The record · Transcript
Council session — 2026-05-12
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (25,569 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.
Councilor. Clark, can you hear us? Online. Yes. Great.
Thank you.
You're not a real councilor. Good morning. I'm calling to order this work session of the Portland city council. It is Tuesday, may 12th. Good morning everybody.
Good morning.
Deeply unnecessary gavel. We're here this morning to talk about Portland solutions. I'm going to just immediately turn it over to sky brockman. Take it away sky.
Thank you council president and councilors. We'll just get that presentation up and running for you. I'm sky knapp, the director of Portland solutions. Today I'll be providing an overview of the proposed budget for our program. Team leads are also in the audience and will be available for questions. And I've got brandi westerman here, director of our emergency humanitarian operations and our shelter services. Portland solutions. Next slide please. Thank you. Portland solutions total proposed budget is $65.6 million. That budget would include funding for 43 staff members. Those staff carry out the work of five programs that together tackle some of portland's most complex and sensitive issues. We provide shelter and outreach to our homeless neighbors with high acuity needs. Individuals who many times have faced barriers from other services and shelters. We coordinate cleanup and removal of the highest risk camps in the city and are the go to program responding to chronic livability issues. We engage with community daily, bringing people together to find creative solutions that improve safety and access. Simply put, Portland solutions meets the needs on our streets. We are often the final safety net that catches people who have fallen through the cracks of other systems, and we are the team often tasked with directly addressing the impacts those system failures have on our public spaces, communities and environment. Next slide please. Portland solutions work is carried out by five programs, in addition to a small Portland solutions operations team, we have shelter services, the street services coordination center, or scc, which is the city's outreach team, the impact reduction program, and the public environment management office, or pmo. We also have the enhanced service district. We will talk more about each program and what they do and walk through their budgets in the coming slides. Portland solutions started in 2024, largely to address the humanitarian emergency of homelessness, and as such, has mostly crafted a piecemeal budget every year, with much of our programing relying on one time funding. Outside resources this year have largely failed to materialize. As a result, Portland solutions has a proposed budget that reflects about one fifth reduction from current service level. However, we are committed to doing as much as we can to support those most in need using whatever resources are available in the coming year, and will continue to keep public spaces across the city clean and vibrant. A few notes as you look over the financial overview for our program, Portland solutions hasn't hadn't been established as a city office in fiscal year 2324. So in these graphs, the total you see for that year represents the combined total for the separate budgets of irp, pmo, sscc shelter services programs that were at the time housed separately in the facilities fund, public safety and special appropriations. In the graphs on the right general fund dollars are in dark purple. The lighter purple sections of the graph, labeled here as grants, actually represent a multitude of funding sources, including federal, state, metro, and county funds for shelter, state ODOT funding for irp, and a small amount of grant funding for pmo. Before looking at the budget, we have an overview of Portland solutions staffing. These 43 staff members have experience in social work, clinical behavioral health care, affordable housing coordination, shelter management, peer support, humanitarian aid, and more. Some of our staff also have lived experience with homelessness and substance use disorder recovery. Our staff perform a wide variety of work, from community engagement to project management and shelter operations and maintenance. The only proposed changes in staffing for the coming year are one staff member realigned to the central communications team as part of the citywide comms realignment, and one staff vacancy that will not be filled under the proposed budget. Overall, the proposed budget for Portland solutions is $65.6 million. Back one slide, please. Thank you. $65.6 million, a 22.3%, or $18.8 million reduction from current service level. Portland solutions has reduced general fund reliance by 6.4 million through core service reductions and a $4 million swap out of general fund one time to ARPA interest funds. There is also a relatively small realignment of $200,000, tied to the core service realignment of one staff member. The steep decline in other funds is largely due to the end of funding from outside sources for shelter. The proposed budget also includes an added $500,000 in funding for irp, pcf aligned work. I'll note there is an additional 5.4 million in realigned pcf funding proposed for pmo, but because that funding was originally embedded in the current service level budget, it's not called out as additional funding in this chart. Instead, it's included in the $36.5 million over other funds figure listed in the top csl budget row. We'll go over those pcf allocations in detail in a coming slide. We'll start our budget deep dives with a look at Portland solutions operations, which includes Portland solutions leadership, one analyst assigned to special projects and the enhanced service district coordinator. Beyond personnel, the operations budget also includes a small amount of funding for materials and services. The Portland solutions operations proposed budget is 37.4% lower than the current service level, a $650,000 difference. This shortfall will be accounted for with staffing changes. There's one vacant position that's not going to be filled, and two other positions that previously were organized under Portland solutions operations that will be moving to pmo as project duties have evolved. Portland solutions ops also includes the city coordinator for the enhanced service districts, or esds. About half of that position is paid for through esd funding revenue. Portland solutions funds the rest finally not affecting the Portland solutions budget, but of note are proposals for the new parkrose esd in district one and st. Johns esd in district two will be presented to council this summer. If approved, the esd fees collected in those districts will fund services like sidewalk cleaning, district ambassadors and business attraction and retention efforts. We're excited for this opportunity to work with two new esd neighborhoods on community led programing and services in the coming fiscal year. Moving on to shelter services, which is the Portland solutions program facing the largest budget reduction in the coming year, with a proposed $16.3 million reduction from current service level. As of today, this team is currently managing a portfolio of 8247 shelters, including seven alternative shelters with pod style units, plus 1247 congregate shelter, seven overnight emergency shelters and two day centers. The 247 shelters offer wraparound services and individualized case management services. The overnight emergency shelters offer connection to resources and services, and our day center spaces provide on site resources and service connection with partner organizations. The shelter services proposed budget is 29.5%, or 16.3 million, lower than current service level budget. This reduction is a result of past reliance on one time funding. We are just simply not going to receive the level of same level of federal, state, metro and county funding next year. However, we have secured about 8.6 million in funding from external resources that will help decrease reliance on general fund dollars, including 4 million in ARPA interest funds, 2.8 million in state funds from the governor through Oregon housing community services, and 1.8 million in opioid funds. Also of note, 30.3 million of the proposed shelter budget is from funding previously directed to Multnomah county as part of the city, county and homelessness. In the past, this money was sent to the county and they swapped back other resources for the coming year. The proposed budget keeps that funding, with Portland solutions for direct use at city shelters and day centers. There are two additional pieces of context one, our current sheltering scenario for next year, which you'll see on the next slide, anticipates additional funds from underspent encumbrance carryover designated for specific purposes and SHS metro allocation and the governor's allocation for the mayor's shelter program. Those are unspent funds from this year that are encumbered in contracts. Combined, we expect about a 5.5 million underspend amount added to the shelter budget in the fall. It's not in the budget numbers we've shared today, but again, we've built the sheltering plan. You're about to see with an expectation of this funding. Lastly, the current shelter plan was built on the understanding that Multnomah county will be relying on the city of Portland overnight shelter locations to serve as severe weather sites. As such, seasonal and flex capacity will be an important component of our shelter system next year. Based on this proposed budget, we have engaged in some early strategizing to maximize allocated resources. As you know, reductions in consolidations are going to be necessary. I'm really proud of the deep thought and work that brandi westerman and her team have done on this. This proposed scenario is driven by a complex set of considerations and priorities, and focuses on building a portfolio that ensures a safe bed for anyone who needs one. With intensive case management and transition opportunities, streamlining and reducing overall costs toward a more sustainable model that also maintains flexibility to adjust with need and demand, particularly during severe weather and other emergencies. Preserving as many alternative shelter units as possible. Prioritizing those with better accessibility. The biggest reductions we anticipate, are a significant decrease in the number of overnight emergency beds. All 70 rv parking spaces, which accommodated up to 91 individuals, will be phased out to accommodate pod shelter unit consolidation. Next slide please. We have provided you counselors with a. One sheet that I apologize is quite large, but we wanted you to be able to see the details that has full details about the bed and facility impacts we're going over, but here are some highlights for closures. We're working with the property owner at northwest northrop to determine a plan for closure. More to come on that centennial overnight shelter closed April 30th. However, this space could be used for flex capacity beds. Weidler village alternative shelter will be closing at the end of may. This is our smallest alternative shelter on a lot that doesn't provide opportunity for expansion. Many of the 38 sleeping units are among the oldest in use and may need to be replaced. Weidler village is also managed by sunstone way, an organization that is closing, so the need to find a new provider was a factor in the decision to close this site. Any usable pods here will relocate to north Portland road. We expect up to 15 roadway alternative shelter will also be closing with a timeline to be determined. All usable pods will be moved to north Portland road city team grant overnight shelter will be closing. The timeline is again to be determined for changes. The north Portland road shelter will transition all rv spaces into room for more pods, consolidating pods from roadway and weidler onto the site. Southeast grand recovery overnight will have 100 beds next year, down from 140, but could flex up to 300 if demand increases or during severe weather. The river district navigation center was county operated and slated for closure, but this facility sits on prosper Portland land, and our city team has been providing maintenance at this facility. So in collaboration with the county, we plan on taking this over fully and running it as an overnight shelter, making use of this temporary facility in the coming fiscal year for seasonal and flex capacity. We talked already about southeast grand recovery that can flex up to a maximum capacity of 300 individuals, and the centennial overnight shelter that is closed but is still on hand for seasonal and flex capacity. Church of the nazarene overnight shelter will move to seasonal operations, closing at some point during the summer, but reopening in the winter. The safe's women identifying shelter downtown has added capacity for flex beds. The exact number is still being determined with the provider. The immigration, the impact reduction program fields all incoming community reports about unsanctioned camps in Portland. On average, the program receives about 2000 reports every week. In response to reports, irp clean start crews assess any health and safety risks present at each camp. Then, based on assessment information, irp removes the camps with the highest degree of risk present. Irp also prevents street waste by funding a day storage site and a laundry facility serving people experiencing homelessness. Irp also funds a micro trash collection program and devotes about $20,000 in funding to hazelnut grove independent village, paying to lease fencing and portable toilets for that site. Combined, all irp waste and materials collection efforts