah. Um so most of the city took an 8% cut. Um and I think we've exempted some parts of the city and we're deciding as we go if it makes sense uh to to continue those the exemptions that were done throughout various parts of this process. Um we have you know reporting that has shown well before we get to the reporting uh one of the stats we often often hear is that 40% of the people in shelter go back to the streets and only 20% end up going back going into housing. And that's true. Um and despite the fact that 20% of people um that are in uh shelters go into into permanent housing, we still are seeing increases in the number of homeless people because there's a higher rate of inflow. And inflow means outflow from housing. Um it means people who were housed and are not anymore. We've also heard repeatedly about the um about the the number of um people who are getting moved around and the need to stop the moving the problem from place to place within the city. We've talked about sweeps of people um as if people are something that can be swept so often in here. Um, and I don't know how many is enough, but over a 4-year period, we've swept 19,000 times. Each one of those sweeps is not just one person or one tent. That is of the encampment. Last year, 20 encampments a day. It's in a propublica article today, by the way, conveniently. And so, we're seeing it not working. And so by reducing one of the teams that do this work again not eliminating that process alto together we have the ability to find some money for a really important thing which I I agree that rental assistance is vital and I'm glad to join with my fellow renter on on uh promoting this um but also on eviction defense and eviction defense is really really critical because the overwhelming majority of landlords in eviction court have legal representation and the overwhelming majority of tenants do not and when you we've seen that where a right to counsel and eviction court has come up in other jurisdictions that the rate of eviction is lower. The same issues apply but because of the the balancing of power in that situation it often leads to mediation. It often leads to things like rental assistance for the renter being accepted when that person makes a late payment and stays in their home. There's so many benefits and I think there's a lot of money in what I believe is an impact reduction, but it's certainly within Portland solutions. We're evidently seeing a uh supporting the building of a million dollar rod iron fence uh which is going to be paid for by ODOT um under 405 to harden a specific campsite. We're putting in 64,000 according to the Oregonian and taking on the ongoing maintenance obligation because what the city needs is more ongoing maintenance obligations. Um, so I'm gonna support this. This is maybe the biggest slam dunk I've seen in the entire list of 126. Thank you, councelor Ryan. Thank you, madam president. I wanted to get level set on what we've experienced the last couple days. So, wasn't it just yesterday that we had a 2% uh cut to ems, which is external materials and services? Is that correct? It is. And that's yes. Okay. And that this would be then an additional cut to the impact reduction plan Portland solutions. Given that if this passed in as much as the work of the impact reduction program is through contracts then that is where some of that cut likely would be taken. Um but we don't know for sure. Okay. So that and that was the Green amendment yesterday that did that. Correct. Okay. I I want to say two things. I I again this is one of those conversations of both things can be true. Um but ba based on the cut we took yesterday and um I apologize for the name of that was being used it's it's the impact reduction program not sweeps team and um I I think that we need to stay the course and I will not be supporting this. Thank you counselor councelor Green. Yeah, colleagues, I just want to remind us that I think less than two weeks ago, we were all at this das with the county board members and we received an update on the most recent data that showed that the rate of inflow of people entering unsheltered homelessness exceeds our capacity to shelter them. And there are a number of reasons why that is a problem. Of course, we need to expand our housing supply. I made that argument. Um I made that argument from miss deis. But we also need to prevent people from being evicted. That is critical. And if we cannot do that, then we are going to contribute to this problem and we'll have to pour more and more and more money into sweeps and to temporary unshelter house uh housing. And that is that's unconscionable. And so that's why I'm going to support this amendment. Thank you, councelor. Councelor mario. Thank you. Um I understand that there are some tensions right now about what the county is supposed to be doing versus what we're supposed to be doing. And as uh dca olivivera stated, the city had these programs before COVID started. So it was always part of our book of business as councelor Smith likes to say um and to our constituents who are suffering on the streets, it really doesn't matter whose job it is. It just needs to be done. And when I did constituent services at the city before I became a city counselor, uh I answered a lot of calls from people who would call for a sweeps team. I'm sorry, what they do sweeps. I think it's fine to call them that. Uh who would come and sweep unhoused people. And they would get pushed to the other sidewalk, maybe a few blocks away. And then a few days later, more angry neighbors would call. And then they would get pushed to another sidewalk and another sidewalk and the problem never got resolved because we never got people into housing and we never kept people housed. And the problem is going to continue ballooning unless we actually do things to address the upstream to address the upstream critical services that we need. This is also uniquely important for people in district 1 because when I did constituent services, we were a city-wide council and what I got was a lot of calls from folks who would live in district 1 who would say that what the city would do is they would clear the encampments in Laurelhurst park, the wealthiest, whitest areas of the city, and then all of those encampments would go towards east Portland because that's where the city invests less resources in. And in quarter 1 of 2024, this is from Oregon eviction data on racial disparities report from uh 2024, the black monthly eviction rate continued to increase, reaching the second and third highest rates in the history of the data at 9.6 and nine filings per 10,000 black portlanders, black renters. October and the previous q4 2023 had the highest rate of 10.5. We also see that latinx renters experienced a record-breaking rate of 5.1 to 6.4 filings per thousand latinx renters. So both the black and latino community are uniquely impacted by this issue. And if we want to have a Portland that actually works for everyone, we're going to have to stop continuing to allow our working-class people and people who are lowincome to actually become unhoused in the first place. We're going to have to actually keep people housed and make a city that that is affordable to live in, where people are cared for. So, no one cares where this money is coming from or who's responsible. They just need the services. And I hope that I hope that my colleagues will honor that today. Councelor Smith, I have a question. So, how many sweeps are going to be done period through the through this mayor's budget? Mr. Mayor, would you like to respond to this or would you like us to bring up somebody from your team? Actually, we have we have data from the propublica report if folks want to read that since 2021, the city of Portland has carried out 19,000 sweeps and it dismantled over 20 encampments per day in 2024 according to our own record. We have it here. It is the city's dashboard. So, so what I'm trying to figure out, so for fiscal year 2526, you're saying we have one less sweep and put that money that we would spend on a sweep into uh rent assistance and eviction defense. Correct. And so, how many are we expected to do this year in the data? Do you know dca all the bureaus? Okay. He doesn't run that bureau. So, we're gonna we're gonna bring up our Portland solutions team and hopefully get some quick answers here so we can get to a vote. For the record, my name is lucas clear. I'm the manager of the impact reduction program. Uh to the question specifically uh about what um one team is about able is able to do about two removals a day. Um part part of the um risk here that I see like we we would likely remove uh or or cut a removal team, but it also impacts other services that we provide such as ground score, glitter, and um uh other hygiene services. We have bathrooms around town that are coming off of ARPA that are coming onto our budget. And so we have several things that we'd have to take into consideration to figure out exactly where that code c code would come from. One of the things right now we're able to intervene very quickly once a camp has reach reached a certain threshold and what that has done is it cut cuts down on cost. So the the number of removals that we do uh in a given week is higher um and the cost of it is lower. When we are unable to intervene right at that threshold when things become problematic, the cost and the time and material starts to increase pretty significantly. So it turns into kind of a doom loop where things are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It takes longer for us to clean. So, we're less able to be in more places at once to keep things at a at a at a level uh that's in line with what um constituents want. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, skyler. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to direct respond. Um, by this team's own planning, they were originally okay with cutting one sweeps team according to the 8% cut that everyone was asked to do. Uh, our amendment does not state that they have to cut anything from glitter or ground score. Those would be decisions made by the agency that are not necessary. Uh, this is specifically to cut one sweeps team. And if we cut one team, that would be roughly 300 sweeps per year according to their own data. But again, if we want to talk about the exacerbated issues of homelessness and the impacts on our natural landscape and garbage and all of that, then we have to talk about people becoming unhoused in the first place because our costs for doing sweeps, for doing cleanups, for everything is going to continue to go up unless we actually address keeping people housed. And this is just one. I am asking for the bare minimum here, people. The rest of the budget has extensive funding for shelters and not that much else to keep people in long-term housing. This is a very small ask. Councelor canel, I hate I hate following councelor mario on renter stuff. Uh says all the stuff I would say, but I think um I do want to clarify. I don't think the impact reduction program as a whole is is a negative thing. I want to just say that for the record. I I know some of the folks there and um I I don't want it to be a broad brush here. But one of the particular actions that is taken is at the direction not of their own choosing but as the direction of this this council in the past has been um this particular course of moving encampments around. Um I say that to say it's not about demonizing a program here. It's quite the opposite. It's it's we built a budget or they built a budget I should say based on the assumption that everybody had in the city of an 8% cut and then there's an attempt to increase that and this would be um well it'll be increasing it and uh or recutting it. You can frame it however you want in this particular case cuz it did get bounced up and down. Um, but I think that the conversation here is ultimately the very similar point to what was just said, which is that when an encampment is small, it costs less to remove than when it gets bigger. So intervening earlier is cheaper. Well, how about we go way before that before the people become houseless in the first place and we save the money up front and we make it so someone doesn't have to go through the trauma of being displaced in the first place either from the home that they're in. And uh by by working on the eviction prevention side, we can do that. Thanks, councelor Avalos. I agree with council mario that this is a bare minimum ask and if we are investing literally so many more millions in this budget to supposedly help people get off the street through the shelters, then frankly this should be a wash. So if we reduce this team by one and we are putting mill we're reducing it by 400 some thousand and we're putting millions and millions into shelters then I would see that as a wash. Councelor mario. Yeah. And I just wanted to add additional clarification that this is going to take us from 25 sweeps teams or I'm sorry 25 teams to 24 teams. Okay. My hand is in the queue. I have a question for either the mayor or folks from Portland solutions. I'm wondering if part of these teams. I had a um an explanation to me about a group called the intents group, the folks that from Portland solutions will do more than just say, "do you want housing? Goodbye." but will stay with people and with consent get into their tent and help them and talk to them. And is is that part of this work or is that separate? No, I'll refer to director skyler rocknap. Skyler bucknap, director of Portland solutions. Um, so I think uh what you're referring to um can be encompassed in a couple different pieces of our program. So I'll try to say this quickly. Um the outreach team, our street services coordination center does a lot of that engagement and outreach. Um we also have um on staff uh for at with our contractors rapid response um a specialist to help connect folks to different resources. So that exists in multiple pieces within the program. Um that specialist helps engage with folks who are interested in resources and to connect them to different um potential resources like shelter is the most obvious but other resources as well. Um so that exists in different parts. U what lucas hillier was saying before is that that cut um one team basically encompasses a lot of different programs. So we braid them together in a function. So trash pickup um the encampment removal but also the assessment program that happens kind of before that removal happens. So that cut would just be encompassed by doing less work just off the top of all of those different programs that are part of impact reduction program. So, glitter, ground score, central city concern, rapid response, um, city of roses, a lot of different contractors that braid into that work if that makes sense. Thank you, council mario. So, my amendment cuts a campsite removal crew, 25 crews to 24 crews, and I am happy to send a screenshot uh if that is helpful for everybody. Councelor, may I ask I my understanding was it was restoring the 8% cut or is it more specific than that? Lucas seems like he has something. Thank you. Um again, lucas hillier. So, it's from your own justification packet, by the way. Thank you. The last year, at the beginning of the fiscal year, we had $3 million, I think it was three million or maybe $2 and.5 million of carryover money. So, at the beginning of last fiscal year, there were 25 crews. Um four months ago, uh that one-time money kind of started running out. We're our budget was running pretty hot. So, we have already cut that down to 19 crews. Um, and so we're going into next fiscal year with the assumption of going with the 19, possibly the 17. Um, kind of depending on how how this vote turns out. So, in the packet that you sent for this year's budget with the 8% cut, those were not the updated numbers. I I believe that was several weeks ago. Um and we've since had to pair down based on the carryover running out. We had to put the proposed budget numbers together for the 8% cut probably two months ago. Um departments put together proposed budgets back in November and December. I I mean that seems like a pretty big jump for the 8% cut that we're discussing right now if those numbers were not updated. So, it's it's a little confusing because we went into last fiscal year at $21 million and that included uh I think it was three and a half or two and a half carryover carryover and so we built a budget at 8%. So it we without without the 8% we're already looking at $2 to3 million less going into this fiscal year as we were last year if that makes sense. Yeah. So we're taking we don't have the carryover that we had last year. So the budget is going from like 21 million to about 16.6 is what we proposed in this year's upcoming budget. And then we also this would be an additional 8% cut. So you're seeing a reduction of crews be from last year because we don't have that carryover. Um so that extra $3 million and then we also would be taking an 8% cut. So that's why the crew number is significantly lower. So, $428,198 is the amount that this amendment refers to. And the total budget of the impact reduction program is $16,671,13 in the mayor's proposed that that did take a small uh adjustment yesterday with the uh passage of the the 2% ems cut. Correct. Um but I just want to um understand because this is not 8%. Uh it's well I just give you the exact thing. It's 2.56%. Uh is the 428. That's so I I I I think that to to uh mr. Hillary's original question that is it more specific than that? It is because it's it's clearly significantly less. It's just shy of a third of an 8% reduction to the overall budget. So, I just want to clarify that because this is not an 8% reduction and I I I think that the tailoring of that dollar amount to the specific use of of a single team, one out of 17, 19,25 doesn't particularly matter for this, but it's one team is I think the the conversation we're having here. Thank you, councelor canal. I always leave my math to you. Councelor Ryan, go ahead. Thank you, madame vice president. I actually why the Portland solutions team is up here. Hi, sky. I wanted to connect what this amendment could do to the coordination of Portland solutions working with the mayor's team, which you're part of, of course, the um overnight shelter plan. You got a you got a cut yesterday that we through the Green amendment of 2 million and then here's an additional cut. What will be the impact of how you roll out these services? All of our constituent folks are going to get phone calls as we put these shelters in place and you obviously do more than sweeping. So, I just need to hear how that connects to this plan. Yeah, maybe you and the mayor could answer. I don't know. Yeah, counselor. Mayor, would you like to respond? I didn't catch that question fully. So, if you want to ask it again, but I do think we need to talk about just topline numbers. What was the fiscal year 25 number? If I recall, it was 21. Mhm. We're budgeting 16 today with an additional 8% it goes even further. So if we need to level set, which we should, what was 25? Yeah. So I think um in terms of removals, uh you know, lucas mentioned this earlier, but I think we'll see a significant um decrease in crews from this last fiscal year. So folks who are uh constituents who are calling, folks who are reporting, um we will just not be able to do as many removals in a day. Um we also that 2% um across the board will impact um you know our services. So again our services are the outreach team um our alternative shelter sites, our overnight shelter sites now that we're developing with the mayor um and then pimo um the public environment management office and their work as well. So um it will just not enable us to give the same level of service that we've been providing um to different constituents across the board. Council mario. Yeah. So, I I appreciate the difficult choices that we have before us and I think that's been the order of the day is that there are a lot of tough choices, but there is an incalculable loss that happens when someone loses their housing because getting back into housing is one of the most difficult things that you could possibly do. And I was someone who was very lucky. Um, people took me in and thought that I was worth investing in and I wouldn't be sitting here on this das today if it wasn't for my community stepping up and making sure that I had a house to live in. Uh, but without that, I don't know what would have happened to me. It's extremely hard when you're working minimum wage to save up enough money to pay for first and last month's rent and to get back into housing. Uh, especially if you're an immigrant, you don't know how to navigate these programs. What I am asking for is for our council to have some sort of political courage and vision for the future about what it means for us to actually keep people housed so that we don't have to have more and more cleanup crews and that instead we actually have housed neighbors. I get the feeling that I'm just sitting on my soap box now and I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind. Uh so I'm happy to just you know move to a vote on this but I do want to point out that we are asking this group to take a small fraction of the cut that every other bureau has had to take as councelor canal has pointed out. Um so this is really a very simple question to me. We are either going to invest in alter alternatives to sweeping human beings or not. That is the decision before us today. And whether or not we choose to keep people housed long term so that we don't have to keep sweeping them. That's the choice. People just hopped into the queue. Mayor wilson, thank you for your patience. So page 103 of the proposed budget, the 25 number, the fiscal year 25 that is going into irp right this minute is 22,338,000. The proposed budget we have right now is 16,242,000 and so you're looking at a $6 million cut from fiscal year 25 to fiscal year 26. In addition, the amendment passed yesterday with the ems, the external materials and services has cut an additional 2% and that will be shouldered in Portland solutions which will have an impact on the impact reduction program. An additional 8% is going to have an additional whatever that amount or cost is. So, just wanted to talk about the numbers as we have it in the budget. So, it's not 8%. I'm asking for $428,198. Council canal point of order. I I'm just trying to understand like I it was my impression that the ceo, the mayor can speak when we ask questions. Are they able to just be in the queue and be a participating member of discussion? That's a great question for us to discuss. Maybe we can ask when the council president returns. I just think it's important to establish what are the boundaries here because this is the council uh and the mayor is not technically a part of it. It's no disrespect, but it truly like this is a bigger picture question I think we need to address. Thank you, councelor. Councelor canel. Yeah, just I I appreciate the the point there. Uh, mayor, I just to clarify and I think you might have missed it. It's 2.5% reduction uh not eight. Um I think that there was a little bit of back and forth there with the 492 figure. Um, I I'll also point out that back under its old name, which uh was the um very easy to say huckerp, the housing and urban camping impact reduction program, um the budget for was was 18 and 19 million. So, it has spiked and then reduced. It's a little bit lower than it was before. I imagine there's some um conversation there because there's some money that's gone into new parts of the uh assistant city administrator's overall portfolio and Portland solutions in general. So I I I think uh I I don't know the exact details of that, but I think that's an important reference point. Um but I I think the conversation around um the ems is is partially because external materials and services is such a big part of your budget as a percentage. And that's so it is fair to say that it is close to it's not just a 2% cut of a small subsection. It's close to a 2% cut of the whole thing. Um because there are a few folks uh it's it's a larger part of it. But I will also note that it was originally $492 thou sorry $490,000 not $2 million. I don't know where that number came from. And then that number got reduced significantly as a result of the the uh amendment to the amendment yesterday. So um I I think that this is is a a different conversation and the numbers are are I think inadvertently being inflated a little bit. I want to just bring that back down. Councelor canel, if I may, I think um part of the confusion around the percentage um on the balance sheet that I'm looking at, it includes Oregon department of transportation revenue, which is $2 million, which is not included um in our 8% cut exercise. So, our 8% cut exercise was just city resources and and didn't include the ODOT. So, if you add the Oregon department of transportation $2 million in there, that might get you closer to the 8 million. So, just to speak to that discrepancy. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Councelor Smith. Thank you. Thank you, madam vice president. You know, I think we've gotten to the point where we're we're pitting the homeowners against the renters. And I can tell you in my hoa community, they absolutely do not care for unsanctioned um housing camps on our sidewalks. We had a um a town hall meeting at the middle school at uh park rose middle school and one of the participants said, "I really I really like what you're doing about the sidewalks. Um but I don't need you to put a sidewalk here." I said, "why not? You don't have one. And she said because I don't want um people to to camp on my sidewalk and if I get sidewalks, I don't have any now. They don't camp. So we all have the same issue is that we want to make sure that we have humane policies that keep people from laying on the cement at night unsheltered, unsafe, possibly hungry, houseless, and try to make sure that we can have opportunities for them to be sheltered. And at the same time, we have another group of people where just regular working folks, they're being priced out of the city of Portland in terms of rent. So for me, it's not this or that. It it has to be both in a way that's meaningful. And we're not going to be able to do it all in this budget. We're going to have to figure out what do we what what's important. And I don't want to to fight against that because as a homeowner and and and one of the four or five home homeowners on here, 10 10 I don't like it either. Some folks, they chase my grandkids on the way to work in the morning, on the way to school, catching the school bus, and I'm afraid for them. And and they they do they go from one side of the street to the other side of the street. They know the rules, but we do need to have people to help clean that up. And if we're reducing those as it's it's a it's okay to reduce that piece of it, I say take the money from the $26 million that we're that we're um sending over to multma county. They have reiged on on everything that um they promised us. Take some of their money away from over there and I'm with you. Council mario, are you proposing a friendly amendment? Yes, ma'am. Can I take a moment to think about it? Yep. What was the is to take some money from that 26 million that we're spent spending. It was 31 million, but now it's down to 26. I think it's actually $24.8 million from phb that's going into the to mont county. Um it was a 5% reduction for um across the board at phb and then it we reduced it again by 4.8 million. Okay. So, sorry. Well, that that big check that we send over that's supposed to be used whichever from 31 to 24, but I know that the 24 was supposed to be for the mayor's uh shelter beds. So, I'm getting confused on the numbers because it was 28 for so long and then it was 31. Whatever that number is, I'd take that money from multma county. Got it. Instead of taking it from from Portland solutions. Um even though I don't like it. I don't like us not figuring out who our identity is, but I would be willing to support taking it from that money. Okay, I appreciate a negotiation, councelor Smith. So, okay, propose your amendment again. And I think I'm fairly I I would if you would accept a friendly amendment that would take the 500,000 away from the money that we send to multma county and put it into helping people stay in their homes uh from Portland housing bureau. And the money that goes to the county is doing what exactly right now? Well, that's that's our ig. That is our ig. We we're breaking the ig already anyway. That is our ig rent assistance. It it mostly goes to congregate shelters. Council murio, are you considering whether this is a friendly amendment? I apologize. I missed the original. I am considering it because I specifically wanted uh sweeps to be removed in order to keep people housed. I didn't want to necessarily touch shelters or move funding that goes from county eviction defense to our own sense. We actually don't know where that money is going. We just send it over and they do whatever they want to with it. So we we have some idea of what the money is contractually used for. It sounds like there's a point of information, counselor, to be a friendly amendment. Does the original maker of the motion alone have to agree to it or does the second agree have to agree to it as well? Our practice has generally been to ask both. Okay. Then I'll I'll save us all some time. I completely respect it, but I I I think we're opening a giant can of worms, so I would not accept it as friendly. Okay. So, if you accept this concert, you'll be looking for a new seconder. I don't really feel comfortable with it knowing that the county is using the money for other services. I would like to keep it in place. I understand I may not have the votes for this, so it's fine. We will have more unhoused people on our streets to sweep later. Councelor Clark, can we call the question? I'd like to call a question. Sure. Second, counselor. Just go. Don't call. Just go to the vote. We got to vote on the vote. We are prepared to vote, council president, on on the amendment as is the under amendment. Okay. Uh, coun councelor Clark, your hand is not in the queue to discuss the underlying amendment. Councelor Smith, your hand is not in the queue to discuss the underlying amendment. Okay. Councelor murio, sorry. Keyn, could you please call the role on the initial amendment? Morio 16. Canel. I want to thank my fellow renter on this council for bringing this forward. 47% of us are renters and we have one sixth of this council and there's a reason for that. It's because of the procarity that you face when you're a renter. One of the biggest things we can do to end the procarity is have this council stand up to support you when you are in need of rent assistance or in need of eviction uh representation and support. And so I would ask my colleagues who uh are not in the precarious position of being a renter to support those who are by supporting this amendment alongside me. I vote I. Ryan, no. Quamelene, thank you for this work, councelor modio. I entered this discussion intending to do what I did similarly with the home share pilot. However, I really do find myself being persuaded by the idea of an incremental reduction to this program in service to starting to get upstream on these issues. It's really important that until we start moving upstream in our investments, we're not going to make the kind of change we're all seeking. I want to acknowledge that councelor mario is very generous in being vulnerable and sharing her personal experiences. I think she should be listened to more. I hope that mr. Mayor and council modio can that that you will bring her in on some of these conversations because I think her voice is really important. The first time I met her, um, there was an event where someone was unhoused and they were screaming and were very upset and no one knew what to do and she stood up and grabbed the mic and said, "yeah, you're upset. You should be. We all should be." and it she changed the whole whole tone of the room. Um, so I still support your plan and I am also voting yes on this amendment. Maria, thank you counselor. Hi. No, mick. I don't think it's really relevant, but I'm a renter, too. I just want to note that it's my understanding that in order to give rent assistance to everybody who really desperately needs it in the city would cost hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. No. Clark, I think that we learned today that the impact reduction program um also does trash pickup, ground score, bathroom cleaning, uh and other activities that are going to be increasingly important as we site more homeless shelters in dense areas of the city. So, I am voting no. Green. Yes. Zimmerman. No. Abalos. I. Duny. I Smith. No. Guinea. The amendment fails with six yes votes and five no. Are there any other counselors who have a budget amendment related to housing and homelessness that they are bringing forward? Can I have point of information and ask a question? Um, and this is to to robert taylor. At what point is it too late to change your vote? Uh, when once the roll call has been completed and the clerk has announced the result, it is too late to change your vote unless you have unanimous consent of the other members of council. We can now move to the next section of administration. Is that what you have your hand up for? Councelor Zimmerman. Go ahead. So, I I put my hand up because I think we're moving to the other category and that's where some notes were going to be discussed. We sorry, colleagues. I am sorry that I've been running in and out. I had a family thing. It is now resolved. Um so we have discussed administration, economic development, revenue generating and transportation at the previous meeting. There are a few things left in other. So we were going to see if any counselors needed to propose something now in the other category and then move to budget notes um and give everybody a chance to move forward their priority. Hopefully we will have time if we move quickly for priority 2 budget notes, but we are scheduled to end at 6. And while we have a little bit of wiggle room with staff, we are not running until 10 or midnight tonight. So, um, if you have an amendment in the other category that you have not had the opportunity to bring forward, now is the time. Councelor Zimmerman, is that why you are in the queue? Yes. Thank you. Right ahead. I just have two quick ones. They are no they're one amendment, excuse me. Um no change to um the overall budget, but it's a directing in the parks materials and services. I would amend to direct $140,000 to continue the parks funding of the restroom at pioneer courthouse square. Counsel councelor, is this in the other category? This sounds like it's in the parks category. And I'm sorry I'm trying to keep us within what we said we were going to do. It is in any category you want it to be. Other doesn't mean you said earlier priorities in those and our first you allowed an amendment to be read at the 11:30 hour last time we had this meeting outside of the order into the second category. We have other things that we do need to do and we will have time for more amendments. In the other category I have listed that has not been discussed. I believe two amendments. It sounds like a parks amendment. We will have time for it, but I want to make sure there's nobody in the queue for the other category. Councelor duny, are you in the queue for anything in the other category? I would just firmly reject your I'm sure everybody has had a concern about the order at some point. Councelor duny, are you in the queue for something in the other category? It yes. Um, mine is a technical adjustment. It's technically a transportation. Let's hold on. We will have time for more amendments if we move quickly, folks. What does this other mean to you? There is an other category on your list from the budget office. Many of those have not had an opportunity to move forward because they were not listed in another category and I want to make sure we give folks an opportunity if they had something that didn't have another opportunity to move forward. I understand that we are short on time and everybody is worried about getting their priorities in. I hope that we all respect each other by moving quickly so that we can do that. Councelor Avalos, do you have something in the other category as listed by our cbo's office? I sure do. It's right at the top. Abalos 5. All right. So, abalos 5 is to fund critical recovery infrastructure in east Portland. So, abalos 5 uses the 1.2 million in opioid settlement funds for mental health services grants. East Portland is on the front line of addiction crisis of the addiction crisis but underserved by resources. For our health is one of oregon's oldest, largest, and most respected nonprofit treatment centers providing treatment for substance use disorders and co-occurring mental health disorders. And for health is building 46 new residential treatment beds on the same campus as their treatment clinics. As I shared earlier, this allows people in recovery to live long in longerterm residential beds instead of shelters. These onetime funds are a great investment in use of the opioid settlement dollars. Uh and we have confirmed that it's allowed under the uses. I've also confirmed directly in the hours since the last discussion we had about this um directly with poor health that they do in fact need this money. The county is not covering the gap. And even though their original need was 1.5 and I was only able to scrape by scrape uh 1.2 together. I spoke with uh darcy this afternoon and he told me that combined with the sdc waiver and this 1.2 he will be able to completely close the gap and get this building open. So I urgently uh request that we put these dollars into the capital that they need immediately. We can get these uh 46 beds open uh and that will help our overall problem and uh I think it will accomplish a lot of the counselor's goals. So do I have a second? I guess second. Thank you. Councelor Green, are you in the queue to discuss this amendment? That is a very good point. Thank you. Councelor canal, are you in the queue to discuss this amendment? Councelor Zimmerman, are you in the queue to discuss this amendment? Yes. Go right ahead. L county has fully put $6 million into this. This is their line of business. This is not our line of business. Many of you asked those questions and I appreciated it. So I followed up with the county county commission that they have $6 million in the county budget for this for a health also has the ability to bill for their services. We are bailing out an organization who is already getting bailed out from another government when we have the need for a sobering center. I I don't love that these have been pitted against each other but sobering dollar sobering center is part of the city's book of business. It should remain there. And if we are looking at whether or not for is going to develop, they are going to develop. Whether or not all the funding streams come together to keep a sobering center in the works is still a question mark if the city walks away. So I appreciate the these are these are in conflict, right? That's a tough part. But um I I think that supporting the county's effort to open up a sobering center is a better use of these dollars and I think that they the county has requested that we continue our commitment here and they do that while funding for with their $6 million. So I hope for some of you who've indicated that you would bring back the sobering question that you will do so so that we can allocate these funds to the sobering center. Thank you. Thank you counselor. I'm next in the queue colleagues. I was also going to speak to the fact that we need some of these funds for the sobering center. I had changed my uh vote to no so that I could bring that back. I'm really not sure how to put a finer point on the fact that while there's been a lot of conversation over the last few weeks about whether we are already breaking the iga with the county or whether they are already breaking it with us and what our commitments are and who should be giving whom money and we will talk about that more if we get to budget notes. Um, this is money that was committed previously and under a new mayor, that mayor gets to make his own decisions about what to do, but it is money that our partners in this work because like them or not, at times they are our partners in this work. They are our partners in the work of supporting portlanders and folks in multma county are depending on us having dollars available. And if we want any ability to pressure them to do the work of the sobering center more quickly, we can't pull those dollars off the table. Councelor, I would love to learn more about this work and how we can support the housing element of it, but I cannot support taking all of these dollars when we need to return to the conversation about money for a sobering center. Councelor Smith. Yes, madame president. Thank you for your comments. A couple things. Um, councelor Zimmerman said that multma county will probably u put out an RFP and then people can um they can apply for it. So, it's no guarantee that they're going to get the money. Number two, this money is going to sit in contingency for a whole year. And because I don't have a straight answer on how much opioid money we get every year, we can allocate dollars next year when they actually need it because they said they're not going to need it until 27. So why are we holding on to some money that's only going to be a one-time only request when we can help an organization put some beds in district 1 and do that this fiscal year and then next fiscal year we'll put some money to the side because they're not going to use it. Councelor canal, I'm not in the queue for this. Okay. Is there any other discussion on this amendment? I'll just put a finer point on it that again we spoke councelor dumpy and I spoke with darcy directly and he is not getting the dollars that he was promised. There's all this complication with dollars, but the county is not providing them this. And what councelor Smith is saying, it is not guaranteed. So, I'm not interested in putting this further in the balance. We have the money right now. It will go directly to putting new beds in. And for all the reasons that councelor Smith uh and councelor dumpy and I, we need this for district one. And so, I would urge you to support this. Council Clark. Thank you, madame president. I I would just say that this is really a slippery slope when it comes to our as councelor Smith likes to say our book of business because this is really a mental health issue that um belongs at multma county. I don't think we should be taking over another function or be involved in another function when we're already stretched uh in our uh joint office relationship. So I'm going to vote no. But a sobering center is not the I don't know. Can you enumerate? You're not in the queue right now. Counselor, [music] colleagues, is there any other discussion? Councelor Zimmerman, I know that I know that we're heated. I'm heated. Um it it it shouldn't have to be that way. And to councelor mario's point, like we're at the point of it where everything's going to suck to make a decision, right? And I and I hear that and I feel that I also have generally had a good relationship with fora health, right? I think they provide an important service, but they provide a current service that exists. They are looking to expand and it's important, but it will do nothing. It will do nothing. It will do nothing for anybody if we walk outside and encounter a person who's in crisis today. It's not they they are not opening a sobering center. And so I'm not trying to question the validity of treatment beds. Anybody who knows my record, anybody who's worked with me at the county knows that I have worked as much as I could to get more treatment beds. Have said so for the state, for the county. But there is a gap in our community, a huge gap. And that gap is treatment beds are important when a person is ready for treatment. But we have a lot of portlanders who are not ready for the detox and treatment continuum. But we have them every day and every night in very unsafe situations. The sobering center is and it is supposed to be just a band-aid. And I know we don't like to talk about the downstream thing, but in this case, the downstream is a roaring river of nothingness for people who are too intoxicated to take care of themselves. And this community again is one of the largest communities without respect for the need for that service to exist. Fora health, their long-term treatment beds, their inpatient treatment beds, potentially future detox is an admirable thing. If there is a route for that in the future, I think the county and the state are helping them, but they are a large nonprofit. I don't know that they need the hand up in this case, but to get a sobering center off the ground that is run by multi county and in partnership with the city or the state, we must help. So, I would just urge you to please consider that before we say we're going to continue to have no option between the street and when people are ready for treatment. These are very different things. Sobering treatment and detox. Thank you. I believe we are on counselor mot. Thank you, madam president. Um there is a treatment center in Oregon that turns away uh at least according to the data from last year 200 people a month who are begging to get into treatment because we don't have enough long-term treatment beds. So when we talk about needing sobering versus long-term treatment all the things we do need all of them but the reality is that we have failed to invest in our long-term treatment for the past 30 years. Councelor Avalos has done the leg work and has worked on this for weeks, if not months, to get all of the information to put this together. And you have brought forward an amendment that wasn't even submitted online. So, it's been in the works for years, and you know that. I think that I'm really excited to support councelor oalos's amendment because the reality is that we need long-term treatment beds. It's not going to be enough to continue to put a band-aid on every single issue facing us at the city. And I feel prepared to vote whenever we're ready if we want to move along. Councelor Ryan. Thank you, madam president. Uh in 2020 in September, the former mayor put me um at the table with the county and I was in every meeting with uh commissioner Myron trying to wake up the county that they have actually have a responsibility to provide mental health and behavioral health services. I'm so thrilled that they're making headway on this and that they're going to actually put that investment in uh to for health. And so in terms of finding your Lane and your roles and responsibilities, that's absolutely perfect. What I also learned during that process is um how many people were angry that the sobering station was clo center was closed I think in 2019. Um and we're finally making headway on something. The fact that our market doesn't have a sobering station is ridiculous. And our first responders need somewhere to take people where in that that acute condition. Also at a sobering station where you have medical response where they could observe the the horrible tough withdrawal process is exactly the way that you have a moment in time where someone might say yes to treatment. So all of these things are connected. Know your Lane, know your role. I will be rejecting this amendment and I'm thrilled that we're going to be part of helping the county get the um subway station up and running. Thanks, councelor Smith. Yes, madam president. I think we can do both. Um I need a clarity on how much money from the um city administrator. How much money do we get every year in the opioid settlement? How much should we be expecting in fiscal year 2526? I think uh ruth has a estimate and just just I know that year to year it varies. So there's a projection for so I know that we're expecting um 1.02 million to be available next year. Sorry, I'm just looking for the right piece of paper. Um here we go. Um after the current um allocations um and the expected additional revenue and the amount available this year. The actual amount we receive each year fluctuates. I think we're expecting uh about one sorry. Okay. Thank you. We're expecting 1.5 million a year each year for the next seven years. But the number we have available for next year is 1.02 million. So someone told me it was 15 years and we were getting more than 1 million the settlement money and we were getting more than 1 million a year because um mayor wilson is getting money for the opio beds. That that doesn't sound quite right. There's there was more money that we get in for this. Well, at any rate, what I'm saying is we only need this for fiscal year 2526. The county is not going to need the money until 27. We can do both. I'll put a budget note in that says that we are looking for the opioid money to um to be used for 25 for 26 27. But right now, we have an immediate need that is a one-time only need. The the I think the monies that that are going to uh bobby lakes is that ongoing mr. Mayor? I'll turn to okay. No, it's not. Okay. So, we still have other opportunities. I so, that would tell me that we get more than 1 million a year uh from the opioid settlement because he's he has money. He has a million that he's taking and then there's another million. It's more than 1 million. Um yeah, that that includes some of the accumulated amounts. So okay. That were unused. So correct. Yeah. Okay. Um I really think the sober and standard is is an important tool for us to have. I agree with it. I think we should support it. But I think this time for this fiscal year, we need to go ahead and support um councelor avalos's u amendment because they they won't be able to you it doesn't make sense. I'm I'm a parent. If you're not going to use a resource, you don't try to take it away when you can use it for your kids right now. So I I will