remove millions of pounds of materials from portland's public spaces annually. This fiscal year, irp has removed almost 700,000 pounds of materials every month, which breaks down to about 2,300 pounds every single day. Finally, irp employs over 100 contracted workers, creating important low barrier jobs in partnership with homeless to work nonprofits and second chance employers. The vast majority of irp contracted staff have their own lived experience with homelessness, substance use disorder, the criminal justice system, and poverty. These jobs help people maintain stability, gain economic independence and stay housed. The impact reduction program proposed budget is $300,000, or 2.4% lower than current service level budget. Non-general ongoing funding sources include 8.4 million in interagency revenue and 1.2 million in solid waste management fund dollars. This 1.2 million is often labeled as general fund and was labeled as such in earlier proposed budget budget documents you have reviewed. Irp also has $500,000 of proposed pcf funding for current irp work that's aligned with pcf strategic goals. It would utilize pcf dollars already allocated to the city bureaus for climate investment plan strategic program work. We'll talk about in depth about pcf funding in an upcoming slide. The overall 2.4% reduction from current service level for irp will be absorbed entirely by camp removal operations. We expect to cut two removal crews next year, resulting in an estimated 1000 fewer camp removals. Overall, a 13% reduction. Next slide please. Thank you. Pmo is the city's coordinated public realm livability team, built to solve cross bureau challenges that slow down safety access and storefront support improvements. Pmo coordinates partners by aligning bureaus, neighbors, community groups, and storefronts to resolve issues faster and with clear accountability. The work focuses on intaking issues from the community, analyzing them, and working with bureaus on visible on the ground improvements using crime prevention through environmental design or septet principles. Charter reform called for fewer silos and clearer accountability. Pmo is demonstrating that model. Our programs show measurable results to build trust in the community by improving connection, movement, safety and freedom from exclusion. For portlanders, including over 4000 street trees illuminated for pedestrian level safety lighting with 16% of lights along high crash corridors. 347 annual problem solver meetings with neighbors, businesses and community to coordinate listening, analysis and action. 44 miles of corridor cleaning removing on average 25 tons of trash every quarter. Dozens of public space activations and installations like skate lots and vacant areas, artwork, displays and school support designed to improve public spaces and sense of place. Finally, pmo reduces long term maintenance and operational costs to the city by preventing repeat issues, improving public asset conditions, and streamlining coordination across bureaus. Pmos proposed budget is 2.5% or $200,000 lower than current service level budget, ongoing general fund and ongoing general funding is proposed at 2.4 million. And unlike this current fiscal year's budget that included one time general fund dollars, the remainder of pmo proposed budget will come from pcf funding. Similar to irp, pmos. Pcf dollars would support current work programs that align with council approved strategic goals. Again, we will look at this in detail momentarily. Finally, pmo has helped fund work in east Portland in partnership with TriMet and Multnomah county. The gateway management district established a three year partnership funding basic sidewalk cleaning services in district one near the gateway transit center and 122nd avenue, menlo park and ride for the final two years of the contract, which will start July 1st. Pmo will now administer this program and TriMet in the county. Funds will be directed to pmo to manage and operationalize this work. Every staff member works in frontline engagement, providing outreach to people experiencing homelessness. The team working this year in partnership with a roving contracted outreach team, has also provided focused engagement in city shelter zones, helping people navigate from overnight shelter to their next step for the day. The manager also helps coordinate camp response and outreach efforts that cross bureau and jurisdictional lines, maintaining contacts with police and fire, Portland street response, Portland permitting and development, and with the department of state lands and local railroad representatives. Sscc brings together multiple teams when complex problems arise and solves for issues occurring on private, state or railroad owned property. Lastly, sscc staff coordinate the reunification program, helping people in need of housing, reunite with loved ones and other cities, making travel arrangements, and following up with participants after they've made it to their destination. Since reunifications began in 2025, we've helped over 400 people reunite with loved ones. The proposed budget is 34.4%, or 1.4 million lower than current service level. All 11 city outreach staff positions will be maintained and continuing important core outreach services for the city. Cuts will be made to contracted outreach. We have been working with an urban alchemy outreach team, primarily to support overnight shelter sites around opening 7 p.m. To 10 p.m. And closing 6 a.m. To 8 a.m. We may continue to contract a small amount of outreach work next year through shelter services, but these services will see significant reductions. As promised. We'll now take a detailed look at the pcf funding for Portland solutions. The mayor's proposed budget moves previously unused Portland clean energy benefits funds dollars to pmo and irp to support work that aligns with council approved strategic pcf goals and the climate investment plan. These funds were initially allocated to public works as part of a larger $1.6 billion, five year allocation to various city wide climate action programs. Pcf administrators and public works leaders reviewed opportunities to break down silos and create synergy in climate related activities, approving the transfer of 5.9 million to Portland solutions for the coming year, the fund will be spent on existing programs already aligned with pcf goals and the climate investment plan. First, pmo will be reappropriated approximately 5.4 million from three existing strategic programs from strategic program, 22 bts Green stormwater infrastructure and watershed health. Pmo would receive one time funds to support basic sidewalk public space cleaning to reduce micro trash biohazards and protect waterways and bioswales important features that filter out pollutants and provide carbon sequestration and urban cooling. From strategic program 31 community programing, education and encouragement. Pmo would receive one time funds originally allocated to PBOT to install pedestrian focused activations that make walking routes more welcoming, particularly along safe routes to school and business district corridors. This includes micro murals, public art, wayfinding elements and route identity treatments from strategic program 32 street lighting. Pmo would receive one time funds from a PBOT allocation to install pedestrian level safety lighting along sidewalks, particularly in high crash corridors. Second, the mayor's proposed would realign $500,000 to irp for clean start waste removal and camp assessment work, micro trash collection, as well as a laundry facility serving Portland portlanders experiencing homelessness. Known as the wash house, these projects directly align with previously mentioned pcf strategic program 22 protecting and removing waste in watersheds. All of this programing will preserve partnerships with workforce development organizations like ground score and clean start, providing crucial, low barrier jobs for people who are and have recently experienced homelessness, providing jobs that lead to economic independence and stable housing is a powerful way to move more of our houseless neighbors indoors, protected from the dangerous impacts of our climate crisis. Additionally, reallocating PCEF funds to Portland solutions programs already doing pcf aligned work is an extremely efficient use of taxpayer dollars without pcf funds. In the coming year, these programs would face dramatic reductions, or at least in the case of the laundry facility, would need to cease service altogether. These are programs with established contractors doing the work, where investments in capital and equipment have been made. Losing or cutting back these programs would present a loss of capital, investment, partner relationships and institutional knowledge. Finally, a look at what we are preserving. Next year, Portland solutions will work diligently to maximize resources to continue to provide a bed every night for every person who wants one. We're already strategizing to maintain as much service as possible across the shelter portfolio. We're also going to continue investing in and strengthening the program model to support recovery and movement to housing. We will maintain a core group of 11 city outreach street outreach employees to connect people to services, refer people to shelter and engage with individuals around overnight shelters. Pmo will continue hosting biweekly problem solver meetings across 14 districts. These meetings provide a trusted, solutions focused forum where community members can be heard. Surface chronic livability issues. Bless you. Explore creative fixes with city partners, connect to resources, and track results. Both our impact reduction program and public environment management office will continue to work on waste and material removal programs to keep our public spaces healthy and keep pollution out of our streets and waterways. Overall, Portland solutions will continue to provide services to our most vulnerable neighbors. People experiencing homelessness in Portland will continue to engage with community to find creative solutions to complex problems, and will support neighborhoods and business corridors facing persistent challenges. Thank you for your time and attention. We can now answer any questions that you have.
Thank you very much, scott. Colleagues, we have got a good amount of time to to discuss. I'm still going to hope to try and get everybody to have as much time as possible. So please try to limit your comments to five minutes if you can. We're going to start with councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo: Thank you, councilor Dunphy. I had a few questions about the irp, pcf funding, particularly the part regarding the climate action plan, because I don't maybe I missed it, but I'm not sure I understood it. What is in the pcf climate action? What in the pcf climate action plan is being cut to accommodate for the one 500 k increase for irp?
Yes, councilor. Thank you. So that $500,000 comes from the bureau of environmental services allocation. That would be $500,000 for the wash house. That ground score runs and for clean start services from central city concern. I could get into more detail on specifically what was going to use it for, but I might defer to them in their program.
Yeah, I think more specifics on that part, because I think we're talking about two different pots of money, and the climate action plan part was not clear to me, and I think many of my colleagues should see that as well. If we can get those details later.
Absolutely.
The other question I had was, why was the funding realigned from ongoing funding to one time pcf funding? Is your intention to eliminate these programs next year?
My understanding, and again, I would defer to the pcf program coordinators, but my understanding is that it would come from kind of the fifth year of the five year allocation for this one time programing.
Okay.
I think a lot of us are going to have questions about the urban alchemy contract. So I, you know, it's one of the largest chunks of funding that we give out. And the news about how our unhoused neighbors are being treated within those shelters is pretty appalling and frightening. What are your plans for accountability for that organization? Why should we trust that we should give them funding for another year?
Yeah. Thanks, councilor. I appreciate you bringing that up. I think you all have received a couple of memos now from me with just some different information that brandy and her team have put together in coordination with urban alchemy. So I also think there's a lot of information in both of those, but just largely, I want folks to know that we take every allegation extremely seriously. So every allegation that comes across our desk, or even urban alchemy or the ombudsman gets investigated and looked into, we take every single one at their word and then do that full investigation, and we do it rapidly. So I'm really proud of the turnaround time that we've been able to engage in with starting that investigation just within one day of receiving that allegation or report, and then being able to quickly make a determination on whether a staff person should be fired or what should happen or a change in programing. I'll let brandy westerman talk a little bit about this as well, but I just I'm really proud of how much work this ten person team does to oversee a lot of contracts and providers and thousands of people who are engaged in these services at these sites. These are folks that are really highly acute, highly vulnerable, and we really make every effort to improve those programs that we have every single step of the way. So we constantly are changing how we do things, adding new services, adding new ways to.
I appreciate that.
I think we're going long on time and, you know, urban alchemy before the city, the last administration contracted with them. They were known to have these exact same issues in san francisco. So I appreciate the intention, but the impact is clearly not there. And these are issues that we should have foreseen about how our unhoused neighbors were going to be treated when the city engaged in these contracts. The last thing I'll say, because I know we're short on time and we have a lot of people that have a lot of things to say is that last year, when I brought Morillo one to cut two of the sweep teams, I was publicly chided by the mayor. He used the full force of his office, sent out an email sending misinformation about our amendment. And now we are seeing in this proposal that two teams are being cut because it turns out that they have budgeted beyond their projections. And all I asked for in the amendment last year was that we be aligned in our ability to comply with the tozer settlement, while also not going beyond our means for each of these different spaces and bureaus. So I'm going to start a running list of I told you so's later, and I'll just be posting those regularly from now on, I think. But you know, every. It's not lost on me that that is how we are addressing that this year. And I hope that my colleagues will be prudent about how we allocate our resources moving forward. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Thanks, director burke, I appreciate the presentation. I want to start just with some compliments, frankly, in large part, this city is brighter, cleaner and safer because of the work in Portland solutions. And specifically, I want to appreciate just how much, not just the district I represent, but I think all districts lean on pmo with respect to how to get things done that seem to be stuck in bureaucratic messes. And so that work has just been enormous. A couple of areas that I am very want to be very complimentary to. You know, last year, councilor Clark and I took a shot, frankly, working with pmo on a 4 or 5 cleaning corridor with the program called clean start. And that has been now it looks like it's been successful enough that the mayor and you all have proposed it as an ongoing program. And, you know, we've done I think all of us in the district have done right along with that team and seen seen employees who sometimes just months ago, but many years ago were in every level of our system, so to speak. And I say that in not the places you want to be, right? Homeless, addicted, institutionalized, in jail, you name it are now working, helping the employee, the community are known by name, by the neighbors, the businesses that they go by every single day. And hearing the pride that that that group has just been really good. And so I just want to compliment you and I say that with when we put together return to work programs, which is essentially what clean start is and others and we hire from that pool, you called it, I think a, you know, a low barrier work, but that is exactly it comes with some challenges. It comes with a hell of a lot more challenges than any hr department that the city of Portland could deal with, but it comes with a heck of a lot of challenges when it comes to there. This is a part of the path. And so it is very valuable to me. And I just want to really lift that up because in a year of a lot of cuts, budgets, there's not a lot to be happy about and in this moment, but that the brighter, cleaner, safer city is largely because of the work out of that. So thank you for including it. A couple of areas in the shelter document that I've looked at. I'm a big believer in the pod villages more so than I am the overnight. But I also accept that the mayor's had to really dive into the overnight perspective. So closing reid way really jumps off the page to me here. And I want to understand, are all of those moving to the north Portland pod village to increase that significantly? They are. Okay. So it's not so much a loss in capacity. It's just a location change.
Yes, councilor. All usable pods. So if a few pods are not going to be usable, we won't transfer those.
Okay. And having come from the beginning worlds of the test sites, that is a lot of pods at one location. Can you talk a little bit about what the neighborhood enhancements, enforcements cleanups that will exist around that to help it be successful? Because I think we've learned if you put a task site number of pods in what was designed to be an sv, it comes with challenges. And I know this is a little bit further from some residential properties, but there are still some residents that are quite close. So what does that look like? Because 300 some odd pods or excuse me, getting close to over well over 200, getting close to 300 pods is a lot.
Yeah. Councilor. Thank you. And I might ask randy westerman to jump in as well, but I would say just quickly, there's going to be a shelter engagement zone that we already kind of have in place. We've already we meet with those neighbors regularly that are in the surrounding area. Any kind of businesses or residents that want to engage with us. And we still have a prioritized kind of assessment process for camp removals. And then also just trash pickup outreach efforts that engage in that area as well.
The last line that I want to talk a little bit about there, there is it looks like the river district, which is run by the county and the county is going to pull away from that. And you mentioned we own the prosper owns the land, and we're going to open up an overnight. It looks like about 90 beds. So can you talk to me about the city team grand site? It's about a million for 80 beds. Right on grand. Here's what I'm dealing with. And I'm. And I'm feeling like the need to to propose an amendment here because I don't know how the river district is going to be any more successful than northrop was or others, given the residential proximity there. And almost like for like in terms of cost and beds per and city team grand is something that's a little bit got some a little bit more distance between it and some of the, the other areas, why not keep city team grand open instead of trying to start something that the county is closing at river district navigation center, because that one's really giving me some concern when I see that here.
Yeah. Councilor. Thank you. So yes, they are like for like in a lot of the operational ways. So I think you're right on the money for that. The city team grand site is very close to our grand recovery shelter that tpi runs right down the road there. So that was part of the calculus. There is just location in terms of not losing all capacity in that kind of west side area.
Okay. Do you know what is the reason the county is pulling away from the river navigation center.
And councilor You're at six minutes.
I believe. Mostly cost, frankly.
Okay. All right, I appreciate that. I'm going to I'm going to marinate on that as an option. If if city team grand was to receive funding, who would is there a current provider for that or would you have to RFP how would that process look like?
Can I answer that? Yeah. So city team is currently receiving funding directly from the city. So the organization city team owns and operates that facility. So they are funded through a grant process rather than a contracted process.
Would this change that to a contracted process or who was going to run the river city river, river district navigation.
Right. So currently transition projects operates that facility for the county. We have a contract as well with transition projects for overnight shelter operations. So we would look to retain that same. Operator.
I'm going to close with council president. If I could just close with, I would be interested in your office's help in drafting an amendment to do a little switcheroo there. I don't know that I'll do it, but I want to make sure that if we do drop it, it is rooted in facts and figures from your office's team so that it doesn't have third order effects or unintended effects. That will help me make some decisions on that. But thanks for the presentation. Thank you for the grace there, mr. President.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Councilor Kanal thank you, council president. Thanks, everybody for being here. I'm going to try to go fast, and I'd ask for some assistance in keeping the responses short. First, I want to appreciate that most of the shelter alternative shelter beds are preserved. Brandi, I think you and your team listened on that and I really appreciate it. I remain disappointed at the closure and the obfuscation of the closure of bipoc village, which is labeled as wydler village. I'll note that safe's remains, which is good, but undermines the argument we heard last time that we can't talk about equity. It means we can't talk about race. Let's let's be clear about that distinction. I am also disappointed that more rv pods are closing, though I think it's good that that pods are being added in because of the closure of sunderland last year. I think moving an rv into a safe park area. We saw in the tours that I took of the north Portland site that it was one of the ways that would get people into the pod is that they could park the rv right next to it and see the the benefit of that potential next step, just quick yes or no. It looks like there are no city funded rv options anymore. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Okay. In page 117 of the budget, it talks about three core services of pmo. We asked the city budget office how much money goes to each, and they couldn't answer that and told me I should ask you here. One is the problem solver. Network. One is called sidewalk cleaning, pedestrian level tree lighting and activations, which I think includes graffiti. And the third is storefront support program policy and administration. How much money goes to each of those and where is the money proposed to go?
I would have to defer to my budget person if sheila or victor is here, but I just quickly I think there's 2.4 million that's ongoing general fund. I think you can think of that as largely staff. I think the easiest way to break it down is that way. And then 5.4 million from psf would be a lot of those activations and sidewalk cleaning and activities.
Okay. I am interested in understanding the distinction between the things that approach, but don't quite get to septet, which is what safe blocks does and the things that are more graffiti side. I'm also trying to understand this from the perspective of why there's storefront support money here at all, given that the clear vision was that and there's $1 million going to prosper for it. So I'm trying to understand that. But after I assume there will be some conversation about the psf dollars, I'm trying to understand what will remain with the with the remaining funds, if that should happen. Is the river district navigation center. Is it just a naming thing that is similar to the tif district, or was it tied to the tif district in.
Any way? I don't believe it was tied to the tif district, but I could be wrong.
Okay.
The contracted staff, this is slide 14 that you referred to as important low barrier jobs, which help people maintain stability or maintain stability. Are these the people who do the sweeps? Are these the who who does the sweeping?
So there's a few different contracts not to get too in the weeds, but central city concern, rapid response and city of roses are kind of our main contracts. So some of those folks are doing removals, and some of those folks are doing assessments and trash pickup stuff like that.
And the city of roses primarily trash side. So I'm trying to understand.
They do some removals as well.
Okay. That's interesting. I think I'd love to dig into that two more. And I think one of the challenges here is that and maybe there's an operational purpose for this, but from a budget perspective and an oversight perspective, it is really challenging when money is conflated and combined together into pools. This relates to what councilor Morillo was bringing up. It's really hard for us to understand how much money is going to helping and how much is going to harming, and I'm really trying to separate that out here to, to try and do it. When I hear street cleaning, I don't know what that means. Whether you're referring to taking trash away or forcibly removing people from tents to the margins of our society. And I don't understand that until that money is split up in a way that makes more sense. And ideally, with a budget that tripled in length this year, we wouldn't have to be asking this when our three hours and the only time we have when we have five minutes per round. It's really nothing against that. I understand why we're doing it, but it's frustrating to not be able to just read that.
I can have somebody pull it and bring it up later today.
Thank you. Slide 15. I have two left. Slide 15. It says you mentioned that there's money that was previously written as solid solid waste management fund or sorry, previously written as general fund and is now solid waste management fund. Is that a change from before we saw that there's money in that account still. Is that money still there or is now 1.2 going? Did 1.2 million get freed up of general fund? And if so, where's it going now?
Yeah. Nope. Sorry. It's just it's a confusing way of labeling that I just wanted to call out. So it's still always been solid waste management funds. It wasn't a swap out of any kind, but it just in certain budget documents it looks like general fund. It kind of falls within that bucket of money. So I just wanted to call it out to let you know that if you see in previous documents, general fund 1.2 of that for irp is actually solid waste management funds.
So all the fund balances remain accurate in the budget. Okay. Thanks. That's helpful. Slide 11. It says $5.5 million in anticipated underspend in contracted encumbrances expected last year in the fall. Tore we talked about not building budgets around expectations of encumbrance carryover. But you also mentioned that the sheltering plan we're about to see relies on that 5.5 million. I'm trying to understand how that's justifiable when we haven't made a decision to do that, and we wouldn't be making that decision until fall it and how we're going to avoid in November, being told that we're going to have to kick people out into the streets and close shelters if you don't approve this thing that we've not yet discussed.
Yes, councilor, I'll just say quickly. So we've been on one time funding for a lot of these pots, and some of it just is underspent. I think that's a good use of resources to not force the expenditure. But those specific sources of funds are really for the mayor's shelter plan for metro and the governor. So I just wanted to call that out for you to make sure that we were super transparent about what we anticipate at the end of this fiscal year.
And is all 5.5 million of that money grant funding from last year, or is it from general.
Fund from this year?
So yeah, the one we're currently in.
Yeah. So it's a little confusing about 1.5 of it. 1.2 of it is SHS from metro. And then the rest of the balance is from the governor. But it was a swap out with the county. So in order to not do another amendment to our iga, we kept certain general fund dollars and they kept state money. So it's designated by the governor for that amount. But the color of money is general fund. It's confusing, I apologize.