be supporting this. Thank you. Counselor, we don't use a resource if we can't use it right now, but we also have partners and we are showing them through our budget what kind of partners we want to be. And this is money that they have told us they were depending on. It is money that we have in the past put on the table. It is money that if we don't put on the table affects how they see us as partners. And I think we need to take seriously how we are partnering especially with folks who we have very complicated relationships with. Well, the first stab at it, madame president, was for the mayor and the mayor didn't put it in his budget. He did not. That's right. And I am frustrated by that and I have shared that with the mayor and I was looking for a way to add it back in and was grateful to our colleague for finding a source. Councelor canel, I mean that conversation a moment ago was part of what I intended to ask about and to understand. Um I have not talked to the mayor about this particular thing because the um the motion the proposal about the sobering center was not on my radar. I only knew about the for health conversation. I think that's notable and we've already talked about that. Mayor, could you speak if you're willing uh and I understand if you're not to speak to why uh this how we ended up in a situation where the county might expect money from us as the council president put it, but it was not in your proposal. Mr. Mr. Mayor, go right ahead if you'd like. Thank you, councelor. Thank you, council president. It started in February, and I alluded to it earlier when we were trueing up our budgets for the deficits. County had noted that the 38 million that we expected on the iga to come to Portland wasn't going to be paid. They're struggling as Portland was. They offered 10 million at that time. We had the sobering center funding in a bucket. It was earmarked for ongoing operational funding. After speaking with commissioner Brim edwards and chair, I did acknowledge that that liability was in fact and needed to be paid. However, it was for operating expenses ongoing. So, I noted it was for future periods when you had the sobering center open. And we had been talking back and forth since that period of time. Uh so there was no easy decisions on this one. So I understand council president's frustrations. We were as well. There's and I've shared that frustration with all 12 of you multiple times as we tried to true up our budget. We have a significant gap. So did county. Um we're all frustrated, but that was essentially the the debits and the credits of the discussion. Do we have an ongoing yes. And next budget we have to really add that in to but that would be the fy27 budget and they're expecting to have it open in 27. I thought that that would be appropriate but uh this discussion is a good discussion to have right now. Thank you. Counselors seeing no one else in the queue. Keelin, could you please call the role on Avalos 5, which is funding from the opioid settlement fund to uh fora health canel, I ask for an indulgence from the clerk. When this is over, please count to five before you say the the final vote count. Um because I might change it. I'm uh really really conflicted on this and I think the most compelling argument I've heard is from councelor Smith about the the fiscal year element of it. So I want to first say that I strongly strongly support having a sobering center. I I cannot understate how often this comes up in a in the public safety context and it is a public safety component. Um but my understanding being that it needs to be something that we've committed to for the next fiscal year is is a very important and compelling argument in deciding between two things because my understanding is that the need for for health is a one-time need and that uh allows us to do both. Uh so I will vote I Ryan no. Thank you so much to my colleague councelor Avalos for the work you've done. I vote I mario I novik no clerk no Green I Zimmerman no I dunfy I Smith I guinea no the amendment is approved with seven yes votes and five no votes colleagues anything else from the other category being no one in councelor canal, are you in the queue for the other category? Yes, I am. Okay. What do you have? I move uh canal 18 and I'm going to uh make one small adjustment to one word in there um based on some other things we uh talked about here. So, um, this would, uh, and I I'll just say as we go, the the the changes from bureau of planning and sustainability to Portland bureau of emergency management. That is the change as you see it here. So this this would uh instruct the city leadership, city administrator and the mayor to restore funding at the officer of equity and human rights for two analyst uh one positions and one analyst 2 positions. These are three rank and file uh union represented uh workers as well as add a represented position um at the bureau the Portland bureau of emergency management to plan for the critical energy infrastructure hub at a total cost of $600,000 in general fund resources. It would uh you can see the the bullet points here reduce the salary adjustment policy set aside and general fund contingency by 600,000. It increases general fund bureau operating expenses in the office of equity and human rights by $450,000. It increases general fund bureau operating expenses in the Portland bureau of emergency management by $150,000. Increases position authority at ohr by three, position authority at pbm by one and updates attachments a through h to reflect this change. And just to give the the brief speaking to it, we can answer questions as well. Um, this is a revised version of canel01 which uh was voted on on may 21st and tied 66 and failed as a result of that. I've received feedback from multiple colleagues who voted no on it and tried to incorporate that into this revised revised version. Uh the first thing on the funding side, instead of putting a pool of seven deputy director positions into the hands of the um mayor and city administrator, it would put only six, it would exempt the city budget office deputy director position uh from that list. These are general fund funded bureaus and exempting all public safety bureaus as well as the city budget office. And then on the other side of it, the spending side, it would fund the critical energy infrastructure hub planning position that we've talked about a lot at the uh at pbm. I should note that councelor Clark has brought this up multiple times that we need two we need somebody at the bureau of planning and sustainability, which was part of the amendment last night. This is the other half of that. This is at the the pbm side of it. Um, and so this would uh check that box, meet that need. And also I I will just say I'm going to it's canal 18 officially, but I'm going to call it the robin hood amendment. This is the only amendment of the 126 that addresses management bloat at the city and moves money from management to rank and file workers. Pass for a second. Uh there were ones that did uh the the half of it on the on the management side. I want to credit counselors for that. Yeah. Uh councilors, we have a motion made. Is there a second? Second. Councelor duny, are you in the queue to speak to this amendment? I am. Yes. Go right ahead. Um, councelor canal, I would like to off to uh see if you'd be amendable to an amendment that my team has been trying to work on um which would change the ongoing amounts. Um, sorry, I'm trying to read a redline version of this. Um, sorry, come back to me. I need a second. Councilors, is there any other discussion on canal 18? Councelor Clark. Okay. Um, this is like one more time around. Um, would you mind listing each of those items one more time briefly, please? Thank you. So, there are, uh, seven, sorry, six deputy director positions that would go into a pool. They would not all go away. I want to first start by that. The same way that we've had the um uh the 20% reduction and we're actualizing 9.5% of it over the course of the year. This would give a pool of total compensation of $1.8 million to the uh to the administration and ask them to reduce that cost by $600,000. So, it's actually less aggressive than what we're doing to equity, community engagement, etc. Um I I'll list off those six bureaus in a second if anyone's interested. But uh I will first start on the other side. It would restore three positions at the office of equity and human rights. One is one of four of the ADA team that's uh being laid off. One is one of two of the lgbtqia2s plus team at the office of equity and human rights. And the third is the only person uh in oehr and frankly citywide who does racial equity plans out and works with all the bureaus. It would also add a fourth position to the Portland bureau of emergency management which is to uh to do ci hub planning uh specifically that that could flex if there's uh you know that's 38 hours a week. They could do other things and the other two but um the primary function would be ci hub planning. Um that's critical energy infrastructure. Thanks, councelor. I'm I'm looking at uh canel 18. Did you drop um the uh bureau of planning and sustainability? I didn't yes, I was uh I did and replaced it with pbm based on my understanding of the fact that that your initial ask was for one in each and we we did get the bps one yesterday. Thank you for that clarification. [music] councelor dunfy, are you ready for us to come back to you or should I buy you more time? Okay, I can just answer the other part of the question then if that's okay. Go ahead. So, the uh the positions the the the bureaus that we're talking about here are parks and recreation, bureau of human resources, office of government relations, Portland housing bureau, bureau of planning and sustainability, office of equity and human rights, and the city budget office. These are the seven uh that were in the original. City budget office has now dropped from that list. So there's six remaining. Again, these are not reductions. All six of them would not it's not we're laying off six people here. That's not what's happening. It's looking at this pool of people and giving the mayor and administrator two tools with which to reduce that total compensation by $600,000 over the course of the year. One tool could be reduction of positions. Uh at least one of these is vacant um for sure. And the other is reclassifications. And this is in line with the budget note which we adopted on uh may 21st which is I want to say o2 but I will verify that that talks about reducing sorry 08 which is to reduce the deputy director classification across the city altogether in recognition of the fact that we added a layer of management with the dcas and never started the process of reducing deputy directors. We already adopted that budget up. Councilors, I'm next in the queue. I'm a big fan of reducing management, but after the last amendment where we did generalized sweeping cuts without understanding the impacts, I had colleagues come up to me and express remorse. I had colleagues come up to me and say they had heard from leaders who they respect that the consequences of our vote were not what they thought it would be. I have had colleagues come up to me and say, "we'll need to figure out how to restore funding for x service area because the cuts there are actually worse than we thought." colleagues, I want to do many of the changes that many of you are bringing forward, including this one. And we have to understand the consequences of our votes. And I wish that in the first 5 months we had been here, we had had the will to do the accountability work in our policy committees to dig deep enough to understand the consequences of our votes. But I don't hold a gavl chairing a policy committee. So I didn't get to make that happen. So I have yet another amendment before me asking me to do something that certainly aligns with my values, to fund things that certainly align with my values. And it feels downright irresponsible because when we did this yesterday, we did things that we did not understand the consequences of. And I would like us to act more responsibly in the very short amount of time that we have left today. As much as I support the values here and the things that advise, I have to be a no. Councelor Zimmerman. Thanks. I was hoping we could get a response from the city administrator regarding these changes that are being outlined and your impression uh and reaction to these classification changes. Thank you. Uh thanks for the question. Without you know analysis of each bureau and looking at them. Um I I appreciate I guess the flexibility to look at all of them as a pool and try to figure out how best to uh accumulate the savings that the amendment asks for. Um, each of these bureaus is unique in how they're structured and how the management has evolved over time. Um, it's appropriate to take a look at classes of employees. Um, I'd like to be able to do it systemwide. I think the previous uh budget note asked for that and I appreciate the intent of looking at management across the entire organization. Um just as any cut in the general fund uh especially when public safety is eliminated from the review uh it gets very challenging. Uh so we once again are going to go after the rest of the general fund and not look at public safety where a huge amount of the money lies. Um and a huge amount of the money also lies in our homeless services. Um, and and I appreciate the attempt to look at look at this from a management perspective, but we have now constrained the review to a fairly small group of bureaus relative to the whole city. And so, uh, I appreciate trying to accumulate savings in the general fund to be able to reallocate that money to other purposes. I appreciate that. And we'll take a look at it. Um it's hard to predict the impact in each individual bureau right now, but uh the smaller ones particularly because their management is thin. Um perhaps reclassifying them is the appropriate thing to do. I will tell you that what hr will tell me is that not only do you get to look at these things on a bureau by bureau basis and what's the issue within the bureau, but you must also do an equity analysis of these positions across the entire city. And so, um, it's a little more complicated than just looking at what is six positions in the city and trying to re-evaluate their spans of control and etc. And how they relate within their bureau. You have to look horizontally across the city um to check on equity. So, it's a little complicated to give you an answer right now about what the outcome will be. Uh but I I obviously clearly understand the intent. Councelor canel. Thank you, madam president. I I think um the comparison to the amendment we talked about yesterday is a little bit uh interesting because this was scored going back before I think may 17th uh 19th, sorry, the Monday prior to our approval and we got this. The only thing that's changed is where are the positions going in one of these cases to what bureau because of an amendment that passed that made half of the need that was going to be addressed here uh moot and so we've shifted to funding the other half of the need um and pem um this has been scored uh for a while uh nearly a month now um and I I just wanted to make a comment about consequences because I I think uh I think there's two parts of the consequences here that I think we haven't talked about yet which is the consequences of doing thing consequences of not doing this is that we have um again one of the four people who does ADA work, the uh Americans with disabilities act work at the office of equity and human rights will lose their job. One of the two people who works on lgbtqia2s plus folks will lose their job and the only person who works on the racial equity planning for the whole city bureau by bureau in in the ohr office of equity and human rights will lose their job too. But also, we will be sending a message um because these these budgets do send messages. And I think it's not fair to us as a council and not fair to the to the city as a whole. But it's also true that the messages that we send are not just interpreted in light of what we do, but in light of what's happening at the federal level. And I think it's very important to consider the message that we would be sending by choosing willingly to take on a consequence of laying off people who work on lgbtqia2s plus work and racial equity right now. I think that's a viable question to ask and it's important thing to wonder what the message we would send there. That's a consequence um that we should talk about and and you know given that this one's been filed for 21 days at this point 20 21 days since we first talked about a version of this that was very similar but slightly adjusted and refiled it I think it's appropriate to say that we've had time to sit with the concept um and if people oppose it that's of course a choice that we all have the right to make individually in closing I'd just say um you know if if Portland is a union town and if this is a worker-friendly council, then I think we should look at what message it sends as well to to put three union represented jobs uh to to close them out and to not add a fourth and instead to protect non-represented managers. Um when we've already talked about over the course of this entire book and if you go through the entire budget, you'll see that the cuts to management were not nearly as steep as the cuts to union represented workers. And this helps to uh to start the process of moving that back into balance. Thank you. Councilor, seeing no one else in the queue, keelin, can you please call the role on canal 18. Canel. Thank you. I lion. No. Elaine, I really appreciate you councelor canal. I am worried about the unintended consequences and I have to vote no. Mario I novvic, I incorporate by reference everything the council president said a bit ago about responsibility. No clerk. Well, um I'm sorry if this throws a monkey wrench into our plans to address classifications across the enterprise or whatever else we were going to be doing in the next year. And I appreciate the president's frustration. Uh I I hear that loud and clear. But if the federal administration is going to cut FEMA and they're threatening doing that, then this position uh on the ci hub in pbm is very very important to me that we plan for disasters. Um that we have an adequate plan in place uh whether it's this disaster or another disaster. So I'm voting I Green. I just want to echo the fact that every single choice, even the choice to do nothing, has unintended consequences. I Zimmerman, no. Avalos, no. Duny, I Smith, no. Guinea, no. The amendment fails with five yes votes and seven no votes. Counselors, that clears out the other category. So, we are scheduled to be done at 6. I have been told that staff can stay a little bit later so that we can get a few more things done. So, what we are going to do is move into budget notes and give everybody a chance to do their top priority budget note. My goal is in 60 minutes, 1 hour to do two rounds, one of budget notes and one where if folks have a priority amendment or budget note, you can bring a second thing forward of your choice. That is virtually impossible to do in 60 minutes with all of us talking. So I am hoping that we can hold our fire except where there are things that must be asked or said. We will then take a 15minute break in order to figure out balance and then we will come back and we will have 30 to 45 minutes to do what we need to do to get things back in balance and wrap up. That should put us wrapping up around 7:30. I appreciate staff to whom we said we would end at 6 but who are willing to stay a little bit later. Thank you. Are you in the queue to bring forward a budget note? Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Thanks. I want to start just with a compliment, madam president. This is not an easy show to wrangle. So, um, what you just laid out is a plan that works. So, I appreciate that deeply. Colleagues, I am going to introduce this budget note and uh I think it should be easy for us to pass. I would never ask you not to comment on it, but I hope we don't spend a lot of time. Budget note. The city attorney will conduct a deep analysis and make every effort to invite alignment of the analysis across the league of Oregon cities, the Oregon attorney general, the district attorney's association, if those associations or offices are willing, regarding the sighting and operations of ice centers within the city of within the city or other Oregon cities and the implications and application of Portland and oregon's sanctuary laws in order to provide renewed guidance to the city council, all city officials, and to provide the basis for the city of Portland to ensure all city officials, all city employees have firm, foundational, and legally sound understanding when and if resisting federal overreach and or refusing to provide assistance to the federal government for actions deemed illegal inside the state of Oregon given the ongoing threats of legal action by the federal government against city and state officials for simply following their local and state laws. This analysis should serve as a shared guiding report for other neighboring jurisdictions in an effort to provide united and coherent understanding across multiple jurisdictions in Oregon given this rapidly emerging need of legal opinions and actions. This note should be delivered in the most appropriate manner deemed by the city attorney and mayor for city officials to receive legal guidance and strategy and while balancing the needs of any partnering office and participating association. Thank you. You councelor anhalita, did you yeah, I'd like to second counselors. I know folks are in the queue to put forward budget notes, but I'm going to run through to see if there's any discussion. Councelor duny, are you in the queue to discuss? Councelor Avalos, are you in the queue to discuss? I would just if you could just drop me that language real quick. It's hard to process a lot of text in my brain. I need to see it. Thanks. Councelor Green, are you in the queue to discuss? Councelor Ryan, are you in the queue? Councelor novik, no. Council Clark. Yes. Could you just read the first two sentences? The city attorney will conduct a deep analysis and make every effort to invite alignment of the analysis across the league of Oregon cities, the Oregon attorney general and the district attorneys association if they those groups are willing regarding the sighting and operations of ice centers within the city or Oregon cities and the implication and application of Portland and Oregon sanctuary laws in order to provide renewed guidance to all of us. And I colleagues, I am very cleareyed that we could never compel some of those that I listed. That was an invitation to them to participate in that analysis because I think a united approach is appropriate. Thank you, councelor. Does the clerk have this language? No. Councelor, would you mind sending it to the clerk? Thank you. Um and probably to our budget office as well. Okay. Uh councelor novik, are you in the queue for discussion? No. Okay. Colleagues, seeing no one in the queue for discussion, keelin, could you please call the role canal? We're going to talk about a lot of notes. I'm going to be differential unless I have a reason not to be going forward on all these. So although I'm a little, you know, processing this live, I'm going to vote I on it. Ryan, similar to my colleague who just spoke, I Lane. Councelor Zimmerman, I'm usually so frustrated when you surprise me with stuff and it just happens on the dice and we haven't had a conversation and this is a really lovely surprise to have from you. Thank you. I vote I, mario. Thank you, councelor Zimmerman. I vote I novik, I Zimmerman. Hi, Avalos. Thank you. I deny. I Smith. I role guini. Necessary budget note. Necessary direction for where we are. An enthusiastic eye. The amendment is approved with 12 yes votes. Councelor duny, are you in the queue with the budget note? Yes, please, ma'am. Uh colleagues, as quickly as I can get through this. Duny 10, motion to a amendment d and add a budget note to measure east Portland services and ensure equitable distribution of peot and parks discretionary funds. Uh this, as previously described, is updated language since we last talked, but also is specifically an attempt to hold east Portland harmless and discretionary decisions uh as made in this budget process. Um happy to ex read the text if folks want it, but it is available. Councilors, is there a second? Second. Thank you, councelor Avalos. Uh councelor Zimmerman, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor Avalos. Councelor Green, councelor Ryan, councelor novik, councilor, seeing no discussion, keelin, could you please call the role? Canel. I mario. Hi, I Clark. Hi, Green. Hi, Zimmerman. I Avalos I dunfy I Smith I guinea I amendment is approved with 12 yes votes. Councelor Avalos, do you have a budget note to move forward? Please go ahead. It is going to be abos 8. Um, this is the one that uh is requesting for in preparation to the fy2627 budget, so not the one that we're currently funding. Um, to uh ask to direct the mayor uh to set aside 15% in a health benefit increase. Um, healthcare costs are rising faster than wages and uh I'm very worried about our city employees continuing to shoulder that burden. Um, this is about retaining quality employees, good benefits, help us compete as a city for a talented workforce, and I just want us to be proactive in planning um to prevent further cuts. And as we discussed, talked with the lawyers and everybody, and they suggest it should be a note because it is a guidance for the next budget process to um just make sure we're setting aside enough money to protect from deeper cuts. Thank you, counselor. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, councelor. Uh, councelor Green, do you have are you looking for discussion? Councelor Ryan, I do have a question. I apologize um for taking the time, but I am wondering and I see that we're missing our budget director right now, but perhaps somebody else in the office or dcab can help. Do we have a rough estimate of the scale of the difference between 8% and 15% and the split between general fund and other funds? Uh, council president, I don't have that. I've just reached out to the budget office folks and including director levine to see if they can get that very quickly. I'm hoping to understand in supporting this what that means for how we begin our budget next time around. Councelor novik, did you have discussion on this budget note? No. Councelor canal? Councelor Clark. Okay. Dc, is that something you think you'll have within the next two to three minutes or probably not? Uh, if you can give me just a minute. Okay. Do others need that information before we vote or am I the only one holding us up here earlier in the queue than me who would like that information also. Great. Sorry, council president. I've got the number. Thank thank you, erin. So, uh it would be uh at the 15% uh around 8.7 million uh general fund and sorry erin is that and go ahead business operations uh division manager. Uh so we're estimating that um it would be about $22 million total. Um uh the um citywide city core portion general general fund would be about 8.7. And if we did the traditional I believe it's 8%. What would the numbers be? Uh it would be about I'm just looking at the calculations here. It would be about half of that. Okay. So we are talking about um starting out next year's budget with just over 4 million less in general fund for other things and just over 11 million less in total funds. So about 7 million less in other funds for whatever other expenditures we were starting the the year with. Is that correct? That's correct. That's what we have in the uh budget right now for the beginning balance. Thank you. Uh, councelor kuiam, are you in the queue to discuss this amendment? Okay, counselors, seeing no one else in the queue, keelin, could you please call the role? Just to clarify, this is on Avalos 8. Avalos 8. Yes. Thank you, canel. Hi, brian. I she's out of the room. Sorry. Sorry. Novik. Nay. Clark. No. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. Also out of the room. Thank you. Avalos. I duny I Smith I purlein I the amendment is approved with eight yes votes, two no votes and two absent. Councelor Green, are you in the queue with a budget note? Go right ahead. Thank you, madam president. I have two budget notes. One is short, one is a little bit longer and co-authored with council millo. Is your preference that we just do one and then if there's time we go go around again if there if it's a package go ahead otherwise let's do one trying to give everybody a turn here it's it's not a package so I'll just do the one that's not co-authored it's Green 12 the mud the budget note says motion to amend attachment d and add a budget note for anti-displacement task force uh colleagues this is a note to um to provide some direction of the community and economic development service area as follows. Explore funding opportunities within the next six months for the next steps for the anti-displacement action plan starting with the cost to establish a community-led task force to monitor and guide anti-displacement strategies in our economic development and housing work. The task force will focus on housing in its first year. I motivate this because while I am not on the housing committee, um my book of business, as I've come to appreciate that term, councelor Smith, uh is very much housing and this is a a no cost obligation and I I think it's worth reaffirming our commitment to anti-displacement. Second. Councelor Ryan, are you in the queue for discussion? No. Councelor novik, no. Canal Clark, no. Coyama Lane, no. Smith. No, it's for something else. Seeing no one in the queue for discussion, keelin, could you please call the role? I'm sorry, I missed the second. I I seconded. I believe it was counselor canel. Thank you. I Ryan, can I come back? Is that possible? I don't believe we can do that. But you can change your vote at the end if you need to. You can also look at my computer if you're looking for this note. There's no budget issues here. It's a budget note. It is a budget note. All right. I I mariel novik. I Zimmerman aalos. I zy I Smith I guinea I the amendment is approved with 10 yes votes and two absent. Thank you councelor counselor Ryan. Do you have a budget note? I do. Um fantastic. I read this into the record during one of those work sessions that were kind of a budget session. I think he was last week and as a big advocate to improve services to portlanders, especially in parks since that's where we play and I like to think out of the box and discover better practices that would be applicable for Portland. Embracing a proven partnership, especially when they have created a better program just across the river in Vancouver, usa. I pay attention. As such, my budget note number five supports the Portland tennis program and directs that a meeting with leaders and stakeholders occur to discuss the possibility of partnering with the united states tennis association for investments into the Portland tennis program. Usa has started a will has stated a willingness to fund capital improvements to the tennis program and city courts as well as take on more programming. As you know, we have over $600 million um uh deficit when it comes to our deferred maintenance. This expanded partnership could make great sense for the city, but we won't know unless the city gives a real consideration to this proposal. The budget note will ensure that we explore this opportunity. This may seem like a small step, and yet it forces our culture to take pragmatic steps to pursue when facing our financial challenges we face today in the foreseeable future. So, the budget note that was submitted. Do I read that? Uh, or you could just direct us to it. U, yeah, it's it's in the book because it was read last week and it's Ryan five. Is that correct? It is budget note five. Okay. Basically, the long and short is that after September 30th, 2025 meeting occurs and before November 15th, the cfo will present a report to the city council regarding their financial assessment, findings, and recommendations on how to proceed with this partnership. Is there a second? Second. Second, crane. [laughter] you had people race for it. I would have been on the winning side team. Councelor novik, are you in the queue for discussion? No. Councelor canal, I just have a question. Um, it's yeah. So, uh, I I'm generally very, uh, supportive of doing due diligence. I think, uh, we've we've had this conversation a lot. Um, I just wanted to the findings on recommendations of how to proceed with this partnership, and I just, I think it's important to just daylight and potentially get, uh, a clarification that we're not committed in any way to to proceeding with expanding this partnership. We're just getting information on how we would we would do that if we chose to. Is that accurate? That's accurate. I I've learned enough to know that it helps to do a budget note to get the culture to actually think out of the box a little bit and actually embrace partnerships. And as we move forward with parks, they have to actually look to this type of culture change. So, I think it's a step in the right direction. I think so, too. Thanks. Thank you, councelor Clark. See that? Councelor quomain. Councelor Smith. Keelin. Seeing nobody else in the queue, could you please call the role on Ryan? Five. Canel. I. Ryan. I. Hu. I. Mario. I. Novik. I. Clark. Yes. For partnerships. Yes. Green. Councilor Ryan. You're a sports guy. I think that's on the record. Um I I hope to see a budget note in the future that looks at pickle ball in the in the waterfront park. I vote I Zimmerman Avalos I. Dunfy I. Smith I amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent. Look at that. Uh councilors, I am next in the queue. While I have a lot of budget notes that I pre-filed that I would love to move, I am doing a courtesy for my first slot instead. Purlein 17 is a budget note that I have been talking to the mayor's office about. We learned recently that there are amendments at the county to remove their $10 million payment to the city that helps to fund our fund our tas and srv shelters. This is a budget note which would simply say that if the county decreases their payment to the city, the city would decrease our payment through the iga to the county by a subsequent amount. Not I want to be very very clear not to try to pick a fight, not to try to break the ig, not because the partnership does not matter because all of those things are very important to me, but because we need to make our budget whole and fund our tas and srv shelters, which we are fully funding in our budget, and we would be holding back those dollars specifically in order to make those programs whole. I did give the county a heads up that we would be considering this budget note because the partnership does matter to me and I think that leaning in is more important than leaning out. But I also think that if we are going to pass a budget with a commitment to shelter, we ought to make sure that we can fund that commitment to shelter and the county passes their budget tomorrow and we pass our amendments today. So I was not able to wait and see what they did with their budget. Um, so I am bringing this first as a courtesy for the the work that I've been doing with the mayor. Second. Thank you, councelor duny. Uh, councelor Green, are you in the queue to discuss this? Yes. Go ahead. I think this is a I I think this is necessary. It is a little bit um it squares up in a way that I think can be a little threatening, but um I think unless you put something firm in place, there's no commitment that the commitment stays in place. I think it's a reasonable approach to that. So, I'm prepared to support it. Thank you, councelor. Councelor novik, are you in the queue for discussion to this budget note? No. Councelor canel? No. Councelor Clark, could you just spell out for the record the hr sig? Uh yes, the homeless response system iga, intergovernmental agreement. Thank you to my colleagues for the right. I don't know why I just blanked when put on the spot there in a lot of hours. So many acronyms. Yeah. Councelor Clark, any other comments? No, I just I think is this offense is the best defense essentially. Councelor coy, are you in the queue for this? Councelor Smith. Uh, madame president, thank you. And you see why I didn't want to give them that other money. I told y'all don't give it to them. I think this is important and we have to have folks who are grown-ups in the room who understand that it's important and it's critical to keep your word. And uh I will be voting yes for this when it comes up for a vote. Thank you councelor. Counselor seeing no other discussion in the queue. Uh keelin, could you please call the role? Canel. Thank you madam president for bringing this forward and for your leadership on this. This is uh something I I want to just add my voice to yours and saying we're not trying to pick a fight here and look forward to collaborating with our our friends and partners at the county. I vote I Ryan. Good work. Hi hoyama. Hi mario. I novik. I clerk. Hi Green. Hi Zimmerman. I dunfy I Smith I hurdle guini I. The amendment is approved with 12 yes votes. Thank you colleagues. Councelor novik. Thank you madam president. Um, I move novik 2 motion to add a budget note um to amend amendment d and add add a budget note that directs the bureau of human resources to begin bargaining with relevant labor units with a goal of reassigning welfare checks from armed police officers to armed responders like public safety support specialists and Portland street response. Portland street response always already does some of this work. So, the key thing would be getting public safety support specialists authorized to do it as well. The hr and the public safety service area or to provide updates to council every four months on the progress of negotiations and progress towards the transfer of work. Um, I'd also like to take this opportunity to note that sadly brian wilson just died. I hope that wherever he is, he's sending us good vibrations over the next hour and a half because god knows we need them. Counselors, is there a second? Second. Thank you, councelor duny. Councelor councelor Green, I think your hand is just perpetually up. Councelor canal, are you in the queue to discuss this? Councelor Clark, have a question. So, this this is advisory. It's of law. It's asking them to consider this. Um, it directs bhr to begin bargaining with relevant labor units and it's asked them to provide updates on the progress of negotiations or progress towards the transfer of work. Um, I've discussed this with the chief. I've discussed this with dca kausy. The mayor actually wrote us wrote us an email saying that he wants to get armed responders out of the job of welfare checks. So, I think that u this proposal is not something the executive opposes. Thank you for that. Councelor crlain, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor Smith. No, I'm in the queue for councelor mio. No, I'm just raising my hand for other stuff. Okay. Uh, seeing no one else in the queue. Keyn, could you please call the role? Canel. Hi. Ryan, hi. Cory. Hi, mario. I novik, I clerk. I Green. Hi, Zimmerman. Stepped out. Amalois. Councelor novik, you're a real one for this. I appreciate this. Hi. Thank you, deny. I Smith. Ile. The amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent. Okay. Uh councelor canal, I believe you are next. Thank you, madam president. I'd like to move two together that are linked uh canel 12 and 13. These are uh studying potential future sources of revenue for the city um to get information that could later be used for policy development. Budget note to study long-term vacancy fees on both the commercial and residential side as well as to study a package delivery fee. Um, and it would report back at the time of the uh city administrator's uh recommendations for next year which come out uh at the end of February with concepts and structures that could be used to either inform potential policy changes or provide the data necessary for the rationale we would need to give the public for why we're not pursuing them. Thank you. Second. Okay. Councelor Green, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor Clark. Councelor canel, is this enough time? I think looking at previous budget notes, we've seen it. I mean, our uh we have an entire social housing plan coming in a year. So, I I think this is a narrower uh set of things to request information on. Um and and for it to be informing us in the and and not just informing us. What I tried to avoid with this choice of the date was that I want the mayor to be a part of receiving that information too and and ideally to be able to evaluate that information as he develops his budget based not only on the uh city administrator's recommendations on February 28th, but also this information. Coyama Lane, councelor Smith, councelor morio, councelor Ryan. Oh, yeah, I do. Um, are you combining commercial and residential? As of right now, they are they are co they're combined. It's two different parts of the city doing it, but they're in the same budget now. Okay. Because to me, they're very different. Okay. So, I'll have to weigh if I'm supporting it. Would you you'd be welcome to move to divide it for a separate vote if you'd like? Yeah, I would support the commercial one, but not the residential. I have not met I've asked so many um people who build and do residential, and no one has told me they want um that they they don't want to rent out a unit. Commercial is different. It's more nuanced. I if you'd like to make the motion, I I wouldn't object at all. I motion that we decouple the two and we have one vote for residential and one for commercial. Do I have a second? Is there a second? Second. If you're if if the request is divide the to divide the question to vote separately, any member can do that as a matter of right. So you don't have to vote on the motion to divide it. You can just request it. Yeah, you can request it and then councelor canal can decide which one to vote on first. Councel canal, what are we voting on first? I'll do commercial first. Okay. Uh, counselors, I'm in the queue to speak to this. I hear regularly, frankly, in district from folks who would like us to consider vacancy fees. Um, and I agree with the question that councelor Clark asked, which um, which is that I don't think that this is enough time. I think that to come up with a plan to do something like this, to decide if we want to do something like this, requires significant stakeholder engagement to get it right. And to say that we are going to study something and then decide if we're going to do it 7 months from now without time to do stakeholder work. We could decide if we wanted to put together a stakeholder group in seven months, but I don't think we can do the work that's necessary to get something like this right. And this is the type of thing that can go very wrong if you don't get it right. I would like for us to have this conversation, but I cannot support the budget note with the timeline that's laid out here. February 28th. Council canal, are you back in the queue? Yes, ma'am. Um I I just want to clarify that this would not do any fee creation on any side of it. It would simply get us models back. I think the model that I would look at for this is some of the conversations we had around the social housing uh study where we're getting um the the stakeholder engagement part is going to be parallel and continuing after that. And I I would welcome um a conversation after we receive some information back from the administrative side about is it something that we're ready to do because it may not be next fiscal year either. And I think that's an appropriate thing. It's not just do we do something or do we not. It's also how and and also maybe we do it but not in that exact time frame. So thank you. Thank you councelor keelin. No one else in the queue. Oh councelor Green. You would be excused for not knowing whether I'm up or not. Um, thank you. Uh, I support the timeline. Uh, I I I don't think that what I'm seeing is an expectation that we deliver a final like this is what the tax is or the fee is I should say. It's a study and studies are oftentimes constrained by timelines. It's pretty routine for a scholar to receive a call for papers for a conference and write a paper inside of 8 months and present their findings and the findings may be incomplete and that's okay. That's that itself is a result. Um I I also hear from uh constituents that there's just no appetite to study and study and study for a very long period of time. So people want us to move fast. Um I'm prepared to support um this is the this is the commercial one, right? Point of order. I think we're discussing them all together and then voting on them separately. We're discussing all together and then we'll take three votes. Yeah, I I'm comfortable with the timeline. Um that's it for me at this at this point. Thank you. Councelor kein seeing no one else in the queue for discussion. Could you please call the vote on the first half of divided canal 12 which would specifically create a budget note to study long-term commercial? Yeah. So, it's actually the second paragraph of of motion 12, vacancy fees. Great. The second paragraph of canal 12 to study long-term commercial vacancy fees. Canel. Yeah. Thank you everyone. I vote I Ryan. Yeah. I've been in numerous conversations especially out in st. John's and another part of the district where this has come up. So, I would I'm curious. I vote I mario. I novik. Wait a minute. This is the residential one. No, it's the commercial one. Marshall. Um I mark, I just want to clarify that I'm curious, but if we were to do anything with this report, it would take a lot more work, just to be clear. And I think we were talking about advisory councils or whatever it is, but just a preliminary look see at this is okay. So I vote yes. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. I'm going to share my my colleague to my rights comments about aluxy. Similar to my support for councelor green's social housing, I think information is helpful. This I don't see action here. So, I'm going to vote I don't I'm going to repeat my call for help from the public related to this. Uh I was on an episode of citycast Portland talking about this. We've obviously got a problem, but uh what are some solutions that folks in the community are also looking for? So while the city is working on this, I would love to talk to property owners who uh also see a problem and are looking for a solution. So I vote I Smith I. Cardinal guinea. I said I was going to vote no. I hear from colleagues who are saying that they don't think that this is about next year's budget. My saying I would vote no was in response to my colleague who brought this saying he wanted it back in time for next year's budget which made me very uncomfortable with the timing. I do want to see the conversation move forward that councelor duny has called for many times. I'm going to take a risk and hope that we don't rush this process and say I. Motion carries with 12 yes votes. Councilors, is anyone in the queue for discussion of the second part of canal 12? Motion to add a budget note to study long-term residential vacancy fees. Yeah, I have a question. Thanks. I I am trying to understand what a residential vacancy in this sense is. Are were we talking about units that have been registered with the city already as rental units or are we talking I don't think anybody's lived in that that house on my street for a while? That's what I'm trying to understand here. No, it's it's for units that have been registered. Yes. Okay. Registered residential units that don't seem okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Um, I'm feeling less supportive of this given the mom and pop aspect of that and that's what most h houses who are. So, um, I'll just leave it there in case there's helpful comments at all. Is anybody else in the queue for discussion? Can I just ask a question? So, this doesn't involve airbnb, does it? Or does it? It's written not to involve that. I think there's a broader conversation that that I think the housing and homelessness committee should have and I I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on it as to that aspect of it. I I think this is structurally developing what a model would look like to inform. I think if we were to discuss uh what types of units it would apply to beyond what the sort of base level of what I just answered councelor zimmerman's question on that would be after receiving this information and hopefully uh the Portland housing bureau could give us the the details necessary to talk about that side but I think it's this should ideally be informed by the housing and homelessness committee. Okay. I would just say what I said before is that I'm interested in information. Yeah. But this is a lot more complex and I don't think there's time for it to inform a budget decision. Um I think there has to be more process involved in the community. But uh I I'll I'll give you the vote but with caution. Councelor seeing no one else in this queue for discussion. Keelin, can you please call the role on the second part of canal 12, which is a study of the long of long-term residential vacancy fees. Canel. Yeah, thank you colleagues for the thoughtful conversation here. I I put it in this order because I I think I like to eat my appetizer before uh I get to the main course and for me this is the main course as a renter. I think it's really important that we look into this and understand what we can do. Um, I also just want to quickly respond to the question, um, and say just to clarify, I I picked the date so that it could theoretically maybe be part of the conversation, not so that it has to be a part of the conversation for next year's budget. And I think that's an important clarification. I appreciate the concern. I vote I Ryan, uh, supply, supply, supply. The city of austin, texas, um, which we are compared to quite often, is actually experiencing uh, rents going down because they've been building for some time. We need to build Portland. I don't see this as being any sort of a solution to the problem. I vote no. Elaine, hi. Mario, I of course novvic. Hi, Clark. I Green, I I think the study is going to show that there's probably not a great impact to a vacancy fee on the residential side. Um that's just me as an economist with this eye. But if that's also true, then there shouldn't be a huge financial impact to to the the owners of the buildings and so I don't see this as a as an issue and mutually exclusive with a pro supply uh social housing driven approach. So I vote I zerman. Thanks. As I'm hearing folks comments, I'm realizing that um this still includes the commercialized residential properties. Um, but it would also include single family resident properties. Uh, I can't change that now that we're in the vote. I'm going to vote no. Thank you. Envel. Similar to last time, we've identified a problem. This is a different problem than the commercial problem. This is less about livability and more about the need for homes. Um, so if anybody in the community has solutions, I am very interested. And also, airbnb should absolutely be included. I vote yes. Smith I protoghini I motion carries with 10 yes votes and two no votes. Councilors, is there any discussion on canel 13 was read as well. I I'll enter the queue just because I want people to have a chance to uh process it before they have to vote. Um colleagues, we've talked about uh this briefly in a budget work session, but colorado and uh minnesota have statewide uh delivery fees. We've studied it in the state. Um this is for last mile deliveries, so not um the wholesale side of things and it's uh in some cases it exempts prepared food. I have chosen to say it would exempt prepared food before we even look at it. Um and to look at per delivery fee concept, structures and legalities um because there were some open questions on legality um and to how to ensure that uh it would minimize the impacts of such a fee if one were to exist on on pot uh vulnerable consumers. So um there's a two paragraph it crosses a page line uh just there it's page 28 and the beginning of page 29 just so you can know that for sure. Uh, and again, it's it's pursuing um another potential source of revenue that we should know more about before we rule it in or out. Um, I also just quickly note this does not affect any of the rest of the the like it doesn't affect ride share for example. It doesn't uh and it wouldn't affect door dash, uber eatats, any of that sort of stuff as well. Thanks, colleagues. Is there any other discussion on this budget note? I have a question. Councelor can do we know if there is a preeemption or not? The report that I read on it is actually fairly unclear. It says that we could do it in a certain way that would have was it was written very much in terms of the model would dictate that. So not in an absolute sense yes or an absolute sense no. And I think that's why it's important to get more information and not have I think a couple people up here are lawyers. Um I am not. Uh, and I would love to have our attorneys look into it uh, as part of this process so we could have uh, official legal advice on the process as well. Councilors, is there any other discussion to this budget note? Councelor Smith. Thank you, madam president. I would like to to go over this in in a finer detail in the labor and workforce um, committee so that we can discuss some of the issues that you want to talk about before we this is a budget note. It's not revenue related but let's talk about this in um labor and workforce. Can I just make a clarification? So I think our please I I think our um assumption has been that when we talk about uh going back to before we had committees that when we talk about reporting back to council that that report back can also include deep committee conversation. Um, so my understanding, for example, as it relates to reporting back on the implementation of um the councelor novik's uh note that we just passed is that the community and public safety committee would be the primary place where we're hearing that information. I think I'd be perfectly fine if this one were to come to either labor and workforce development or arts and economy. I would leave that up to I don't know who, but not I'm I'm fine being differential to colleagues on that. And if we need to do a resolution or ordinance, um we're we're better suited to do it from that jump than just, you know, leaving it up to um the administrators to look at these budgets and figure out how to how to complete all of them. I I agree. I think if we get to the point of making a a concrete action, uh that that would make sense. This is not that concrete action. This is simply a study. Councilors, is there any other discussion on this budget note? Seeing none. And keelin, can you please call the role on canel 13 to study a package delivery fee? Canel. I. Ryan, no. Qualine. Hi. Mario. I. Novvic. I. Mark. Uh colleagues, I've been a longtime advocate for local government against preeemption, any kind of preeemption of our revenue raising authorities of any kind. Um so I'm very interested in whether we are preempted, but I don't know that I'm interested in a delivery fee, but I'm certainly interested in getting that information because I think increasingly we're going to need to look at all of our revenue raising options. Um, so I just want to be clear about that that I appreciate the preeemption study. I vote I Green. Hi, Zimmerman. Yeah, I think I'm going to shock you in my support of this actually because I think I'd support anything to get people back in stores and not just buying from their couch scrolling and antisocialism. So, I will uh support any move to get people back into the human interactions. Pro-social is good. Let's see what they have to say. Yes. Not that kind of socialism youtube. Not yet. Not yet. It's a double mag. I believe we're at counselors. It's fine. I deny I. Smith. I the motion carries with 11. Yes votes and one no vote. Councelor Zimmerman, I look forward to sharing with you why parents often shop from their phones in between meetings instead of trying to do it when they get home from work and have kids to feed. I'm just as guilty without the excuse of children. I I believe we are on counselor Clark. Oh, snuck up on me. Um this is Clark 12. Uh it's a very simple uh budget note. I worked with uh dca uh olivea on this. As you know, we have a bit of history with the keller auditorium and I'm sorry it came up the other day in our uh discussion. Um but the last council left us with a study, a feasibility study and with two options. And what this budget note does is it says that when once the feasibility study done and the transport transportation study is done at PSU that they would stand up a team to develop a financial plan uh to look at um really phasing in uh the uh finance plan for the keller auditorium and that they would present us to that as that report in April of 2026. Second counselors, is there any councilors? Is there any discussion on this budget note? Seeing none, keelin, could you please call the role? Canel. Apologize. I'm just finishing reading the last sentence here. I thought there'd be some conversation. I vote I. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, councelor Clark. It is honor general ledger. I vote I mario I novik I clerk I Green always going to support an asset management legend I Zimmerman he's not behind the post. Oh thanks Avalos. I deny I Smith I guinea I the motion carries with 11 yes votes and one absent. Thank you. Councelor cayama Lane, do you have a budget note? Thank you, madam president. I have a package Lane 3, five, and six. I'd like to note that three is an amendment. I we did we have spoken about it. I do see these as a package. Um for the sake of time, I am happy to talk about these three. Um but we can also separate them and I can move the amendment later if you'd like. I do feel that they all are related. I'll second this. Councelor canal, are you seconding all three? I'll second whatever portion uh that you allow to be considered together here. This is 3, five, and six. That's correct. If we can do this quickly, let's do it. Um but we do have two more people who haven't had a chance to go. So, understood. If it gets long, feel free to we can divide this. All right. Thank you colleagues for your engagement on the important issue of vision zero. We've gotten the chance to discuss all three of these at a recent budget work session. Also, many related questions and discussion came up when a related resolution recommitting to our city's work on vision zero um passed unanimously in the transportation infrastructure committee and is now co co-sponsored by everyone who was on that committee. Vision zero states no person should die or be incapacitated from simply going about their day. Protecting human lives is core to vision zero, the goal to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries on Portland streets. So, we're at the 10-year anniversary now of the first adoption of vision zero here in Portland, and we're seeing a horrifying and unacceptable 57% increase in traffic deaths on our streets in the past decade. In 2024, 58 people were killed in our districts in traffic crashes. So, I bring forward these three. The vision uh amendment coamelain three pulls the vision lead vision zero lead position up to the dca level in public works. The hope of this is to increase crossbureau responsibility towards vision zero by elevating the work out of peot exclusively and also aims to emphasize the evidence-based importance of making vision zero work cross bureau. And I want to note that um some questions came up when I visited I also v visited the community and public safety committee. Thank you for inviting me to talk about vision zero and some different questions came up and so uh the vision zero lead in the city answered some of these questions in a packet that you have in front of you and uh there were also questions about some of the data. So when we when we look at the data for 2019 to 2023, the breakdown of fatal crashes show that the majority of people that are killed are in vehicles. Um it's 43%. 38% are pedestrians, 16% motorcyclists, 4% bicyclists. And um I we don't have to go deeply into this unless folks would like to ask, but this question was brought up by councelor Zimmerman. So we did look into it, but 30 38% of those crashes of where a person was um killed and they were walking for those um in 57% of those the vehicle did not have the right of way. And for all serious injury crashes involving pedestrians, um, so wasn't fatal, but there was a serious injury, 75% of the time the vehicle did not have the rightway. So in many cases when the pedestrian did not have the right of way, excessive speed or impaired driving were the key casual uh factors, casual factors in the crash. And we can break down the data um further here or another time. And so just wanted to provide a cursory analysis um which shows that most of the most pedestrians um killed and injured are really simply going about their lives. And um if you look in the packet you'll see a bit more about the safe systems approach which recognize that no one individual uh cause of fatal and serious crashes. There is no one. We must build a system with layers of many redundant supports so that if one layer fails, there are others to keep a crash from becoming fatal. I would appreciate your support with this and I'm happy to take any questions. Counselors, we had a second to these, right? Councelor canal. All of them. Okay. Uh councilors, is there any discussion of this package? I have. Okay. A number of folks. So, let's go in the let's go in the order that we're in here. Councelor Green, did you have okay. Council Smith, did you have a question? Yes, I did. I I just wanted to make a note. We've we've been doing this for 10 years, correct? And it it appears that the crashes are increasing and I'm not sure and I support vision zero, but I'm not sure how effective they've been in eliminating crashes. It's they're getting worse. And as I was looking through your three budget notes and your um amendment, it looks like you have to identify funding where you're going to take funding funds from specifically. Is it the mayor's budget somewhere? Is there a place where you think that you can get the 200? There's 218 twice. 216 twice. So, I'm not clear where you're going to get the money from. And um I know we had it in the treasur in the transportation committee and it was wellreceived and we're pulling and I'm pulling for vision zero but in terms of identifying the appropriate funding or mandating peot to do funding on something that has not been effective is kind of troubling. May I respond madam president? Go ahead. Thank you for bringing that up, councelor Smith. Um there this is the the 216 is from moving the position. So this does not change our budget. Okay. It's from just moving the position from within peabot to now out into um still in public works but in the dca's office. But was it funded in the budget or you you're trying to already funded? So you move it from which department to which? From within peabot to now up above within dca uh the dca for public works within their office. So they have closer access to work with that dca to do more crossbureau work. It does not change the budget. If I'm looking at that service area and the dca in that service area is dca dana pow and I think her expertise is in water. If I were you, I would keep it at the peabot level to talk to someone who is ingrained in this and who has expertise. I I I I I I hear you staying close to the power. You you think you're staying close to the money, but you need to stay close to the people who know how to do the work and who have done the work from a transportation level. Not to say that she has not she understands that she has a 30,000 foot look in an eye and in an ear for everything, but I I think it's it's it's not necessary. Could we bring up william? We have other folks who need to move through here. I'm sorry. That's okay. I I mean I see both of them are here. Director williams and dca donna paul are both here. We are primarily working on budget notes right now. And I said that the counselor could bring this amendment. If this was going to be quick altogether, but we have two colleagues, yourself included, counselor, who still need to bring a budget note. And I was hoping we could get to two each. So I'm going to try to keep us moving. Okay. I think this requires further conversation. Councelor mario, did you have a a question or a comment here? Councelor novik, no. Councelor Clark, yes, I do. I share some of the same concerns that have been expressed by councelor Smith. Um, my understanding was that director williams was actually going to bring together all the folks that touch this area because there there's no question that we all support vision zero and and the committee supports it uh wholeheartedly and I'm glad to hear this is not other money that we're moving somewhere. Um, but um I'm just concerned for the same reason. I'm sorry. I really wish we could hear from uh dca dapal about this. I I assume that you have talked to her about this and and what kind of feedback did you get councelor coyama Lane? Sure. I'm going to table the amendment for now. Would love to talk about it more. Okay. All right. Okay. I need I I need to it's okay. We'll talk about it. Um, for the two budget notes, um, it has been brought to my attention that ODOT does not share race and ethnicity in their data that peod and the county have been pushing for that. And so I believe it's important in quoyama Lane 5 to add after by race and ethnicity um, in parenthesis when available. And then in quoam Lane 6, I'd like to move the date from September 1st, 2025 to January 15, 2026. Those are the two changes. It's all been in uh collaboration with the deputy city administrator with uh bringing in the director of peabot, bringing in the vision lead uh vision zero lead and um I know that a lot has been going on. We have talk we did vote on a task force that is an addition to this too that still is going to happen which would be led by the vision zero lead. Councelor novik, are you in the queue to discuss this? Yes. I forgot I actually have a question for councelor kayamelain which is u under kayaline 5. It says identify revenue that ensures pee can meet its critical bureau needs and continue its work in the vision zero action plan. Critical bureau needs are, you know, billions of dollars worth. So, I was wondering if you could just strike the can meet its critical bureau needs and and just identify revenue that ensures peabot can continue its work in the vision zero action plan. Absolutely. I'm having deja vu that this came up and and just add the word you wanted to I'll accept your friendly yeah, I was just going to strike the words um uh meet its critical bureau needs and I accept that friendly amendment. Thank you. Councelor canel, did I hear you say you're good? Yes. Okay. Counselors, is there anybody else with any discussion on these budget notes? Seeing none. Keelin, could you please call the role on coyama Lane five? Canel. I Ryan. I Lane. I novik. I clerk. Uh, thank you councelor coyama Lane for being the constant champion for vision zero. I vote I I Zimmerman no. Amalos. And also thank you for your collaboration with our city bureaus. You continue to show that it's queen behavior. I dunfy I Smith I support vision zero but I have some concerns and um I did sign off on that and I'll I'll be supportive but I I don't think I can vote for this right now. No porttole guinea. I the motion carries with 10 yes votes and two no votes. Thank you. Councilors, is there any additional discussion on coyama Lane 6? Seeing none, keelin, could you please call the role on coyama Lane 6? May I first check with the budget office to make sure that you have the language that you needed for this, the changes? Use a refresher for make sure we got all the details. Thank you. Okay, counselor, could you please read the updated language? Motion. So, this is in complement with what we the resolution that we passed which recommmits our uh pledge to vision zero and also calls for a task force. So this was in response to chair Clark of the transportation infrastructure committee who said if there will be needed support for this such as an administrative some administrative support which is what was identified that um you would actually have a budget note and explain that and so that's what this is it what I had heard from the dcas is that would not be a problem there could be a a vacancy easily used to help with any administrative work to help bring this group together. So it is adding um motion to add a budget note to support vision zero programming. Motion to amend attachment d and add a budget note regarding peot's vision zero program as follows. June 9th, 2025. That's just a note on the document. Where am I? Okay. It's weird weird copy paste thing. We're on here. I've got it right here. That's helpful. Direct public works service area, public safety service area, and community and economic development service area to collaborative collaboratively create a funding and staffing plan for the administration work of a vision zero task force, vision, vision zero citywide team, and report back to the council by September 1st, 2025. Okay. And then I'm striking the September 1st, 2025. That is what's on there. And I'm changing it to January 15th, 2026. Okay. So, the change here is the date at the end to January 15, 2026. Yes. Fantastic. Okay. Keyn, could you please call the role? Canel. This is coyalene six. Correct. Correct. Amended. I vote I Ryan. Hi. Coyamelain. Hi. Mario. Hi. Novik. Hi. Clark. Hi Green. Hi Zimmerman. No Avalos. I Smith. I was looking at this and it says create a funding and staffing plan for the administration. So staffing ing to me means more than one. And like I said earlier, I wanted to see some more information before we approve this budget note. It doesn't mandate that we do a particular amount, but I'd like to see some more information first and be able to talk to the uh dca and to the uh director. So, I'm going to say no. I motion carries with 10 yes votes and two no votes. Okay, colleagues, we're going to try to get through two more in five minutes. Councelor Smith, do you have a budget note? Yes. Go right ahead. I have Smith 13 budget note from councelor Smith to disclose executive contracts. And as you all know, we have a new form of government. And this new form of government does not require the mayor or the city administrator to um get our approval to approve contracts. So, in the interest of promoting fiscal transparency and ensuring responsible governance, I propose the adoption of a requirement that mandates the mayor and the city administrator to disclose all contracts, agreements, or commitments exceeding $50,000 during the city council meeting prior to execution. This measure is intended to provide the city council with clear and timely insight into the liabilities and fiscal obligations that the mayor has entered on on behalf of the city of Portland within the 2526 budget uh year. Requiring such disclosures will facilitate enhanced oversight, support informed decision making, and uphold the public trust by ensuring accountability for substantial financial commitments. Thank you, council. Counselor counselors, is there any discussion on this budget note? What was the number? Sorry, the other number 13. It's not on there. It's Smith 13. It's a new one. I talked to you all about it last week, but it was not put into the book. I believe at that time you had said it might end up being Smith 11 was what I had written down. It is not Smith 11. That is different. But if folks had notes about the discussion, that's what it would have been listed on. It's now Smith 13. Second counselors, is there any discussion about this budget note? Madame president, I'm sorry. I I didn't I didn't know if anyone was going to say anything. Let me get council discussion and I I will have a question for you, city administrator. I would love to hear from the city administrator. I see a few people who would like to hear from you. And city administrator, while you're talking, I was going to ask you if requiring reports before you enter into a contract would ever pose a problem when we are on a recess and may not have a council meeting for a few weeks or if that if generally you were planning far enough in advance that that would be okay. At the current cadence of council meetings and the current um pressure on your agendas, this will slow the purchasing process. So, I just need you to understand that. I would be willing to change the language from a city council meeting to an executive meeting just so that we would know. So, it doesn't have to be public, but I just want to know what you all are doing and how you're spending the money. Okay. A a a reporting requirement. If it could come if it could come in a written form to the council on a periodic basis, we could well, no, no, no. I want it to come I can put it in an executive session meeting prior to you executing the contract. We we know and understand that we you don't need our uh approval, but before you execute, I would like to go into an executive session. I I think the issue that uh madame president brought up would probably put some things could put some things at risk and I didn't think about that. I appreciate I appreciate your um flexibility. I'll look to the city attorney as to whether this is an a topic that can be discussed in executive session. We are limited uh by law on what we can handle in an executive session and I don't believe this would fall within the allowed purposes of that. What I'm concerned about city attorney robert taylor is that things are being executed and I'll give you an example. On may 2nd, there was a uh there was a contract that was um executed with the state of Oregon to do our um permitting way before we had a chance to even talk about maybe keeping our permitting here locally. So, we contracted that out and I was shocked and amazed that we did that before we even had a chance to take a vote on it. And so, by not knowing that, those are the kind of things that kind of blindside you. And when I found out about it, um, of course, uh, labor was knocking on the door and I told him I didn't know anything about it. Counselor, if if or council president, let me say if it's all right with you, that particular issue, I think, is maybe slightly different in in how that will be executed than you have an impression of. And I'd ask donnie to just comment. I would ask that we not go down that okay path right now. We need to be focused on this budget note. We have an allowance from staff to spend extra time and we are quickly running through it and I'd like to make sure that