Okay, I could dig into that. But yeah.
Councilor at seven minutes.
Thanks.
You can do another question if you want.
I it's more it's more of a comment. Just I'll close briefly the slide 20 comment. Thank you for clarifying that further on the pcf money. I think the idea that it's previously unused may be less accurate than it was allocated, but unspent pcf money was allocated to public works unspent. And the first we're hearing about it's underspending is when there's already a designated second use for it in a proposal, which I have a problem with as a general practice. And this has nothing to do with the folks sitting up here. It's more to do with cbo and the mayor's office, I think. But trying to understand, when we see in the same way we're talking about for carryovers, this should be something that has a process and is not. We're hearing about it the first time when we've already built an entire plan around it that's been messaged for several weeks now around the use of, of money that was allocated for a different purpose in a climate investment plan. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Novick.
Thank you, mr. President. Randy, I just wanted to bring to light you and I had an email exchange about overhead for the homeless services contractors, and what steps that you take to make sure that we're not overspending and overhead. And because we've heard some concerns that some of the homeless services contractors where they had like ceo salaries explode in the last few years, etc. And I one specific thing I wanted to address is you said that the target generally is in our contracts is 15% for overhead, but that does vary. So in your answer, if you could explain what some of the variances are and like, are there any examples where it's 30% etc.
Yeah, yeah, I'm happy to do that. So in the contracts that and grants that we have with the service providers, there's a designated indirect cost rate or administration cost, which is in most cases, it's 15%. In the case of urban alchemy, I believe it's 14%. With organizations that have received federal funding, that rate may be slightly different because they had a negotiated indirect cost rate. And then we negotiated based on that. So I believe salvation army is the main case there. There are none that exceed 20%.
Thank you. And also, skylar, softball for you. Could you elaborate on the reunification program? I have to admit that when I heard about that, somehow I had the cynical reaction that sounds like a gimmick, and that I was like wandering the halls and wandering into your office. And hank was telling me about it. Could you how does the reunification program work? And wouldn't people, if they wanted to be reunited with their families, have called them themselves already. And also, what's the sort of cost per reunification?
Yeah. Great question counselor. So yeah, hank is probably the best person. He's unfortunately on mandatory coast guard duty right now. So I will do my very best. But I can also get you more information later. So I mentioned we've reunified over 400 people. So on average, right now our outreach team is reunifying about one person a day is kind of the average that we're seeing, which is frankly, more than I thought there would be. We're seeing those referrals from different partner organizations also three, one, one and people just calling directly to 311 to ask for that service. We also see folks show up at day centers kind of looking for that service as well. I think in most cases, what we're finding is folks who have a lot of shame and don't necessarily have the funds to get home. And so I think when they see there's a program that makes it really easy for them and helps facilitate that process, someone else is going to call kind of that family member or that loved one and facilitate that. I think we're seeing people take advantage of that in a different way.
So you're saying that they're too ashamed to make the call themselves, but they feel better if somebody else is making the call to their family member.
We see that sometimes that emotional piece of not wanting to take that last step, people talking about feeling shame, kind of calling their family wanting help. But if someone's able to kind of lend that hand, it's not the same in every every case is different, but that's a theme that we've seen. I've also been really surprised and kind of horrified, but also really proud of our team for the amount of domestic violence victims and trafficking victims that we've been able to help through this program. I think there's often a need for an immediate action, and we've seen a lot of health and human service programs take a long time to, frankly, get to that last step. And we see our team trying to get folks somewhere in a matter of hours.
And where where are the family members? Is this sort of like a are most of them out of state or most of them out of the region or most of them in Portland?
Yeah. So we've connected folks with 45 different states. So it really runs the gamut. There's some regional, but it's mostly obviously outside of this immediate vicinity, Oregon and Washington. Other parts of the state definitely are some of the highest. But there's folks going all over.
And what is the sort of cost per reunification?
It's a great question that hank would have, but I think, god, I think we're averaging what is it, a few hundred. I can get it. Let's get back to you. Yeah. Let me get it to you by the end.
Of a few hundred. Is that like, like less than $1,000 per.
Yes. It's pretty reasonable.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Green.
Steve Novick: Thank you, council president. I've started my timer. Fortunately, many of my colleagues already asked some questions of mine. My first one was going to be about the incumbent carrier carry over councilor Kanal I think addressed that. Disappointed to see that as part of the strategy, although I appreciate your answer on the color of money, I thought we made it pretty clear that we don't want to see that kind of budgeting practice going forward. It looks like we have more work to do on that. My second question is just I really appreciate the very large print out, by the way. That's that's helpful. I did dig into that, and I want to ask a question about the Multnomah safe rest village. It says that there is plans to convert that into a recovery center. There's no change in the number of beds, but I just want to verify, is urban alchemy going to be the contractor for recovery center.
At this point in time? That's our plan, yes.
Okay. Are you actively evaluating alternatives to urban alchemy at this time?
No.
You should. I appreciate your response to the memo that went out with the two chairs of the relevant committees who have oversight on this. I do note that your response has a an establishment of a standard operating procedure, which is good, but it's dated may of 2026. And so I wonder why that sop was not established much earlier when this contract spun up in the first place, and people were sort of signaling that this could be these could be risks and issues. So we're going to continue to pay close attention to that. But I a very uneasy about urban alchemy being the contractor for recovery center in my neighborhood. I'm going to move on with this. My my third question is going to be. So I appreciate the breakdown on the strategic programs that the piece of money comes from as part of the allocation, I think it was sb 31 that sort of talked about. It was a PBOT allocation. That's sort of a kind of a safe route to schools, sort of pedestrian safety thing. Can you be specific on what you envision pmo to do with this money?
Yeah. So that includes like micro murals and wayfinding, and we have safe school kind of literal signs right now that we've put up. So my, I envision that team would do something very similar. So a lot of public art and wayfinding for those safe routes. We've also done decals on sidewalks previously. So that's something that I think we have found that people really enjoy.
I appreciate that response. I want to register my concern, which is that I think that the purpose of that was to make sure that we are building pedestrian safety improvements, either through infrastructure or striping and daylighting, and what what it sounds like this is this is sort of just space activation stuff. And that to me, I feel like is a bit of a stretch there. And I have some trust issues, frankly, because last year, pmo spent an effort to try to remove pedestrian safety and cycling safety infrastructure in northwest Portland. And so to see that we're taking saf money for those purposes, I'm going to really need to know that you're committed to investing in pedestrian and cycling safety and not taking away those infrastructure pieces. I'm at 3.5 minutes, so I'll keep going here. While we're on. I noticed that the storefronts support stuff is not in the presentation that's been posted. From what I'm hearing, that the funding for that largely comes from this piece. F one time transfer, and it's sort of aligned with the s, p 22 and sb 31 ideas. I want to go back to the February I think it was February 10th. Arts and economy committee meeting. Committee members asked victor and an particularly. Councilor Smith had a great line of questioning that asked, are there budget impacts to the storefront support program? And the response was, well, pmo can largely absorb this. So not really. And so but I'm seeing I'm seeing a new budget ask in here. So what is the budget impact specifically to the storefront supports program in this in this budget?
Good morning, victor sanders. For the record with pmo in Portland solutions, I would say there's not necessarily direct access to the storefront support work. And this piece of ask and that large amount, what the storefront support program did was create a coordinating model for our existing staff. And so you're not necessarily seeing that we're spinning up a new program, a new initiative for storefront support, whether we're building that into the roles and responsibilities of our existing staff that are being paid out of the general fund for the pmo program. So we've started that work already with prosper Portland. You're seeing some of their budget requests to actually spin up and stand up some programs directly for storefront support, whereas for us, we're just building that into our model as part of our ongoing coordinating work.
I appreciate that. I just want to note that the decision package reads allocate $5.8 million of PCEF money for storefront support, economic development initiatives that have. So that's an extra $5.6 million that was not in this budget before.
Yeah, I would not say that that that was written in a way that I think was trying to articulate that what we're doing is supporting storefronts generally with the work, with cleaning sidewalks, with activating spaces. But it is not to say that we're using those funds to stand up a new storefront support program. So I think that was a the way that was written might, you know.
So you're just kind of putting different labels on work that you're already doing.
Yeah, we would say that, you know, this work does have an overall impact on storefront support and economic vitality, but it is not that we're designing and creating a new program.
Okay. Thank you. And then finally going back to the shelter stuff, this is my last question. I did want to I think councilor Zimmerman raised something that I was agreeing with, sort of the nexus of concern, which is the north Portland area. It looks like we're adding a lot more units there. My colleague was worried about the sort of impact of the neighborhood, and you've talked about that in terms of the surrounding areas program. My concerns are largely for the residents inside of that. I think it's 275 units is probably way beyond best practice for an alternative shelter thing. And I think from what I've heard from my constituents who live in these shelters or people who work in this space, is that that's where the issues with urban alchemy break apart is when they have to manage an ever growing number of people on one site. And so I'm I'm alarmed that we're concentrating 275 shelters in one site. I understand why you're doing it. You got to stretch your dollars, but it really need to know. I need to see more than what we got last night on the accountability piece and some commitments on what Portland solutions is going to do to make sure that our guests are not going to suffer because of this concentration. And that's that's my line of questioning. Thank you.
Can I just offer one clarification? If you if you don't mind, the 275 that you're seeing, there is the maximum capacity for individual persons rather than pod shelters. So the pod numbers are actually less than that. So I just want to make sure that that's that's clear.
Thank you. That and I should have been more precise. That's that's the person capacity. That's still a lot of people to be managed by one small team. Okay. So just.
Yes, councilor, I would just say I share your concern. And I think we are still in conversations about the best way to actually do that, whether it's splitting the site into how we would actually program it, or if you have any ideas, please throw them our way. But I think brandy and I are in deep discussions about what that means and the best way to actually manage that site. Yeah.