our final colleague has an opportunity. Ma, madame president, I will change it from a city council meeting to a um to to to I don't know if we could do an email. That's that's not safe either. Councelor, perhaps well, we're going to have to go the route of city council meeting. That's the only thing that we have available. Could I'm not sure why an email wouldn't work. I'm wondering if we could get a report an email notifying us before contracts are entered into and then interested counselors could follow up for more information or to to enter their concerns. And I can tell you my experience with my 912s on February 19th, we're supposed to get reports every 15 days. If we say we're going to go into a city council meeting or executive meeting, that is more um people follow that regularly than to send us an email. So I I don't know how we we we uh reconcile this. I mean, we can try with the email and then when we find out that contracts were executed that that we didn't get an email on and then there's the other issue of the oversight. So, I I don't want to micromanage folks. I just want to know how money is being spent in this in the city before it's being spent. And I don't want to give you direction or tell you that you can't do it because you can certainly do it. We just want to know about it. So, councelor, I think you need to make a decision as the carrier of the amendment of whether you'd like us to vote on it in its current form or whether you would like to amend. I will start with with an email to see if we can get uh that correspondence. So, for any contract of $50,000 or more, the city council will receive an email prior to execution. Prior to execution, I believe councelor Zimmerman had a comment. Thanks. I I don't see this as being a necessary budget note or a necessary reporting constraint on the executive branch. This new form of government provides for while not on this dis a strong mayor with all executive authority. Our role in budget monitoring I don't think is made any easier by this action. I think it actually would confuse it as some sort of of permission asking when when we take a vote on this budget we will have granted that permission for you to execute the funds you've been appropriated. So whether I think the normal practice would be that a city administrator's report which we get would include a hey council want you to know in the last 30 days we have finally inked the contract on xyz service which you put into the budget 6 months ago blah blah blah blah blah. So my need is met here. This seems overburdensome. And I will also say just even if we were to have a compromise here, um the level is so low that this is just about every single item we buy. Now, if we have concern that the city is executing huge contracts above a million dollars, I'm willing to have that conversation. But uh for an organization this big, everything we do is $50,000. And so I won't be supporting this note. But I think it's overburdensome and and kind of uh takes away I think the intent behind a strong mayor system. Thank you. I don't think it's taking away any more intent than any of the other budget amendments that we've taken away and and added ftes and and taken away ftes that you put forward. But um if you want to do a friendly amendment to up to a million dollars, you said you would be amanable to that. I would certainly accept it, sir. Um, and let me tell you, there's there's things going on. There's a lot of moving moving things going on right now. And and and and you see, I I say agreements or commitments. The uh rose garden may not have a tenant soon. We're talking about the keller. We're talking about a lot of different things. We're talking about baseball. People are making commitments and they're talking about stuff and they're asking me and I don't know anything about it. So for me, if we want to do a million dollars, we can do a million dollars. But I really want to know what what is what is being said or what what agreement or what commitment is being made. And the expectation is that we're going to support it when it comes before us in council. I'll note that I did get a a message from folks in the administration that this is something that will be part of the city administrator's report moving forward. I understand councelor that that's not in advance and you are looking for in advance. I just want to know before you do that. Councelor Ryan, did you have a comment before we move to I do I I appreciate this conversation in the last council of course we had a different form of government so we were able to see all these contracts. I think in the transition we're struggling to figure out the right note on that. I think is it 50,000 is too low personally. I think it should be much higher. But I want to hear from city administrator jordan on the impact of this and is there a best practice of other cities with this type of government and what is that contract level? Thank you counselor. You're welcome. Um in most cities where there is either a strong mayor or a council manager form of government um once the council has um appropriated funds for to to do the work of the city um it is up to either the mayor or the administrator manager depending on the form uh to be able to execute on that. One of the reasons I think that we have this form of government that we have now is that the public expected this government to be professionally run and to operate in as efficient a manner as it could. I have absolutely no problem with reporting to this council all of our contractual actions uh every contract we get into if that's what the council wants. I would I would be concerned about having to report to the council before we enter into an agreement. Um it will slow the process down. There's just no question. Well, sending an email or putting it in in an email saying this is what you're getting ready to do. You're not asking for our permission. You're just informing us of what you're going to do. I appreciate that counselor. I would ask if you're not asking permission, why do you need to know before we do it? Well, sir, there there's certain amount of trust issues that are going on here. And again, I did my 912s and I have not received one 15-day report and we've received all kind of money and then everyone is waiting for two months down the line to send a big report. So, that has not been adhered to. Counselor and mr. Jordan, I'm sorry, but I really need us to stick to the topic of whether there is discussion on this budget note so that we can get to a vote and allow counselor mario an opportunity. We are already past time. Yes, but he asked me a question. Why? And I I think I owe him an answer. I think we need to keep questions to the topic at hand. I don't answer that. We we're talking about contracts. He asked me a question about a contract. Why do I feel like I need it? Councilors, is there any other discussion to the budget note? Councelor canel. Thank you. Uh I'll just make two quick notes. One is if this doesn't um also just put on the pile of reasons why we need to discuss the weekly council meeting ordinance. I don't know what does. Uh and secondly, I think it is there there are times where we've been surprised. I I completely share the concern. Uh I I was shocked to read the conversation. Uh or read the article I should say about the the fence I mentioned earlier and the choice to take on an ongoing maintenance obligation and I think that's that's something where I think the threshold is not just about the dollar amount which I recognize maybe needs to be higher I I'm very sympathetic to that argument but also whether there's going to need to be an ongoing need because otherwise what's going to happen is we're going to have the executive side of the government commit us to something that we then have to fund in the budget every year and when we come to this meeting next year it's if you don't do it it's going to break the relationship we have or we've already committed this funding in a contract that's come up in this budget process already. So there has to be some this is this is taking away our budgetary authority if we have no transparency and the ability to say I I don't know if there's like a consensus on this council and exactly because you cannot commit our resources for more than one fiscal year and the article and I'm not saying the article is correct but it said that uh the city of Portland would keep the upkeep on it. I read that same article too. So those kind of things and you have to kind of judge what I mean, you know, there are some things that we should know before you're doing it. Yeah. So, so I think that the the the temporal aspect of this too. How long does a financial commitment last is another part of this question for me and if I I don't think we're being uh given a ton of time here to negotiate a detail on it. So I'm inclined to support this as is. Um, and I and I'll also note, yeah, an email is great. I I'd love it uh an email with a couple days at least to read it. A week would be really really nice. Um, I think a I don't think a week delay is is unreasonable. Um, I'll also just note that my understanding is that we could do at least as it relates to buying property, we could do an executive session about that, but uh circle back on that one later. Thanks. Thank you, councelor. Counselors, is there any other debate on the budget note? I I have changed some language, agreements or commitments exceeding $1 million. Why don't you read the whole thing and then we will vote. In the interest of promoting fiscal transparency and ensuring responsible governance, I propose the adoption of of a requirement that mandates the mayor and the city administrator to disclose all contracts, agreements, or commitments exceeding $1 million. Thank you, councelor. Councelor, seeing no other discussion, kelin, could you please call the role? Canel. I I have to point a word real quickly. Is that the full text of it or no, it said this measure is intended to provide city council with clear and timely insight into the liabilities and fiscal obligations that the mayor has entered on behalf of the city of Portland within the fiscal year 202526 budget. Requiring such disclosures will facilitate enhanced oversight, support, informed decision-making, and uphold the public trust by ensuring accountability for substantial financial commitments. Thank you. Um, and and noting that it doesn't mandate a specific uh method of disclosure at this time, I think that should hopefully address other people's concerns. I vote I. Um, I appreciate the fact that it went up to a million, but I think this needs further discussion at governance personally and at this moment I'm going to vote no. Emily, she's gone. Maria, I novik, no. Mark, not here. She's gone. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. Also not in the room. Amalos. I denfy I Smith I guinea no though I would be interested in taking this up in governance point of order. I'd like to change my vote to a no so that I can move to reconsider later when our colleagues are back. We will not have time for that but you are welcome to change your vote. The amendment fails with five yes votes and four no votes. Councelor morio, I believe you have not yet had an opportunity to bring forward a budget note. Would you like to do so at this time? Yes, and we've already had extensive discussion on this, so I will try not to torture you all too much. Um, this is for marillo 7. It's a budget note leveraging the police special revenue fund to advance evidence-based policing. Um, I handed out a printed copy for all of you. It's been considerably cut down and you'll notice that a lot of what's written in there are definitions for clarity. So hopefully that helps. Uh and if the definitions for clarity and the additional length frighten you, we can cut it. Do people need a refresher? Yeah. You went over two last time, so if you can remind us of which this is, that would be great. Yeah. Um, this note directs uh the portion of $1 million of the police special revenue funds to be used to support independent evaluation of policing strategies. So, future investments are guided by data and proven outcomes. We need datadriven policing. Methodical, evidence-based, and accountable public safety is too important to rely on intuition, aesthetics, or vibes. We need to know what works and fund what works. So this fund will otherwise sit idally unless it is spent down. Again, this is money that comes from the federal government that the police bureau is required to spend down and using it on studies is actually a very common use of these funds. So this is nothing out of the ordinary and I think will help our police bureau be a lot more efficient and a lot more accountable to the public. Thank you, councelor. Um councilors, does anybody have any discussion or questions here? Yes. Novik. Um I just wanted to note that I had a conversation about um the um these funds with chief day and he sent me information indicating that asset forfeite proceeds that we get from the federal government come with an odd string attached that it has to be. It seems they're saying that the chief has to u approve of any use of those funds. So if council's directing it, that might jeopardize her ability to reach those funds. U the chief also indicated that he's willing to work with any counselor, including councelor mario, to talk about any reasonable uses, but he's worried about violating the federal rule. I would expect that the chief would be interested in evidence-based policing, so I'm happy to work with him on this budget note. And the city attorney has already confirmed that this is an appropriate use of these funds given the strings that are attached to federal dollars. I'll comment just to note that um councelor novik in in hearing that same concern, I asked the chief if he would entertain bringing a report to council regularly to to share with us um I guess not the chief but uh leadership within the public safety service area if they would be willing to bring a report sharing with us what their plan was for the spending of these resources. And while I didn't ask for a a firm written commitment, I did get an indication that that could be a path that would thread the needle as well. Counselor Smith. Yes. I had a conversation a couple days ago with the chief asking about the $6 million that was in forfeiture because I was con concerned that we we may run out of money for some things and to see if we could um use those funds. What he said to me was that they have to be approved by doj and the treasury. That's what he said. And they have to give permission and that takes a while to get that permission to come back. And so the concern was that this current administration is is probably looking for any opportunity to take away anything that the city of Portland is doing. So there's an there's an extra layer and it would probably take a few months to get that approved. Can can we have robert taylor give an analysis of this? Mr. Taylor, would you weigh in for us? Uh thank you uh for this opportunity. The uh I think I think a lot of what's been said here is true uh that the the department of justice needs to approve it along with the treasury. Uh as we discussed earlier in the work session, the funds come with uh non-supplanting requirements, meaning you can't you need to use it for new things. You can't use it to backfill cuts as councelor mario has said that you can do it for hiring contractors or experts to help you do feasibility studies and the like. Um we we have corresponded with the appropriate federal regulator and and what they have indicated to us is uh under the federal rules the the money does have to be appropriated and approved by the governing body. And so we could do this through a budget note, but as part of the anti-supplanting requirement, the doj wants to be sure that the agency head, the police chief also approves of it. That helps, I think, ensure that it is not supplanting um some other uses. I think that's the the lay of the land we have here as you consider this budget note. And for the record, if these dollars aren't used, they're just going to sit there and then be taken back by the federal government eventually if they aren't spent. So, I don't mind waiting to use these dollars for a good study if uh chief day is interested. And it sounds I mean, I don't see why they would not be interested in evidence-based policing. Thank you, counselor. Are there any other comments on this budget note? I have a quick question. The accountability has come up several times in this conversation, so I just need to hear from the budget office. How much again are we spending um with police oversight in next year's budget? Um I don't have the figure in front of me. I could get it if you give me a minute. I can do it. It's two it's about $2.1 million. Uh in the current budget there's a you have to h hold 5% in a fund but the actual budget for the cbpa is roughly 2.1 million. Okay. Thank you council. In addition to the 5% no that's I thought that was what you said. Okay. I would add that this is different than police oversight. This would be research conducted by phd research scientists. Impact evaluations are very different from oversight. Thank you, councelor. Counselors, is there any other discussion to the budget note? I'm sorry, I came a little bit late. I missed the first part. Um, councelor mario, is this something that the police bureau is asking for or they want? Uh, it sounds like councelor novik had a conversation with chief day and that he would be willing to work with any counselor to no, to respond to that. The conversation with chief day was he'd be willing to work with any counselor, but he was worried that if the council is directing how he spend the money, that might violate the federal orders that it has to be up to the discretion of the police chief. Dca kazzy up here. We need to be very quick. Can you answer that question in two sentences or less? Absolutely. Dca kazi, for the record, PPB is open to conducting a study on evidence-based policing. However, as uh councelor novik mentioned, asset dictating asset forfeite funds being used for that could jeopardize the funding stream as a whole. Thank you, director. Thank you, councilors. Is there any other discussion on this budget note? I just want to add that the note does not say anything about requiring them not to seek approval. So, it would not violate the doj standards. We can have this note pending approval. Or if you would like to add a friendly amendment, you're welcome to do so. Counselors, is there any other discussion? Seeing none, keelin, could you please call the role? No. Thank you for taking our feedback into account between the last uh version of this and the current one. I I vote I. Ryan, no. Clay I. Mario. Portland deserves evidence-based policing. I vote I novvic. Reluctant. No. Clark. No. Green. I. Zimmerman. Gone. Amlos. Uh, I duny. I Smith. Hi. Perto. Guinea. No. The motion carries with seven yes votes, four no votes, and one absent. Councilors, we are at 708. Everybody has had an opportunity to bring forward one budget note. We need to take a quick recess so that our budget team can crunch some numbers so that we can make sure we have a balanced uh budget as we leave today. I am I have a point of information. Is there um I'm understanding like earlier when we were talking about um tkl5 that we were going to come back to it. Can we do a quick vote? I think we talked it out. We just need to do a vote. I had hoped we could come back to a lot of things and I have told many people no and I am not getting a single budget note that I had wanted to bring forward because I used mine on a courtesy. Lots of people have been messaging me asking for more and we are already 40 minutes past uh when we had said that we would move on on our delayed schedule. So here's what I'm going to ask us to do. If you have been working on trying to figure out a way to balance things, please continue that work over this 15minute recess. If you have a technical fix, not a new thing, we all have more we want to do, but a technical fix. I understand there are some technical fixes needed. Please come bring that to me now during this recess. I will be sitting right here. I will not move the whole time. Um, we are going to give our budget team 15 minutes. We are going to meet back here at 7:25 at which point we will adopt any technical fixes. We will figure out how to balance our budget and we will adopt the attachments into our budget which we will then move to a second reading on the 18th. Counselors, I know there is a lot being left on the table. I think everybody up here is disappointed and frustrated and I have asked us many times today to move quickly and speak less and I think for some of our colleagues that did not sink in and I am gravely sorry for all of us that that is the case. We are on recess. We will convene back in 15 minutes. Counselor [music] heat. [music] heat. [music] to [music] hey. Hey. Hey. [music] beautiful. [music] hey. [music] I want to wanna [music] I want to I want to want [music] you [music] heat. Heat. Around and [music] yeah, you'll see the building you're working. Yeah. Oh, that's great. Oh, that's great. Where do they stay? Everybody back in. If folks can sit down, that would be great. Here, let me uh hold on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 eight. We have eight of us. Okay, we have three things to do and we are going to try to do it in the next 32 minutes. First thing that we need to do is I had asked if anybody had technical changes. One technical change was brought forward. Colleagues, you should have a sheet in front of you. Uh when we at a very late hour on the 21st created additional funding for vision zero. Um we put those funds apparently into the general fund. We I believe intended to put them into the general transportation fund. Councelor duny, thank you for catching this. Duny 13 simply moves those funds. Would you like to move this amendment? Yes. So moved, please. I look a second. I'll second. Second. Would you like to second council? I can withdraw my second. Okay. I withdraw my second. Go right ahead. Second. Okay. Seconded by councelor quayama. Um colleagues, is there any discussion on this technical change? Seeing none and assuming that the hands in the queue are from our previous discussion, I can take that. Keyn, could you please call the role? Canel. I Ryan. I mario. I novik. I Clark. I Green. Hi Zimmerman. Post. I dunfy. I Smith I roini I. The motion carries with 11 yes votes and one absent. Thank you colleagues. The next thing we need to do is make sure our budget is balanced. Ruth, could you please go over the various funds for us and let us know where we are in and where we are out of balance? Sure. So, um, we just have an issue in some of the general fund um, everything else is in balance. So, within the general fund in discretionary resources ongoing, we are balanced. General fund discretionary one time there is a deficit of $646,000. Um and then on the overhead side there is um essentially $290,000 left in contingency from the from the approved still and there is a onetime deficit in general fund overhead of $87,000. Thank you. And director lavine, are these um deficits the two deficits solely from the amendment um Green nine yesterday or are there other things adding to those deficits? No, that's right. It's just the Green nine. Basically, the um the um reductions didn't add up to the ads on the general fund side because some of the reductions are actually from other funds and so the general fund piece didn't net out. Thank you. So, colleagues, we have a couple of options here. We could revote and lessen the expenditures. We could revote and add back in some of the things that were originally on the list but were reduced. We could vote to find new revenue or we could revote to undo the amendment altogether. I would entertain a motion here. Motion. I would move to reconsider the vote on Green nine. Point of order here. Oh, we have a motion on the table. Let's hear the point of order. So, I just wanted to ask uh that there's also other revenue. My understanding is that that should be that that should be up at this moment. I'm sorry. There's also what? Uh sorry, other revenue. There was that third column in the spreadsheet and I just wanted to make sure that that was not the case before cuz you didn't mention that director levine. That's a that's a name of a category, right? Um but we can't use that revenue. Um, if you want more details, we can have owen speak to it, but basically um, it's it's things like fee revenue. So, when you reduce external materials and services, that would be expenditure tied to revenues and you don't spend that money, then you don't recover those revenues. So, it's not revenue we can repurpose for something else. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, and sorry, do we have a motion on the floor? We do have a motion on the floor. There was a point of order with a question there clarifying things and I'm hoping that that question has now been answered. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Point of information. What exactly is the motion? I move to reconsider the vote on Green nine. Is there a second? City. Uh mr. Jordan, is that in line with our rules of order? Mr. Taylor, uh thank you. Good question. Um so a a motion to uh reconsider under our rules needs to be made um before the end of the meeting on which the item is passed. So the a reconsideration would not be in order. However, a motion to resend the Green nine would be in order. So you would basically just wipe out that amendment. Even though this is technically the same meeting because we recessed, it would need to be a motion to rescend. I also have a follow-up question. I want to make sure we get the answer on this and then we'll take your is this a point of information or a point of order, councelor? Murdo. Um let's let mr. Taylor answer and then you can let me know. Uh there's uh more than one path to get to the uh the to get us home here. Council president, thank you for the reminder that we recessed and we did not adjourn the meeting yesterday. So the rule is the motion must be the motion to reconsider must be made before the adjournment of the meeting when the item was considered by council. So since we were in recess last night, uh you may and we have not we did not adjourn that meeting. Uh you may do the motion to reconsider. That is an order. Alternatively, since we've already passed that amendment, you could make a motion to resend the amendment. Either one of those. Uh I I would still like to move to reconsider the vote on Green nine. Okay. Thank you. And just to confirm, did you vote yes on Green nine? Yes. Okay. So, she was on the prevailing vote. Uh, did you have a point of information or a point of order, councelor murio? Uh, I think point of order, I guess. Um, this seems like a pretty egregious step considering the fact that we could just amend this to address the imbalance pretty easily. I don't see why that's not on the table. I think everyone got a piece of what they wanted in this. Seems like reasonable that we just go through and trim it. I've listed out a few options and this was the motion that was made. You could certainly bring that up in discussion of the motion. Point of order. Second. We have a second. We are moving into discussion on the motion to reconsider. And I heard a point of order. Yeah, I'm looking at the queue right now and I'm seeing that that councelor Green is first in the queue and I also know that he uh had been asked to come up with something. I'd love to hear that before we get into this and I think the queue should prevail. Uh councelor, there were a number of hands left in the queue from earlier in the meeting and I mentioned as we were talking about the technical amendment that I was assuming those were old hands and was looking around the table. I attempted to do the same here because I think there were some old hands left up. So if folks want to all remove themselves from the queue then moving forward as we discuss this motion we could certainly use the queue. Are we going to put our hands down at the same time and then you're going to count to three and then we put them all up at once because I think we can or we can use this for discussion as is there. I just was explaining the process since there was a point of information asked. I think councelor Green had his hand up first and he was asked to make a correction to this and he has a correction. Counselors, we have a motion and a second on the table and we're in discussion on that motion and second. We could certainly if we vote this down uh move to discussion of something else. I laid out a few options. So councilors, is there discussion on the motion on the table? Mr. Taylor, if the motion to reconsider fails, then you cannot reconsider it again. So if the desire is not to if you don't want to if ju just just so just so you know the the result of a failed motion to reconsider but that's not the same as withdrawing. Correct. You could withdraw it. That would be that would be acceptable. Okay. Councelor Green, are you in the queue to speak to the motion to reconsider? I've twice now been likened to a republican, trump himself, and now a nihilist by councelor novik. At least I've not been accused of being a monarchist. But I find these comparisons objectional. I would note that say what you will about the optimism in my colleagues to solve complicated and competing challenges in a very dynamic and compressed timeline at this day as it is at least a belief system. I hear the frustration with unintended consequences. But the first meeting I took when I took office was with a group of renters who were desperate for a voice in this building and are suffering from the unintended consequences of a miscommunication of a regulatory agreement. And I have prioritized meetings with rank and file workers who are worried about losing their jobs and how they're going to pay their bills as an unintended consequence of opening thousands of new shelter beds. If my methods are unconventional, I'll just note that conventional methods have not served these constituents of mine. And the amendment I brought was balanced and I did say that there were risks as I motivated the amendment, but that I but that I believed that the risks were worth the benefits that I wanted to pay for. So when you go out and you talk to the press, I'd ask you not to mischaracterize a claim of mischaracterization. So I've got a number of options that I would like to consider. Um I like one more than the other. Now this is I want to remember what so the motion actually is it's the motion to reconsider. If it if the motion carries, then Green nine would be back before the body as if it had never been voted on. If the motion fails, then we could not uh move to reconsider Green again. So if it's so at this time it's appropriate to amend the motion being reconsidered. I mean, right now what's pending is is the question of should we reconsider Green nine and if if the motion to reconsider carries then Green nine would be back before the body as if you hadn't voted on it in the first place and then you could make amendments to Green nine. Okay. In the spirit of rationality and reasonableness, I'm going to say let's reconsider this. I have some amendments to my original motion that I hope this body will consider in good faith. So, let's have that conversation. Councelor Smith, you made this motion. Um, I will continue. Okay. Councelor canal, do are you in the queue to speak to the motion? I just um I just want to ask your your my concern about this reconsideration motion is that if it fails, we can't do it again. And I'd like I think this might be a plan c or plan d. And I'd like to talk about a and b before we potentially lose plan d. So that's why I was I was surprised there for a moment. Just wanted to clarify with council. I I understand your surprise. Things move very fast this day. We've are a body of 12. We're doing the best we can with very complicated information. So, I've I've got I've got an approach that I think may be palatable and I would like an opportunity to do that. Okay. Avalos, are you in the queue to discuss the motion to reconsider? I guess so. Um, I did not vote on Green 9 yesterday. I had my concerns. Obviously, we're all dealing with the fact that it ended up being unbalanced unexpectedly. Um, I am understanding that councelor Green has uh put together uh essentially just cutting the amounts in each amount. Um, and so I want to support even though I didn't vote for it yesterday, I there's a lot in there and a lot of, you know, I so I want to support their chance to be able to just trim that. They have trimmed it in a balanced way and I think that's better than losing the whole thing and I also think it's better than some of the other ideas that I've heard that I'm not super into and so I'd rather us just balance this. We we can do that like that. And so I would ask councelor Smith that you withdraw so that we have the opportunity to do that. And people don't have to vote for it, but I think we need the opportunity because they it was their amendment and they they had the problem and they found a solution and I think we should hear that before we do this. And if you withdraw it, you can always put it back to resend. If I keep my amendment and you all support it, he gets to add his amendment. So that's this would allow us. Would move us back to reconsidering Green nine at which point we could vote it up, vote it down, table it, or vote to amend it. We would need to vote to resend it so that it's just back on the table or re vote to reconsider it. But do we have to vote to reconsider? Yes. And then he he can bring it back up. Okay. Okay. Councelor murio, are you in the queue to discuss the vote to reconsider? Yes. Um, I think that this this package really did a lot of important things for our communities and it was negotiated with a lot of people, you know, without breaking quorum. Um, and making sure that everyone got part of what they wanted. Uh, and so it seems very hasty to me and sort of punitive. Uh this feels more like a personal punishment based on stylistic differences or uh maybe to punish people for making a mistake rather than good governance and trying to correct uh a mistake here on the dis which we can easily do together. I don't know why we wouldn't work together to just correct this. Um and we have options on the table to trim it down. So, you know, we're doing things to protect renters at everett station. We're doing things like evaluating Portland street response. We're funding Portland center stage, a cultural hub. Uh we're also addressing the ci hub and making sure that there's public safety with regards to the environment. This is a good package and if there was a mistake made then give us the opportunity to correct it. Councelor novik, are you in the queue to speak to the vote to reconsider Green nar want to respond to what councelor mario just said. First of all, this is not something that was negotiated with everybody in the council. Um, five people got goodies out of it and got two other people to vote with them. Five people. Um, so I think it's a reflection. Um, well, but so you you pick and choose who you wanted to be part of the discussion. Also, a number of us were opposed to this yesterday because we were concerned that random cuts would have consequences that we didn't know about because there was an assumption that we would that there was waste, fraud, and abuse out there that we don't know where it is ourselves. We're counting on the bureaucrats to figure it out. Um, so it's not just that everybody thought this was a wonderful idea and everybody got things out of it. Some of us thought that it was a bad idea from the begin with and didn't get anything out of it. So I support the motion to reconsider. Councelor canal, are you in the queue to discuss the motion to reconsider? No. Okay. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, keelin, could you please call the role on the motion to reconsider? Canel. No. Ryan. Uh, I oh, no. Mario. No. No. Yes. Clark. I no. Zimmerman. Yes. Um, this is on the motion to reconsider, which would put us back to debate. Oh, no. That was a no. [laughter] I voted. Uh, no. Smith. I proto guinea I. The motion fails to carry with six yes votes and five no. Colleagues, the motion to reconsider has failed. We still have a budget gap in front of us. Councelor Green, are you in the queue to make a motion? Yes, I am. Thank you, madam president. I move I guess it would be Green 14 now. The following cut the two cbo positions that we added in Green nine. That reduces $350,000. Unexempt prosper Portland, which took off the table $261,83.65. Cut $50,000 from the psr study from Green 9. Cut $75,000 from the ever station loft tenants from Green nine. Cut $51,000 from storefront installations. Cut $130,000 for the park service dispatcher, which which is the job I was trying to save. That I believe will balance this and I'm happy to be proven wrong during this discussion. Thank you. Second motion for a new amendment which would trim Green nine on the table. I would like to hold for two minutes to give our budget team time to um run those numbers. If somebody could send this to director lavine or owen, do you want us to send it to you? Uh I already have it. I believe that would balance the budget to make those reductions. It it reduces both discretionary and overhead by certain portions. Enough discretionary to cover the one-time gap we currently have and then it will cut additional overhead resource. But all in all, it should be balanced. Councelor Green, are you in the queue for discussion? Councelor canal, are you in the queue for discussion? Yes, madam president. I I think I first thank you to councelor Green for coming up with this. Uh this is feels like uh you know, you uh we get a lot of the way there and then something two steps forward, one step back kind of thing. And I totally acknowledge that. I'm trying to find a way to come up with something that can help here. And I think we've all I've got a funding source here or that, but uh not seeing it at this moment. Um so I I look forward to this conversation, but um I really just wanted to express appreciation for that and say that if we're going to ask somebody to come up with an idea, we should let them put that idea forward. Thank you. Counselors, I'm next in the queue. I will note because I cannot help myself at this hour that a motion to reconsider would have allowed us to consider this as well but in a different form. Uh director lavine, I think that I heard councelor Green include on his list adding prosper Portland back into the entities that would have their uh budget included in this ems cut. And we already passed the prosper Portland budget. So, I am wondering how that is possible. Um, I'm looking at the city attorney. I think I'm sorry if that's a better question for mr. Taylor. I'm happy to direct my question there. I am concerned that this is again something we can't actually do. I mean, my read is that it um basically reduces the amount of general fund we would send to prosper Portland. Um and that their board would have to um include that in their adopted budget for their for prosper, which I don't think they've adopted yet. Um, and I think it would be okay. But yeah, I don't know, robert, what your thinking is. Are we allowed to make changes that unbalance their budget after we have sent them an approved budget? Uh, so right now the city council is is sitting as the governing body of the city of Portland. Previously when you considered the prosper budget, you were operating as the budget committee for prosper. Um you you as the budget committee uh sent them a recommended budget. You now as the city of Portland can decide and make the final decision on how much money you want to send to prosper Portland. You can make that decision here today. Um, and then for prosper's purposes, they would either need to adjust their budget to reflect the reduction from the city of Portland, or they could leave their appropriation level the same, but they cannot spend money that they do not receive. So, the appropriation level might be high, but they would have reduced revenue to spend. Thank you for that clarification. Point of order. How much was is included to prosper or taken away from prosper? Councelor Green, what is the reduction in this most recent action? This reduces or I should say, yes, this reduces the general fund allocation allocation to prosper Portland uh by $261,000 rounded um of a total of over $13 million. And I will note that um prosper Portland did not lay off any staff in their budget where we are cutting a parks dispatcher with this move right now. Councelor Smith, are you in the queue for discussion or was that your question? I was in the queue for discussion because I was concerned that this was different from the original um Green nine and I have a problem with that and as you know I supported not taking the money away from prosper and so this is kind of going around. We have other spaces and places where there there are dollars. Counc I hear you. I tried to offer an amendment earlier in this process that would have held harmless all of the program offers for pros for Portland and avoided this entire discussion. Um I'm prepared if this doesn't pass, I'm prepared to do another pros for Portland amendment that is just a one-time effect that would also hold harmless their effects. So I hear your concern, but we're in a situation where we got to balance this. Councelor canal. Uh just a question. Has prosper I I want to just uh I'm going to be careful how I say this. When we had the conversation around the change to the albina settlement. Um, we looked at the idea that we were taking on $6.5 additional million dollars with the I'll say hope that prosper Portland would take on half of the uh the funding for that, half of the the cost of that. Um, as was originally when it was $2 million. Um, I don't believe that's happened yet. I'm disappointed by that. I'm disappointed by by hearing that. I think it's a a worthwhile thing to to put into this conversation. Um and um I I think this is the the right course of action. I'll be supporting the overall thing and this uh 261,000 I believe you said rounded and so that seems like uh you know one of those things where everybody's kind of eating a little bit here. Oh, and I I believe it's uh that this would be one time transfer as well, right? Okay. Thank you, councelor Green. Yeah. And I would just like to also note that earlier today, we passed a budget note called Green 10 that gave the city administrator the discretion to balance all of these ems cuts across the city enterprise. And so I just want to remind folks that when we look at the specific line items and we're thinking about the direct impacts, the city administrator has the ability to make these adjustments. I would really appreciate if this could be amended again to not take that from prosper like that. Can we take more from any of the other items? Are you do you have any interest in that? Like I think it's opening this other can of worms. You know, I didn't support the prosper cuts. I'm trying to get here with you. I I would I did not support this amendment yesterday. I'm trying to help here, but that's that's pushing me a little hard. So, is there another place that we can make those trims of that 265? I don't agree that the budget note like you put that amount in the way that this amendment, we could debate that all day, but like I just I'm not comfortable with that. So, is there any opportunity to cut some other things that are not prosper right now? Anyone is free to introduce an amendment to my amendments. I'm open to I'm trying my best to offer the ideas I have. It's just a big pot of money. It does not come it does not have to come from prosper. They are just not exempted. It doesn't have to come from them. If you're going to say that I can make an amendment, then I say you take that 267 from Portland center stage. Okay. That's the that's the first thing I'm thinking that I'm on the fly here and I'm trying really hard to get here, dude. But like that's really hard for me. I'm trying really hard to support this. I think we'll lose some critical votes if that's your hard line. I don't know what to do. Councelor novik, are you in the queue to discuss the amendment? Yes. I just wanted to say that I think that the five people that voted for something that gave them goodies and found out that there was unbalanced, um, the honorable thing to do is to vote to balance it by cutting their own goodies rather than, and I realize I like some of these goodies myself, but rather than force the rest of us to vote for other cuts we hadn't considered before, wherever they are. Councelor Smith, are you back in the queue? Yes. I just wanted to say too, there was something that someone said, I can't remember who said it and they said everyone has something in here. I don't have anything in here and I was a supporter of it, but I won't be able to be a supporter of it in its current form. Councelor canel, are you back in the queue? Yes, madam president. Um, I I think the assertion here that something untoward is happening is is should just be stated outright. I I think this is a ridiculous sort of assumption here. There were some things that were brought in that were proposed. There were other vehicles and other amendments that got other things done. Every person has something in the budget, even if they didn't get it in Green nine. Um, and sometimes it's a note, sometimes it's that uh sometimes it's something that wasn't an amendment, but we asked the mayor to put it in in before the the may 5th uh proposal, and it got in there. So, there are things here that I think it's a a broader conversation, but more importantly, I think that's exactly what this proposal does. If you look at what the uh what the specific cuts that are happening here are, there are things there's something here I fought for very strongly that's that's happening. If you'd like to go for that that's being removed if there if you'd like to go for the uh the the other specific things in there. I think it makes sense to um articulate that specifically. But the way that this has been proposed makes sense as it is. I there isn't $200,000 going sorry $261,000 going to Portland center stage in the amendment that that's more than the amount that was allocated to to pcs. So uh we can't take away more than we gave. So I that's the only concern I have. I think that's a valid conversation to have too. So I would offer um that instead of it saying um I'm going to try to find the exact text here. Uh $261,000 from um prosper Portland that we simply say uh pursuant to to Green 10, we ask the city administrator to increase the amount of ems reductions across the bureaus listed uh and and hearsay which could include uh pros Portland report. So we're still not exempting it, but we're making it clear that it doesn't have to come from there. I think that might help resolve um the the conversation, but that's a I'm floating that as an idea. Council murio. So, while we're talking about fairness with omnibus packages, I would like to remind everyone that there were numerous people up here who were not included in the president's package whatsoever. Zero amendments put in that package. And we did not cry half as much about that as everybody is here because we know that there are quorum rules. There are discussions. There are things to balance that come up. But I didn't have any amendments in there. Councelor novik, you didn't have any amendments in there. Councelor quuomain, you had no amendments in there. Nobody from district 3 for some reason had any amendments in the president's omnibus package that was negotiated with, it seems like councilors Clark, Zimmerman, and uh the more conservative side of council that ended up getting a lot of what they wanted in there, and that got voted down. So, I I am sorry that our quorum rules prevent us from having negotiations with everybody. That's kind of the law of the land right now, unfortunately. So, if we want to talk about fairness, yeah, let's talk about fairness because a lot of these negotiations aren't fair. It's really hard. And again, this amendment does not exempt prosper. But if we do want to talk about fairness again, then we should talk about how prosper shouldn't be exempt from everything all the time anyways. But it seems like we have some options on the table. I like councelor canal's proposal. Uh, so I think that we still have some alternatives to negotiate this down if necessary. Councelor novik. Yes, I would propose that um instead of cutting 261,000 from prosper ems um we could cut council budgets by 261,000 which divided by 12 um would be what would it be? 20some thousand a piece. Our council budgets are far higher than any other city I found. Councelor canal, I you how have you spoken twice to this already? I have. Please keep it brief. We are overtime. Yeah, I don't think we should be punishing the people who are emailing our office or wanting us to show up in in in our communities and in our districts by cutting their budget. I think we should figure out what we should do here. I would be open to the idea of dividing out the prosper part, figuring that out, and at least taking a huge dent into it, and then discussing how to close the remaining $261,000 gap. I think there are ways to do that uh that I have scored over the course of this. There are things that were proposed to close community centers on holidays as opposed to closing them an hour early. I'm not saying that that's a better option. I'd much rather not do that. That's why I didn't propose it in the end. But there are other options out there. And I think that we are creating an artificial scarcity of meeting time. This is the budget. How are we si at what point did anybody think this wasn't going to go after after 8:02 p.m.? Councelor, I want to respond to that. All of our chiefs of staff agreed to our schedule in a room together at a chief's meeting. Every single one of them. I suggested that counselors would not agree to that and that we would need more time and we would need to go late. And I was told chiefs agreed to this. It will be fine. So, please do not suggest that I am creating artificial barriers when it is something that our chiefs of staff agreed to a schedule which we are already 2 hours over because I pushed back and said we would need a little bit of flexibility at the end of the day. Colleagues, is anybody else in the queue to discuss the amendment? Yes. Council I am amendable to the idea of instead of taking the 261 from prosper to take it from the council budgets, it equals 21,000 per office. Let's make that happen. So I move that amendment. Second. We we have an amendment on the table. It's an amendment to the amendment, right? I I would like to accept the friendly amendment. Oh, it's okay. Can I do that right now? Is that appropriate? Who was your seconder? Second. I was. No, no. Councelor canal, do you accept this as a friendly amendment? No. Okay. Okay. Councelor canal is withdrawing his second. Would somebody else like to second? I second. Okay. Councelor mario, do you accept this friendly amendment? I love it. I accept it. Okay. Can council speaker the friendly amendment is instead of the 261 whatever we're going to take it from the council every budgets and everything else is going to stay the same. I am clear on that. Yes, I accept this. Okay. Which is an amount of just over $21,000 per office. Thank you for doing the math faster than I could with pen and paper. Mr. Jordan, hang on. Um the I think there's a overhead problem here. The that you're using a gross number and the there's over council offices are overhead funded. So you need to go a little higher. I apologize. I should have remembered that. So it have to be something like 37,000 a piece or something. Dire director lavine. Is anything that we're giving money to something that can accept overhead? Um uh owen again. Uh we're out of balance in discretionary primarily. Um, so you need to find $646,000 in discretionary resource to balance the budget and cut about 87,000 $88,000 in overhead resource to balance the budget and minutes or less. Could we do the math to figure out if we took the 87,000 in overhead one time that is unbalanced from council budgets and attempted to figure out the rest of the balance that was in the prosper number which I believe was 261,000 out of council budgets. How much we would need to cut from council budgets. Yes. Okay. Give us 5 minutes. We're going to recess at the dis for 5 minutes so that our budget team can do that math. I'd ask that nobody leave this space. Feel free to mill about here though. [music] okay, colleagues, I believe our budget team has numbers for us. I am reaching out to our colleagues who did not stay in close proximity to try to get them back. Uh, director lavine, are we ready? We missing. Director lavine, are we ready? Yes. So if we were to move this amendment as proposed with the change that prosper is not included and there is a reduction in council budgets. What would the reduction in council budgets need to be um either total or per counselor your choice in order to balance? Sure. So it is uh 49,799 per office which equates to 597,588 total for the 12 offices. So that would be the reduction. 