Thank you very much, councilor Green. I put myself in the queue next. So first I just want to I want to build on some of the comments that have already talked specifically. I want to talk about the pcf dollars component of it. I like pmo and I like the staff. And I think you guys are providing really good services to the businesses and business districts. I also really like how pmo cares about music in the late night economy, but pmo doesn't do what pcf traditionally does. And the mayor was in the news back in March talking about the potential use of pcf dollars for Portland solutions, and how there might be a legal path forward for the to use the fund for this purpose. So last week I had my staff reach out to dca oliveira and the city attorney to ask if there was a current breakdown of the program offers, with an accompanying analysis for how each pot of money could be used for the. For the proposed pmo programs. As of last Friday, neither the attorney nor the dca had such a document dca oliveira, so the work hadn't been finished yet because pcf staff did not have the final program offer on which to do the analysis. What we do have is a program request from Portland solutions from January 20th, and a reply from pcf on January 30th, identifying a narrow slice of solutions requests that staff believed may be fundable under current city code, with comments on how those program offers would be limited by pcf eligibility requirements. That document is where the conversations around strategic strategic priorities. 522, 31 and 32 have come from, I think we mostly mentioned 22 and 31 in this conversation today. Those were the the four strategic priorities identified by staff as potentially legal uses in January 20th funding request. I just want to say that I think it's pretty remarkable that the mayor put this size of an appropriation out of his proposed budget without attaching a clear analysis of the program offer and why it may be funded by such a highly restricted fund. After the housing work that we have done as this body for the last six months, I'm incredibly sensitive to the question of whether a restricted fund can be used for the stuff that we like. So I'd like to ask you about how two of the biggest pots being called out for use by the pmo. Specifically, I want to talk about strategic plan 22, which is money intended to be used for street and Green space cleaning. The text of the strategic plan is pretty narrow, focused on operations and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure, maintenance and operations, specifically swales, planters, storm drains and sewers. Sewers. The most relevant outcomes listed in the cip are enhanced public health and safety through minimized risk of service interruptions and environmental hazards, and maintaining high standards for city owned Green stormwater infrastructure through regular maintenance. Is pmo going to use the $3.9 million only to clean out and maintain stormwater infrastructure in and around the right of way?
So we did an analysis. I'll let victor jump in, but of the work that we do, kind of adjacent to bioswales, actually mapping the greenway infrastructure and then the cleaning and waste removal that we do. So yes, it's a short answer, but I don't know if you want to add anything.
Yeah, I can add a little bit more specifics. Thank you for the question, councilor. So you are right that when we were looking at this project back in October, we had just started our street cleaning program. So we were looking at where can we marry and break down the silos between climate, what constituents are asking for when it comes to clean sidewalks, clean streets, and then what are those items that are causing significant costs to the city? And we are finding, right, that when we're having trash and debris move into the bioswales and into the inlets and the clean outs, that that is increasing costs for the city, right? So there are there opportunities for us to do these basic services and to marry these two things together. And we did find that there was one. So with pmo, our plan of cleaning 44 miles of corridor, sidewalk, or of corridors with sidewalks, there's about 289 bioswales along there along our routes. And we're currently picking up about 12 tons of trash per quarter. As you can imagine that that is is debris and waste that would otherwise be going into the storm system. So that's really what we were trying to do is just look at where is there this clear nexus. And we believe that we found that when we were doing that work with cf and of course, with bes, right. And so this money was allocated 76 million to bureau of environmental services. So is there opportunities for us to to do this work internally. And we believe that there is.
Okay. How do we separate sidewalk cleaning from stormwater cleaning in a dollar for dollar sense?
Yeah, I think that's a good question that I don't know if we've analyzed that yet, right? Of like, how far does a piece of trash flow? How far does it go to a bioswale? How far does it take it once it gets to the storm system? So I don't think we have an answer to that yet. That's part of the work that we're going to be doing with our data collection, with our contractors, is understanding how much trash we're picking up, where it's at and where it would be going otherwise.
Okay, I am at five minutes, so I'm going to just close and I have a question for city attorney and I'll just flag it. I guess for my colleagues, I'm not clear what happens if the council appropriates money from cf. That code says we cannot use for that purpose and what an intervention might look like. I have an open question about this because I hear for sure where there is alignment, but I also hear a lot of areas where there's not alignment, and it seems like a bit of a stretch. And so I have some concerns about this, but I am at my time, so I am going to turn it over to councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
Thank you, council president, and thank you all for being here today. I have a couple of questions that are on theme with what others have asked. I will try to not be repetitive. I do want to start by just adding my voice to the echo of voices who are concerned about the size that the north Portland space is growing to. I heard one of my colleagues talk about potentially moving some of our resources back to a different space. That's something that I would be interested in seeing more about. Especially given that this is a location that is a pretty significant distance from services. And when we build to this side, what we lose is community. And for a lot of people coming into a pod shelter, there is a stability that they're able to find that what we've been told over and over is helps with the transfer to housing that we're going to lose when we get this big. So I'm very worried about what our outcomes for moving people to housing are going to look like when we do this. I think I hope that the goal of our shelter program is to get people housed. And so I'm going to ask some questions over the next year as we have conversations about how our success at getting people housed has changed as we consolidate our shelter into a very, very large area. I do have a question about the loss of rv shelters. I'm wondering if you can share any data about usage of those spots, and I would love to understand what usage was when we had sunderland open, whether the usage changed when sunderland was no longer an option and folks had to go to that Portland road location, which again is much larger and just looks and feels different. It's a little more stark. And how many people over the last year have used that space so we can understand how many people will not be receiving those services over the next year with this cut.
Yeah, it's a great question. I'll start and then maybe pass to brandy. But so councilor, I think doing the rv kind of safe park, safe shelter spaces, I think was something we dove into and wanted to learn about. You know, we went in and say, let's try this. I think one thing we didn't account for and didn't know going in was how attached people are kind of to that space. And we thought having that those rvs next to pods, they might see folks kind of moving to a pod, moving on to housing, and they might be encouraged to kind of take that same path. That was not really what we were seeing. People really were not engaging in services in the same way. And even with case management, I think we were seeing some operational difficulties. It's also a safety issue. So I think they're harder to manage, harder to know what people are doing in them if they have weapons.
Understood. I'm the reality is we will still have people living in rvs. And when we don't have an rv shelter, they will be living in rvs on our streets. And so what I'm trying to understand is how many people we should expect to see living in rvs on the streets, because we no longer provide an an acceptable space in a shelter format for people to live in their rvs.
Yeah, I think I mean, estimates right now are probably upwards of a thousand different rvs are lived in vehicles on our streets.
How many people over the last year have used the rv shelter spots?
I can answer a variation of that question if it's helpful. So I don't have specifically for the last year, what I can say is since it opened, which is a bit longer than that, 170 individuals have been accommodated at the north Portland rv section. In the 70 rv spots.
Okay. And do we know what the usage number was for sunderland? Was it higher or lower? Generally.
Sunderland took a longer time to become full and was really only operating at full capacity towards the end of its time in place. I don't have that number in front of me. I can provide it.
Okay, that'd be good to understand. Like I said, I think this is the number of people we should expect to see displaced back to the streets. And I'm trying to understand what number that is. It sounds like it's a low percentage of people who are living in rvs, maybe under 10%. But I'd like to understand those numbers better. At this point. With all the changes that are coming in our shelters, the closures, the changes, the flex spaces, will urban alchemy be the operator at every city shelter, or are there other operators who we are working with?
There are other operators, but I will defer.
To operators. So in terms of the alternative shelter, urban alchemy is currently operating at four sites. So that's read way, north Portland road, clinton triangle and msv. We also have cultivate initiatives as a partner operating the menlo park safe rest village, the southwest nato village in this plan would continue to operate. That was previously operated by sunstone way. Transition projects will be moving in as the new operator of that location.
Okay, so we do have other operators, but urban alchemy, it sounds like, is the bulk of the sites who will be operating the seasonal and flex sites that obviously if it's flexing up, we'll have the same operator, but for the seasonal sites, who will be operating those?
So that is a variety of different different organizations based on the location specifically. So we have some flex capacity that would be operated by the salvation army. Some of that would be urban alchemy. Some of that would be transition projects. I think those are the largest organization.
Okay. And I don't this is a budget hearing, not a process hearing, but I will just say that. I don't know if the information that we got about our standard operating procedures as it relates to complaints at shelters is new or different, or if this is just writing down in one space what we have already been doing. But to respond to the concerns that were raised in the media by saying business as usual, which is what the first response we received essentially said fell very flat for me. It may be that we go through a a deep dive on the complaints that have been filed and decide that we do, in fact, still have the best operator. But the level of concern that has been raised seems to me to need a. A different level of response than business as usual. And it's felt like the response we've gotten is business as usual. So I hope that we address the concerns more comprehensively than that. Council president, do I have time for one more question.
At 730?
Okay. I will hold on my one more question then. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith: Thank you, council president. Thank you all for your presentation. I wanted to get right into it. Why did the centennial shelter get shut down?
They were at a maximum of about 20 people using that site, so it wasn't one of our higher utilization shelter sites.
What was capacity for centennial.
196?
Do you have any other overnight shelters in east Portland?
Yes, the the central nazarene location that's operated by agape village is also in east Portland.
And what is the average capacity every night?
Right. So that location accommodates up to 100 people. During the winter, we saw a utilization getting close to that number, not quite meeting the 100 more recently as the weather's warmed, it's come way down.
So what's the way down number?
I would have to get back to you on that. I'm hearing numbers closer to 30 ish.
So we made a policy decision at two sites that were very similar that had the same, if same number of capacity every night. And we chose to close the centennial. The reason why I'm so concerned, centennial is the is the furthest east in our district. And I'm concerned that folks who need services on the on the border of the furthest east neighborhood that's on the the border of Gresham, that we're not getting any services. Those those decisions. Maybe we need to serve people in smaller areas, because I have people who come to my office that say, we're doing house of services, but they're not getting funding. So I need to figure out how to make sure that these smaller community based organizations are able to do funding for this. We can talk about this a little bit later, but I want to go to the the other question. Thank you so much. Director skyler, how much ongoing money is in the Portland solutions budget.
Break down to get you precise? Not very much, but I think, oh, and I don't have this on your slide. I can grab that from 909 is online. Nia, do you want to jump in? Nishi. Okay, I think it's about 10 million, but I can get you the precise number.
So you're not considering the 30.5 that we get from the housing bureau as part of ongoing funds?
I, I believe to cbo that in this budget is counted as one time.
Well, ongoing money is money that we're we we've always sent. And so that money is ongoing. It was considered ongoing money when we sent it to the joint office. So I would say I'm trying to get an understanding because I know we're going to have that $30 million. We always do. So that's considered ongoing as far as I'm concerned. So that 30 plus the plus the 40. But I'll deal with your numbers because it really makes the point that I'm trying to make. The one time only monies that you're spending right now on Portland solutions is how much.
The one time money.
So if you have ten minutes, what's your what's your total operating budget?
55 million.
55 million, 4410 million of that is one time only. So the question is, are we going to have the same problem next year? And I want to be more specific, the one time only monies that we have right now, will
We be able to use those monies because we got them from a variety of places that some of it was sitting in, in some of the restricted funds. Some of it was sitting in PCEF funds. So will you be able to get the same one time only money that you have right, which is 44 million? Will you be able to get those dollars again next year, or are we going to be here looking for opportunities to get additional one time only money for next year?
So I think, like I mentioned, every single year, our budget has been different. So I, yes, I think every year until a decision is made about kind of the ongoing structure of Portland solutions and how it needs to be funded, we will keep having the same conversation. I do think there are unique buckets of funds for shelter and housing and these services. So the state provides some of those. Every biennium. We ask the governor and the state for some of those that money. I do think that's a likely source of funding going forward. But yes, it's different every single year.
So the question is, no, you won't. You can't guarantee that you'll be able to go after those. And the reason why I'm asking is because there were $8 million in the in PBOT that that you all are using in, in Portland solutions. And that was in the restricted funds. So you're not going to be able to use that again next year. Yeah. So that's one piece that you're not going to be able to get. So we already know that. And so my question is we have to come up with a business model that is that is good. We're consistently putting our gap, making it, making that gap bigger and bigger as a result of this program so that we can find ways to fund it. I get not having folks sleep on the sidewalk, but. Looking at this from a return on our investment, we're not getting the return on our investment because they're not using it in my district. According to what what I heard from you all, they're not using the services, but we still have to pay the operator. And so I'm trying to figure out how do we make those policy decisions, decisions before we get here so that you, you all don't create a budget that the city administrator has to approve. And the mayor goes through and says, this is what we're going to do, because it's going to be much harder. And when are we going to make the decision to stop using one time only money for ongoing programs? Were there other opportunities for you to get ongoing money to pay for Portland solutions? Because you're a bureau, right?
Program.
A program and which you're a program and a program not under Portland housing bureau. So I don't understand that. That is just so hard for me to fathom. Why Portland solutions is not in the Portland housing bureau. Because you get $30 million from them now this year to do your program. So I'm trying to reconcile a lot of this, and it's hard for me to do it. I, I do want to tell you, I can tell you in my district that it has been cleaner. You all have been responsive. People are moving from shelter to housing. But I don't know how long that this budget is going to be sustainable. And I'm saying this because we can't keep going down, kicking the can down the hill. We're going to have to make some really, really tough realignment choices so that we're not here every year in this same in this same situation. Because it's, let me tell you, sitting here, it's brutal listening to you because I was like, this is a, a one time only issue. And we're going to be in this issue every single year. And until leadership cuts and realigns in a way that you're going to have ongoing money, I don't think that this this ongoing problem right now should be our problem. I want to talk about those things that we can improve and expand and to be able to add to this, because I think there's one component to your program that you don't have, and that's workforce development.
Councilor 8.5 minutes.
Thank you. And the last thing that I'd like to say, council president, is that the $5.39 million going to pmo. How we're getting to those numbers. You take a constraint and then you also take the money left over money. That's that's a budgeting process that that shouldn't happen. That money should be turned over. It should be the beginning balance of your for the next year. But how we're, how we're. And it makes it doubly wrong because how we are actually meeting the meeting that $170 million gap, we're doing a constraint. And then we're also taking your money that you say you think you're going to have at the end of at the end of the year, Oregon budget law assumes that you're going to spend every penny that's in your budget. But but we're doing this backwards. So the assumption is not true anymore. So if that's what you're going to do, we gave you $2 million in the towel because you said you needed $2 million. Apparently, you didn't need $2 million because you got $5 million left. I think that money needs to go back because that was wrong to ask for the $2 million, because you said, oh, this program is not going to it's not it's not going to work. We don't have this $2 million, but you have $5 million, and you took $2 million that you should have gave back to the treasury so that we could go and budget it someplace else. And that's those are the things that I think kind of irritate us up here when you do that. So it's we have to be better city administrator lee, about how we do those things, because that is just not right.
Thank you. Thank you councilor. I will just add conversations that are ongoing with the cfo, but also with the city administrator about Portland solutions, long term structure where it is and also funding are happening right now. So I think those are really important discussions that for leadership to have.
Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith: Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos: Thank you. I want to pick up a little bit. I appreciate your line of questioning, council president. I definitely have those same questions, but let me just take a step back and ask this. I want to understand how the city is defining climate action in this context. So, you know, because from what I hear from portlanders and how they understand PCEF as a climate resilience and environmental justice fund on things like emissions reduction, energy transition, Green infrastructure. So what standards or framework is the city using to determine whether something qualifies as climate related spending? And I heard your answer to council president, but I want to elaborate on that. I want to better understand, because did I hear correctly, that those metrics are not clear to you all that you all are like, that's that's what I got out of your answer from councilor Dunphy. So I'm really asking, what are the metrics that you're using to determine that?
We're looking at the strategic program areas and specifically kind of what they define, and whether there's a nexus there with work that we were doing. And then we worked with the sff team on that.
I mean, I think that the money is being used for things like corridor cleaning and laundry services, pedestrian lighting, waste collection. At what point does the definition of climate spending become so broad that virtually any public service could arguably qualify?
Yeah. Councilor. I mean, I think that looking at those strategic program areas, you know, trash collection and recycling is a huge part of that. So those are things that we were already doing. There's plenty of things within Portland solutions or other city programs or bureaus that wouldn't qualify for those strategic program areas.
Yeah, I think that I don't agree that picking up trash is the same as greening up streets. That's not what greening up streets means. We are talking about dollars. That is about investing in communities that have been lacking in environmental justice. That means something very specific. Pcef does something very specific. So just cleaning up streets is not the same as clearing bioswales that's not the same, especially when what I'm understanding, and I have a question about the general philosophy of pmo because, you know, I'm I want to understand the philosophy behind pmo in general, because concepts like clean and vibrant public spaces. I am seeing our institutionally being paired alongside homelessness response. So what is the connection between those things?
Yeah, pmo is not a homelessness response. So pmo is a livability program. Historically was an emergency program that was focused on community gathering. So those problem solver meetings and then also whatever major issues were coming up in those those community meetings, it turns out quite a few of those issues were wayfinding, safer streets, livability issues with sidewalk cleaning, with trash pickup. So those really rose to the front with that program, but it was never a homelessness response.
What is the definition of livability to you?
What people need in order to enjoy safe spaces.
So people enjoying safe spaces is the same as responding to homeless people who are struggling on the streets.
No, I think people portlanders ask for being able to walk to school safely. People don't want to pass over needles or trash or human feces, for example. Those are all things pmo addresses.
I guess my point is that I'm seeing this conflation between those two concepts, and I don't agree that they are should be. So I'll move on from that. I have a question about just in general, as it relates to our contracts and obviously, you know, urban alchemy, we've been talking about that. But in particular, I want to know at what point do things like recurring complaints, substantiated grievances, safety concerns trigger not only a formal corrective action with the shelter provider, but does that include compliance review? Does it include modifying their contract? Does it include reconsidering the provider relationship in general? Where is what is the trigger for those things?
Yes. Short answer is yes. I think brandi and I speak with the ceo and the leadership of urban alchemy. Whenever there are instances that rise to a certain level, I think I labeled kind of that different process in some of our memos. But brandi, I don't know if you also want to share.
Yeah. Just to add to that, our team in response to a number of different concerns, grievances, feedback that we've heard has gotten very involved in the day to day operations alongside urban alchemy. So we have staff who are on site almost every single day who are working, coaching, taking those kind of corrective actions alongside individuals. And this is with all of our partners. I know urban alchemy has recently been in in the media, but this is really challenging work. And every individual provider faces their own set of challenges. Our team works very closely on those sites. We're involved. We're not removed. They're not working independent from us. They're working very much kind of in alignment. We are regularly speaking with the leadership of every single one of our partners. And in those meetings we are talking about things that we are observing on site, concerns that we have, grievances that we've been receiving, and working with them on how to correct those. Similarly, we're we're regularly reviewing our policies and our contract terms with the organizations. Those are actually amended fairly frequently to incorporate the learning and experience of caring for individuals within those sites. And in order to ensure that we have greater accountability, clarity of parameters, clarity of communication mechanisms in place.
So I'm hearing about a lot of process, but what I'm not hearing is what are the outcomes of some of these changes? Have there been changes? I'm seeing that there's been a pile up of grievances, and I'm not seeing I'm not hearing where the changes are. So what are the changes that are coming?
Yeah, a few of the changes. So I think it was noted earlier that our internal policy was was dated recently. And part of that has been a review that we've had of how we're handling on the city side as well, the grievances that come to us. We're working alongside the ombudsman, and I realize it sounds like process, but for me, it's very much something that we've implemented in response to the kinds of grievances that we've received. So we are meeting with the ombudsman's office on a weekly basis every other week. We include the urban alchemy leadership. Within those conversations, we are going over each and every grievance that has been received and talking about those next steps. And sometimes that means changing of our policy, of our practice, what we are seeing in terms of outcomes. I do want to highlight that through these coaching processes, we've seen almost double the housing placements coming out of our alternative shelters in the first three quarters of this year as compared to all of last year. So we're seeing this continuous improvement process yielding real results. We can say that we're also seeing a lot more folks entering workforce entering recovery programs because of this detailed work that we're doing together, grievances themselves are being resolved in a variety of ways. If there is an alleged wrongdoing by staff, those staff are held accountable. And that's often involves additional training, coaching, termination when it's warranted.
That's all I got.
Thank you. Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos: Councilor. Ryan, I'm actually going to have you kick us off when we get back from a bathroom break. So it is 11:00 right now. I'm going to ask everybody, please be back by 1115 and councilor Ryan will kick us off. We have seven more councilors in the queue, so get comfy.
Okay?
15.
Okay.
And we are back. Councilor. Ryan, take it away.
Thank you so much, council president, and thank you to the Portland solutions team here in the chambers and to your staff and partners. And thank you for your leadership. Your team is on the ground. You are doing visible, complex. And let's underscore this word messy work. This is a work our local housing provider network refused to do. And I am proud that the city took action. I want all of your staff to hold your heads up high as you are connecting and serving the chronically homeless souls in our city. I really appreciate you and I wanted to start with that.