49,799 per office. Correct. Thank you. So moved. I believe we already have a motion to do this. We were just waiting for the numbers. Is that correct, keyn? Okay. Because it's friendly because the seconder changed to councelor morio and councilors Green and morio accepted your friendly amendment. Councilors, is there any more debate? Yes. Council Green, are you in the queue for debate? Councelor Smith, are you in the queue for debate? Yes. Okay. Councelor Smith and then councelor canel, could you tell me what's on the table? Yes. This is the amendment from councelor Green with the change that we are no longer taking money from prosper Portland, but we are looking at a reduction to council budgets of $49,799 per counselor per council office. I disagree with that. Okay. That was obvious. I disagree with that. And I'll tell you why. We have equipment coming that we have to pay with our office budget. We have additional uh summer works interns that we're paying for out of the budget. That's going to be about $50,000. So, I mean, we can't balance the $ 8.6 billion budget on the backs of a $1.5 billion bureau. And anybody who thinks so, they're more than welcome to pay my part. But for my part, before I do that, I'll go back and vote yes for prosper. So, I'm not playing no games with my stuff. Okay. Councelor canal to the amended amendment. Yeah. I have a question and then a comment. My question is if hypothetically there were $99,580 of general fund discretionary available. I know that the ratio doesn't make this perfect. What would that do for our council budgets if if if we had found $99,580 of general fund discretionary somewhere in our couch cushions? You could split that 12 ways. It's it's general fund discretionary though. So I know we'd need it would be a different it wouldn't be just that divided by 12 that's saved in that direction. It does work. You can add discretionary to your budgets because it's unrestricted whereas the overhead includes restricted funds. So if you found approximately $100,000 like you're saying um you could and I I think you're saying to add to your to the council budgets. No, I'm saying to defay the reduction in the council budgets to def make sense because the ratio yeah. Is the same. Okay. That you would split at 12 essentially. So the reduction would become instead of almost 600,000 total, it would be almost 500,000 um which per office is 41,000 41,549 each roughly speaking. Excuse me. Okay. Um, in that case, I would offer a friendly me amendment to transfer $99,580 from the police oversight board sub fund of the citywide obligation reserve fund. This is money that when avaloso 3 passed on um may Avalos 1, I apologize, uh passed on may 21st, we reduced the amount of money that needed to be in the police oversight board, which is indexed to 5% of the police budget. The police proposed budget was reduced. The 5% was not. The difference is $99,580 of money that does not need to be in that extra fund. Councelor Ryan noted earlier that there's $2.1 million budgeted for the police oversight board. The remainder is sitting in a contingency fund and that contingency fund has about 100k more than it has to have legally. I had hoped to use this for a different use. We are not going to have time to propose that amendment. Um, I would love to use it here to ensure that at least whatever that is, uh, $5,000 of $8,000 of our council office budgets are saved to ensure that portlanders have as little impact on their ability to get a response from us as possible. I'd ask that this be considered friendly. I will accept it friendly. Councelor mono. Second. Okay. So, the amendment on the table is now the amendment as originally proposed by councelor Green except that it does not pull funds from prosper. It does pull $99,580 from the fund identified by councelor canal and reduces council budgets by $41,51 I don't see any phone from the budgets office. Sorry, can you repeat that? Council budgets by $41,5001 each. I see director lavine nodding. Yes. Councelor Avalos, are you in the queue for discussion? Oops. Councelor Smith and canal, are those legacy hands or are you back in the queue for discussion? Okay, I want to verify this. This is a new amendment which while addressing Green nine is not a part of Green nine. So if we pass this, we are in balance and if we do not pass this, we are still out of balance. But Green nine is not on the table either way. I believe that's how this was made. Mr. Taylor, you are nodding. Yes. Okay. Counselors, seeing no one else in the queue, we are voting on what I believe is Green 13. Is that correct, counselor? 14. 14. Thank you. Green 14. Keelin, could you please call the role? I hate this. Uh, so got to be honest about it. I think um I I want to note that the money I had a proposed amendment to use this for and I'm not going to get a chance to talk about it anywhere else. So, I'm going to just mention here that this was going to be used for preparation uh to to determine what we need to do to ensure better firefighting capability on the west side of the river. In the case of uh a fire at the this critical energy infrastructure hub, um we have industrial firefighting capacity on the east side of the river. One of the reasons that a fire could start is a earthquake that would prevent people from getting across the river. So, that was uh what I wanted to use it for. And so that can be described as a goodie um for for one of us, but I think it's actually something that a lot of us support uh preparing for it, even you know, those of us it's not in our district for. Um and I I'm I really really resent that. Uh I also really really want to push back against the narrative that council budgets are an indulgence, right? They are to ensure that you get your counselor in district hosting their own town halls, not just coming to those that other people invite them to and uh being a part of our communities, not just sitting here all the time. And I'll have that argument in detail afterwards. I am sure. I vote yes regretfully. Ryan, yeah. Um I voted no on this uh yesterday and I'm still in that place. I do appreciate uh councelor canal's willingness to figure out how to thread this needle. So I wanted to say that but I still remain a no vote on this amendment. Clean. Yes. No. Thank you councelor canal. I know how much that meant to you. It was very big of you and I appreciate everyone working together to make this adjustment. I vote I novik. I hate this too but not the cutting council budgets part. I clerk I don't know about hate. That's a pretty strong word, but it's certainly been agonizing. Agonizing from yesterday when I voted yes for it. But I feel like uh contributing another $41,5001 to the critical energy infrastructure hub and Portland center stage and other things is worth it to me. So I vote I Green. So we're voting on the amended Green 14. Correct. Yeah, I don't like this either, guys. I think the thing that I hate the most about it is we now have to cut one of those park service dispatchers who was, I think, pretty grateful to see their job save from a cut. And we're doing that because we don't want to take a couple hundred grand from pros Portland that has $50 million in a strategic investment fund. Hi, Zimmerman. This is so agonizing, but I'm going to vote. I done. I also hate it. I nope. Ralle guinea. In order to balance the budget so we can let our staff go home and for no other reason. I vote I. Motion carries with nine yes votes and three no votes. Director lavine, I'd like to confirm that we have a balanced budget. Would you like a fivem minute recess to confirm that or are you confident? Uh c sorry, can you give us two minutes? Yes. I'm going to hopefully have a more successful ask this time, colleagues, that we stay here. Do we have a balanced budget. Okay, counselors. Wait a minute. We're not cheering yet. We're not done. Counselors, I said we had three things we had to do when we got back. The first was that technical piece. The second was balancing the budget. The third is that we need to actually adopt the attachments. The way that we do things at the city is through a series of attachments to agenda items. If you look at the agenda item for this meeting, adopting the budget, there are attachments b through j. I'm not sure where a went. There should be an a, too. Okay, there's not an a, but I believe that a is attached to agenda item five from yesterday. We're going to check. We're going to make sure we have all of nope. There's no are we adopting b through h and no a? It's it's attached to the presentation item. It's the script, right, that's attached to the presentation. I don't see a presentation item to to be through jay. That's fine. Yeah, we're sure legally. Okay, hold on. I see a finger up from mr. Taylor. Uh, one that's saying to wait a minute. Mr. Jordan, one that's saying to wait a minute. Point of point of order, madam president. My understanding is that yesterday we actually had to make that motion already to adopt uh what was then considered a through h and the vote was not called. Correct. So that motion is, as I understand it, currently on the table. Correct. I just want to make sure we all know what we're voting on. So I'm hoping that we find attachment a. We will that motion is open and we will now vote on all of those attachments. Okay. I'll let I may have another point of order after you clarify the attachment situation. Thanks, mr. Taylor. Legally, are all of the attachments that we need here? Uh yes. Uh and uh as councelor canel pointed out and you pointed out yesterday we made the motion to approve the adjustments in a through h. That was moved and seconded. A through h are all of the um attachments associated with the budget. Uh I and j were attachments, but those were all the proposed amendments that you discussed. So you do not have to adopt those. You would want to adopt a through h as you moved and seconded yesterday. That would be the the vote you would be taking and that would be essentially uh adopting and approving the package of amendments that you have discussed and voted on yesterday and today. Do we know what attachment a is? I'm happy to have us just vote, colleagues, but I'd like to make sure that you all know what we're voting on first. Yes. Attachment a uh is was associated with the the first item that you opened yesterday, which was conduct a proposed use hearing. And attachment a is just this the the script that uh usually is associated with the budget to help the council and the public follow along. The the amendments that you have been adopting yesterday and today have been to to b through h. So what we need to do is adopt attachments b through h right now. That would be sufficient. Yes. Okay. Madam president, I I made that motion yesterday. May I have the floor to amend that motion? Please go right ahead. Withdraw the the motion and yield to councelor coyama Lane. Thank you. I motion to move quayama Lane 3. It will take 90 seconds to clarify. It is 216,000. That is not new a new general fund ask. It's the realignment ongoing recreational cannabis tax revenue. We all want to vote and you're not letting us do it. And you just I move to call the question. Counselor. We were in discussion. You asked to withdraw your motion. I still have the floor. I'm not sure that we can recognize it that you can turn that over to another counselor who I have not recognized. I did that on may 21st. We have precedent on it. We sure do. And I was told after the fact that we did it wrong. Can councelor canal move to I think uh I think this situation uh is one that would call for a point of order and then the president could make a ruling on that point of order and then if three counselors disagree with the president's ruling it could be appealed by a vote of the council. So if there's a point of order on whether the the motion is is in order um somebody can raise that point of order. You can make a ruling and decide whether or not that motion is in order or not. And if uh three counselors disagree with your ruling, then um it can be subject to a vote by the council. Okay, point of order. I think we should just move this ahead because it's going to take 90 seconds to pass it because it's literally just a technical adjustment for vision zero that needed to happen earlier and was rushed through. Let's just get it done. I believe that's a different point of order than what we were discussing there. Councelor mario. Point of order. Madam president, I don't think this is the time to recognize a new amendment. I would like a ruling from you on that. I would agree that we are in the process of adopting the attachments to our budget and we need to move forward with that process. While the initial motion was withdrawn, I thought so that we could amend it to vote on attachments b through h. I don't believe that the second was withdrawn and I believe we were in the point on the agenda where we were adopting the attachments, not the point on the agenda where we were voting on amendments. Point of information. Uh, if a motion's withdrawn, then wouldn't the seconder still be able to to keep it going? Perhaps, but I still would suggest that we were at the point of the agenda where we were voting on attachments and not the point of the agenda where we were voting on amendments. Sure. I'm just clarifying. Thank you. Um I and I believe could you just clarify who was the seconder on that motion? Point of order is still actually at your level, madam president, for a determination and I think we can just hear that. I think it's probably an inevitable voting at this point. Believe it's an inevitable voting, but I would contend as a ruling who made the amendment and if it was withdrawn aside that we are at the point in the agenda where we are voting on attachments, not amendments. Okay, I have my hand up. So, it just takes three of us to disagree with the president and then we can vote because we're just dragging this out for no reason when it is a perfectly good amendment that will help make our streets safer. Counselor, editorialization aside, three people can overrule that ruling. We vote on whether or not to to overrule me and then we would move to a motion to vote. Then let's get to it. Do do two other members join councelor mario in requesting the appeal? Yep. Yes. Okay. And then the um the question before council now is shall the ruling of the president stand as the ruling of the council. So, a yes vote affirms the president's ruling and a no vote would reject the president's ruling. A tie vote sustains the president's ruling. Is this a vote that requires discussion or do we move straight to the vote? Uh this uh can be this is subject to debate. Councelor canal, are you in the queue for debate? No, madam. Councelor coyama Lane, are you in the queue for debate? I very much did not want to do this. I asked you multiple times. I believe there are times to not be so be rigid and this this was a choice for it to be like this. I would like to just move this through. Let's do that. This was on the table earlier and you made me take it off. So, let's just do this. Colleagues, I put myself in the queue for debate because I want to be clear. Multiple of our colleagues asked me if there were time for additional things. Multiple of our colleagues had other things they wanted on the table. One set of people are trying at the last minute to move something through and nobody else has that opportunity. I try to operate in a way that provides opportunity for each of us. That is why I made this ruling. Councelor mario, this is a huge waste of time. Let's move on to the vote so we can pass it and go home. Councelor Smith. Madam president, I do agree with you. I had four more things that were on there that that will not be heard and I wanted them to be heard and and that's fine with me because I'm, you know, I want to do the work. I want to make sure that everybody's voices were heard ever since, you know, we put our name into the book. But right now, we've gotten to the point that we we've been here too long and we're going to figure out how to do this better next year where we're not, you know, spending 9:00 in the morning till 9:00 at night to finish this thing. So, um, I agree with you. We need to we need to do the attachments and just be done with it cuz I'm done with it. Thank you, counselor. Seeing no one else in the queue, a yes vote is to sustain the president's ruling that we need to move forward. We are at the attachment part of the agenda. A no vote is to overrule the president's ruling and allow the motion on the amendment to come forward. Keelin, can you please call the role? Canel. Because this was already proposed, I will vote no. Ryan, I just want to thank council president for her poise, her persistence. It's been quite elegant all day long and into the evening. Um, I sus I vote I no mario, this was already proposed. This isn't new. No. No. Vic, I'm confused about what's new and what's not, but it's a coin flip, but I'm voting no. Voting I. Clark. No. Green. Hi. Zimmerman. So this is twice where gamesmanship has happened the last time. And as miss Loretta said, believe them when they show you who they are. There are so many amendments across this entire dis who were put down did not get heard out of a general courtesy. This is discourteous. I would encourage everybody to agree with the council president and this I vote I what I found discourteous was council president askingama Lane to take her amendment down. We were ready to vote. I don't even know why that happened. I'm frustrated by that. We could we were ready to vote. So I feel annoyed that councelor coyama was pressured to take her amendment down and so I'm voting no. Deny no. Smith I. Purlein I. The motion fails to carry with five yes votes and seven no votes. Okay. No voted no. Councelor Clark voted no. It was 5 to 7. Oh, mr. Taylor, do we return to the motion that I that was placed on the table, which is the motion on the amendment, or do we return to a blank slate? Um it's a it's a up to you uh as the as the chair to um recognize the next uh action of the council. What would you like to do? I believe that in that case we don't have anything on the table. We have a blank slate and I would entertain a motion. A motion to approve all of the attachments to the original ordinance. A point of order. The entire point of us rejecting that ruling is that we wanted to vote. How does that mean that she just gets a blank slate? That should mean that we get to vote. That was the whole point of that order. I also saw samir's hand up on the floor. You did not have the floor counselor. That was the whole point. It was not to be a blank slate. Was to reject that ruling and do what we wanted. So I believe that that puts us at a blank slate since we had not entered council president I I may have I may have aired here. So on the question of whether to sustain the ruling of the chair that failed correct correct sustaining the ruling failed. Sustaining the ruling failed. Correct. And so therefore um the the procedure by which councelor canal yielded the floor. Um so we are at the point without a motion on the floor but with the yielding to councelor cayama Lane and councelor cayama Lane has the floor with no motion on the floor. I motion. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And to be clear, counselor, what I was saying is we should start with no motion on the floor, which was I believe where we had ended. Councelor coy, I motion to bring forward cooama 3 and I move to call the question. Second. Counselors, we have a motion and a second and an additional motion to call the question. Councelor, would you like to retain that second motion to call the question or given that there is nobody in the queue, would you prefer to withdraw that? I withdraw that. Counselors, we have a motion on tkl3 and a second on the table. Nobody is in the queue for discussion. Keyn, could you please call the role? I Ryan. No. Emily, a reminder, I've worked with dca's bureau directors and the vision zero lead to talk about this transition plan and make sure that this work continues and is enhanced by this move. I maria this is a really important step for vision zero and for all of our districts. Thank you councelor cleomolene for working on it. I ecstatically vote I. Novvic I. Clark I thank you councelor konam for fighting for what my my constituents care the most about I Zimmerman no I Smith I I'm a big supporter of vision zero and I'm honestly not sure how moving this up to the dca level makes the program better. I vote no. Motion carries with nine yes votes and three no votes. Director lavine, do we have a balanced budget? Yes. Okay, colleagues, we no longer have the attachments open that we need open. And I would entertain a motion to open attachments b through h. So moved. Second. I'm going to take the first two voices which were duny and mario and you two can choose who wants the motion and the second. It's all you. Okay. Motion by duny, seconded by morio. Counselors, is there any discussion? Keelin, could you please call the role? Can I? Just just clarifying that this is a vote on the attachments, but the ultimate vote on the budget is next week. Correct. This this vote approves all of the attachments that have been amended. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure everybody was on the same page. I vote I Ryan I mario I novik I Clark I Green Zimmerman. I aalos. Hi dunfy. Hi Smith. Hi riny. I motion carries with 12 yes votes. Colleagues, colleagues, today is a first reading of our budget. We will second read the budget and pass it on June 18th. I would remind you that if there are any further amendments to the budget on June 18th, it will require a 9 vote majority and an emergency clause added to it. Uh with that I will move the budget to second reading and close today's council meeting. [music] hey, [music]