Thank you.
Please help me now understand the nimbleness of flex beds. I hear the the mayor use that term and I, I got to admit, I get confused. Oh, is there actually a visible timer on me? Great. I'm glad I could be the first. So can centennial open up quickly? Is this for severe weather? What does it mean?
Yes. So short answer is the flex capacity is really to preserve as many resources when those beds aren't necessary, but be able to flexibly turn them on basically, or have them usable as soon as possible. And so that could be for severe weather, but also any need. So we see a surge in the community for any reason. We'd be able to surge up those beds to accommodate.
So in real time, we centennial needs to open up. Is it going to it's it's now what time? It's 1119. Could they open up tonight?
Some of those some of those flex beds are going to be more responsive than others. So there are beds within the system of flex that would be able to open on that timeline tonight. Tomorrow centennial would probably take a bit longer than some of the flex beds that are in established locations where we already have a service provider on site and beds that are open. The most challenging thing is always the staffing.
I just hope that we really steward that because as somebody that's had to make those desperate calls back in 20 and 21, 22 to find severe weather shelters, I really have a lot of empathy for that work. So I'm hoping this means it's pretty turnkey. Councilor Smith addressed this, and I was surprised that we were under capacity at redway. Like really surprised because that wasn't the case. When I had authority and oversight. I also appreciate appreciate your focus on the services, moving and closing roadway is deeply worrisome to me is my point, and I am concerned that east Portland will not have the access to this compassionate service like the rest of the city. And of course, I'm not comfortable with how big the north Portland sites are going to be. I agree with my colleagues. But you know, like TriMet, who has built the capacity to do outreach work on our largest homeless day shelter, the yellow line, and the red and blue lines that go out, the Green and blue that go out to Gresham like TriMet. We should both have more access to funds housed at metro, perhaps for the mayor. Any chance that we can go directly to metro and not always be under the county's spell? Is that for the mayors, the mayor, online? Mayor. Be quick. This. There's a visible timer.
Councilor Ryan, and I appreciate you asking that. And it is an ongoing conversation we're having with metro right now as we re-envision SHS not only for the next four years, but beyond. And it is a question and something I'm advocating on behalf of the city.
Well, keep it up and let us know how we can all help. And I know sam at TriMet would like to be a part of that, because seeing the cuts to the trimet's outreach work will really be devastating to the work going on right now. In the first year of the villages, we were the best practice for transition housing up to 50% within 6 to 9 months were placed into permanent housing. We were supposed to continue to prioritize those who are engaging in recovery and workforce. That was the data was affirming this. Have we given up on building a system that was built on data driven results?
No. Councilor. I think, as brandi mentioned, we're actually seeing an increase in housing from last year to this year, just in the first three quarters from especially alternative shelter sites. So that case management approach, I think the mature shelter program is really yielding some of those results.
Okay. So we are prioritizing those souls. All right. Great. Let's continue to see the data. When the when the county presents their data, I can't always tell if that's happening. And as a person that got the the county to work with the national folks on built for zero on data, it's been hard to understand if they're really focused on those kind of outcomes. I'm going to ask for the average time today, which has been seven minutes. I was here in 21 to 23 and helped build a pathway out of our biggest problems. Building these systems with the county was hard. That's in capital letters, really hard. And I was a key architect for both the shelter services and the street service coordination center. Eventually, this much needed on the ground action was organized into Portland solutions, and I did have trouble with what was happening. But I realize you took all of these and built it under Portland solutions. I do believe cuts to Portland solutions would be disastrous. We are responding to an increasingly desperate pleas from the community for graffiti abatement and camp cleanups over 2000 weekly. We need the system to be solvent and stable. If we signal to the community that this council wants to blow up the system, coupled with deep cuts to police and fire, I worry that we will sustain a national reputation we can't overcome. Remember, there was a lawsuit that got us here. Do not forget that the differently abled handicapped community made their case. We could safely navigate the public right of way for all of them. To close. This has been hard work to stand up systems that now have proven results, and I'm proud that the city has been responsive today. Without the knowledge of how we got here. It's easy to be a critic because things are not perfect in this messy reality. Our community is depending on us to support Portland solutions, and I really appreciate the report and I'll be asking more questions later. Thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Ryan. The list got jumbled on my screen. So I'm going to my handwritten notes. Councilor. Koyama Lane.
Thank you, council president. Thank you for the presentation. Thanks for being here. I do want to share that I hear fairly often from small business owners that pmo is oftentimes very responsive and effective, and just want to acknowledge that. And on the ground, quick presence really does matter. I have some questions about a, I'll call it a line item that seems to include a few different things. The street services coordination team, ticket home and broadway cab, which includes sending people by bus or cab to to other places. Can you untangle, if necessary, how those are different or are. Are all of those part of the sending people home fund? And I don't know if you can untangle that right now or if you can get me those numbers, but I would love to see that breakdown.
I can absolutely get you the numbers, so I won't waste time on that. But I would just say quickly, the broadway cab contract is really to get people to services in town. So somebody who needs to get to a shelter or someone who needs to get to a day center, someone who needs to get to a medical appointment, we use that cab contract basically because there's not a good other transportation option. We have some bus passes, but it's been necessary kind of in the moment to have that cab contract.
And that fund is. So it's 11 limited time positions and 2.8 million. Do you know about how much of that is spent on the reunification part?
Oh, I think we have 200 to 300,000 set aside for that. But I can get you the precise number.
Okay. And I have heard about the work done sending someone home, but I, I continue to have questions about the data and the outcomes over time. And I'm wondering if that has changed. The last time I've asked the mayor's team, I was told that we're not collecting data about long term where people are at. If they can come, people come back to Portland if they continue to be housed. Can you share anything more about that?
Yeah. So our team does a 30, 90, 180 day kind of check in with each individual. That's how we're doing it right now. So they'd be able to know kind of at those different points. I believe kim is also committing to our outreach director is committing to one year check ins. So we're just doing that ourselves. But we do put the information about the individual into mis. So the county system that we're that's kind of regulating that entire process would be able to tell if somebody popped back in to kind of access services within the city of Portland or Multnomah county.
And can you tell a little bit about how we assess risk when family dynamics could be complicated or harmful?
Yeah. Great question. So the individual outreach workers, so the folks who are really running this program have a history with, you know, lived experience, but also behavioral health work. So clinicians in some cases, so folks who've been really trained to assess people's mental states, what their connections are, whether they would be going to a safe place, connecting to a safe place. And we've actually seen quite a few folks who are connecting with us through different trafficking or domestic violence situations. So through a referral partner, a party who like really is trained and is doing that work every day, we work with a lot of behavioral health providers, folks who really are know exactly what those stages are. Someone's, you know, really going to connect with family and be in a positive place. They also connect with that individual, whether it's family or a loved one somewhere else, and really have to make that determination that that would be a safe place for them to go.
Okay. Thank you. I'm hearing from I meet monthly with different advocates who provide services, run day shelters, and I have heard from many of them that they also have funds for reunification and that this, this amount seems like more than it should be and that they are also doing these services. Are you in contact with other orgs doing this work? How do you make sure that. I mean, are we tapping into the funds that they have? How do we make sure we're not doing the same, the same work, duplicating it, a conversation that we're having oftentimes about this area?
No, I think it's really important. So reunification efforts are something that's the best practice. So a lot of different organizations do it when it makes sense for that individual. I think the pieces that the city does that make us a little bit more unique is the speed with which we're able to do it. But if people are entering that client into ami s, we're able to see if they're in contact with that provider, we're able to contact that provider and see, okay, what are you working with this client on? Our referral partners, the people who really often make that connection about reunification know about our program and how quick it is and our different connections, for example, to tsa and the port of Portland that some nonprofit organizations just don't have. So I think we just have some additional partnerships that make it more seamless.
Okay. Thank you. And I will look forward to seeing those numbers about what specifically goes into the reunification program.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you councilor.
Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane councilor Kanal.
Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, council president, any update on the numbers yet, by any chance.
I was going to give you camp removal ia numbers, but.
Okay.
I'll circle back on that. How many employees are there at pmo.
Right now? There are 12.
Are any of them certified in crime prevention through environmental design?
It's actually interesting. You should ask. We're about to go undergo a training with safe blocks, actually for a national training for September.
Okay. So currently they're not certified. Okay. So I just want to make sure we're clear on that because safe blocks does is certified.
And we work really closely with them as well.
Okay. That's helpful to know. Switching gears to the urban alchemy contract, our has everybody read the news stories? Do we need to go through them and take any time up here? April 19th, 2023, we adopted an ordinance 191247 to approve a contract for up to $50 million in that ordinance, which is legally binding. It says the contractor will operate and manage temporary alternative shelters that provide a safe and hygienic place for people experiencing homelessness to reside and connect to vital services. So I have two questions related to this. One is based on your reading of the news articles. Are they in compliance with safe? The word safe? In part five of that ordinance?
Yes. I think they're in compliance with their contract, but I think that requires oversight. So when different individual instances arise or allegations arise, we need to take immediate action. So I think they're in compliance. But we also have to have that oversight ability. And they abide by everything when we want to work with them. When we want to institute a new policy, they are right there to work with us to to really be a good partner in that space.
I am profoundly concerned with that answer. That. Colleagues, I think we need to be talking about doing oversight hearings on on urban alchemy at this point, and considering our role in the approval of a budget that continues this contract. I'm not making an argument for an amendment on that at this moment, because I know that that your team would need to find another provider and would need the same dollars for that. So I'm not arguing for a reduction in any sort of budget there, but I am concerned about that because there hasn't been anything immediately done. I agree with the point that immediate action is necessary, but as far as we can tell from up here, it's a lot of we get a lot of words. I think that's that's a conversation in general, but I haven't seen anything actually get done with relation to safety. I do want to appreciate everything that you said earlier about the increase in placement. I really appreciate that. That is really valuable. I did also want to bring up the second part of this, which is connect to vital services because and this goes back to councilor Zimmerman's point. A couple other colleagues brought it up, too. North Portland is not near to vital services, and that's not on the contractor, but that's on how we set them up for success. I'll note that, you know, this is the only one that's it's the only one that's getting a large increase in size here. According to the the chart. And, you know, there's, there's a significant quantity being added. It's not the only one. There's river district as well. But this is getting just about double that in the additions there. And that is offsetting some of the rv spots as well. But I'll also note that as there's been a 24% reduction in overall shelter beds, d2's, based on this specifically is the only district that's going up. I'll also note, and this goes back to my previous point about pushing people to the outskirts of the city. D4 is having the largest reduction in the number of beds. These are not. It would be easy to say this is a coincidence. I understand small sample sizes, but when you look at 150 years of history, you see how that works. And I think we should be disrupting those patterns, not entrenching them. But I think that instead of getting spending too much time on urban alchemy, which I think we actually need a separate conversation about in an oversight hearing, I'm going to move on and just ask, are we doing anything to become less reliant on providers as individuals? Meaning, are we looking at ways to have multiple providers that each are a smaller subset of our overall portfolio?
Yes. We actually just did a request for proposal last year, trying to get more providers really build in. You always want diversity of providers. I think that's better for operations, that's better for the services they offer. Every provider is different, but we did not have very many responses for alternative shelter. So if you have any providers who are interested, I would say please, please, please, we will talk to anybody and we would love for more folks to get into this space. I think, folks, it's a newer kind of shelter model. So folks might be a little reticent, but I do think it's proven to be really helpful for getting folks into housing and connected to services.
Okay, I appreciate that, and I think I will stop here. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Novick.
Thank you, mr. President. First of all, I actually just wanted to respond to councilor Avalos and council president's points about pmo and pcf. I too am concerned about using pcf money for street cleaning. I also am frankly concerned about the underlying strategic program that they're relying on because I. I don't know that stormwater and bioswales are very. Climate. I think that there's maybe sort of an idea that, well, anything to do with the environment is climate. And I don't really think that's true. Probably. Mike houck, urban naturalist, will descend into superhero costume. Beat me up for saying that. But I do have that concern. And I'm contemplating an amendment which would actually and I need to run this by the committee, which would take that several million dollars out of that strategic program and put it into the tree program for parks and urban forestry, and back out some of the general fund that goes to parks and urban forestry, and that shift general fund to pmo. To me, that's something that I feel much more comfortable with, you know, to be consistent with the goals of, of, of pcf. So I just want to flag that I might be bringing that forward. I also wanted to say that I really appreciate councilor Ryan's reference to the nimbleness of flex beds, which is some of you young people might not know, was a lovely 1990 merchant ivory movie starring emma thompson and colin firth.
Thank you councilor Novick. I have myself in the queue. I had another question about the about the pmo to or pcf to pmo money specifically around. You know, we we've discussed strategic goal 31, which is around community education and pedestrian activation. I also have it in here, though, that some of these funds will be coming from strategic goal or strategic plan 32, which is around replacement of old street lights with leds and additional led street lighting in high crash corridors identified by vision zero with an equity lens used for used to prioritize plate replacements, specifically in the. In the strategic plan, it says that the stated goals are infill of led lights in high crash corridors, replacement of lights with leds, and 100% renewable energy used to power street lights is the intention that pmo will be exclusively using these dollars towards replacing the old streetlights, or is this a broader interpretation? Also?
Great. Thank you for the question again, victor sanders with pmo Portland solutions. So what we did is worked with PBOT on identifying the right approach to this for the work that pmo is doing, specifically around our safety tree lighting program. So you've seen this around in some areas. We have string tree tree lights for sidewalk increasing lighting. So we did an analysis that found in many areas where we put that lighting, we actually increased the lumens by three times the average on those sidewalks. So we're finding that that's actually having a really good impact on people's interest in wanting to walk and be out in those areas at night. And so we've installed those around 44 miles of streets throughout the city of Portland. 37 of those installations are along safe routes to school, and 43 of those are along high crash corridors. So we see this as a good opportunity for us to continue that investment where PBOT is not lighting sidewalks in many ways, right? They're using lighting to light the roads, which may also light the sidewalks. So this is a good what we find to be a really good quick installation methodology to quickly get out lighting in areas that need it the most.
Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of just sort of they're not super specific policy questions, but they are about your program area broadly, you know, as we are, I guess there is a theme here and it is budget related, but I, I'm wondering how much the different entities within the it's not even a service area, but the different entities within your program coordinate. I mean, for example, my understanding is that pmo has a trash cleanup component and that irp has a trash cleanup component. I'm interested to know, like, how do those compare to each other in terms of volume and capacity, but also like, how do they coordinate? Similarly, how does do the street services coordination teams coordinate with irp and pmo broadly? And how do we how are these all informed by our strategic goals?
Yeah.
Great question. So short answer is they all coordinate on a daily basis. Longer answer is we have lucas hillier too. Here is irp is a more established program. So the most established of all the programs within Portland solutions. And they have a really specific, very legalistic action that they take. So there's a lot of process around that. And so lucas and his team and contractors do a really good job of kind of staying in that specific Lane related to camp assessment and removal and trash related to that area. Pmo has taken on some of the pieces that we saw as being lost. Frankly, there was trash on the sidewalk. There were, you know, human feces and things that people were asking us to clean up. That's not earp's job and not within their nexus. And so we were able to add a new program that actually accomplished that task. But they coordinate every single day to make sure we're not duplicating anything that we see in the city. The other piece with sscc and irp is they're working every single day and three times a week host coordination calls. That's also with police, fire, ems, parks, folks from all over the city to be able to coordinate different resources. And so councilor Ryan knows it well, but that really brings in all the pieces, I would say, of the puzzle and, and enables us to coordinate across different bureaus. It's a often not recognized function of the sscc, but it's really important and I think has actually brought better streamlined response to the community from the city because we're able to solve things internally.
So thank you.
Okay. Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Just one follow up question. There was a lot in the presentation about how the city's shelters will transition into the emergency shelters, and that's a reference to when we have extreme weather events, right? So Multnomah county and the city of Portland, we we adhere to the national incident management system, the incident command system. And I'm pretty sure that esf says that mass shelter is the responsibility of the county, Multnomah county. So it begs the question why we continue to be in this place of having to plan around and provide infrastructure through our budget. And many of the shelters that were referenced for their use during, I'll say the normal times are referenced as how they can transition to mass shelter when nowhere in that line of national incident management system does it say the city of Portland is in charge of mass shelter when it's freezing out or when it's extremely hot out? So what is going on? So that we have to continue to provide that. And I am reminded from a few years ago when it got so discoordinated that we actually pulled back as a city in order to kind of force the county to recognize that it has its own job to do. And frankly, they they did, but they had used the city as a crutch for at least a decade earlier. So I'm just kind of curious what is going on there and why should I be supportive of us again, doing another clearly county sheltering operation?
Yeah, I saw mayor wilson also leaned forward. But I just will quickly mayor, and then maybe pass it to you from an operational standpoint. We have the infrastructure of the overnight shelter beds right now, and I think the conversation with the county is how do we not duplicate resources? So if we have that infrastructure, let's maximize the utilization of that. And then we also have agreements and one's about to expire and we're about to negotiate another one, frankly, with the county about emergency management during severe weather, where they would pay a certain amount of money for those resources to stand up during severe weather, but for them to go negotiate other leases, to go negotiate with other contractors is really a duplication of the work. And we're trying to maximize when everybody's budgets are being cut, trying to maximize and actually partner in a better way than we've seen in the past. But, mayor, I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that.
Thank you. Scott. Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. I would just go back to the emergency declaration that the city of Portland signed in 2015 to address our homelessness and housing emergency. We are currently still in that emergency right now. And then going back to portlanders, we lost about 800 people in 23 and 24 on our streets because we didn't have surge capacity to address the humanitarian crisis on the street. So what you're seeing now was that flex up. You're seeing the flex down. But we also recognize that during this past winter, with our flexible beds, we were able to meet the severe winter, although it wasn't a it was a mild winter. We're still now ready for the summer heat, and we're ready for next winter's severe. So we're prepared right now. So trying to stay away from pointing which jurisdictions are required to meet the moment. But these are portlanders. And so the councilors and I have really stepped up to make sure we're not going to. We provided a safe bed for every Portland, every night for all those who want. And that was our goal, and we provided that.
Thanks, mayor. You've just outlined all the reasons why Multnomah county should be doing its job, which is outlined by a national incident management system, that their job is mass shelter in emergency situations. And so I don't disagree with you on the reason. I also say those numbers you cited in terms of death also had a significant number of overdose deaths in those years and was not just exposure. So I don't want to conflate those two, but I am comfortable with. We have an infrastructure that can transition on that afternoon when the call is made by the executives in the room. I'm very comfortable there. I am not comfortable if we are continuing to move the city back into taking it on as a primary role, when it remains foundationally, both in agreements, national best practices, that it is Multnomah county's role to do it. And they have largely gotten away with. And if they're going to pay us, great, right? If they say, okay, we're going to we're going to need to open up an extra 600 tonight or an extra 6000 tomorrow. I understand that it is helpful to hear that agreement come through, but the other. You know, I think about. This, this public needs like some we can argue over, right? Who do you turn to when there's crisis, etc. But there are some basics that pretty much all communities have figured out and have gotten to understand, but we continue to struggle with it. And on this topic, the mass shelters during emergency, whether I am, I am all in on us providing space, I think. I mean, I've worked the charles jordan site in the middle of the night when it was freezing out and we had inches of ice on the road. That what I'm trying to draw out here is making sure that I understand that when we do that, it is not portland's solutions, taking it on as a line item cost that it is Multnomah county still taking that on as a line item cost, because I've not seen an agreement here where we are transitioning that role of government to this body. It remains Multnomah county, and I'm seeing some nods from you as the director. That is accurate.
So they are the esf six lead like per state. Like that is just fact, as you know. So that agreement that we engage in with them really outlines that. And then when it's an emergency, when it's severe weather, they take lead and they also pay for use of those sites for those days. I think the pieces that are really hard and have been hard in the past, and I think Multnomah county would say the same thing is the locations and the staff. Those are always the two things that are hardest to stand up right away. We now have an infrastructure that brandi has built brilliantly. I think that allows us to immediately stand up those locations with staff who actually know how to do that, and not just volunteers. So I think those two elements are new. And I think that, frankly, the county has been very appreciative, but they are still the esf six lead and will pay for that use of those sites.
This this is great. And it's helping me kind of understand why you talk about certain beds in in some reference. It's not about it being part of our cost evaluation. It is about being ready so we can be the break glass if necessary. And I think that that's very helpful to understand. So it keeps us in the fold, but knowing we're not in charge of it. And I'll also say just from a. It is less impactful wherever a shelter goes, if you go from, let's say, 75 day in and day out to 125, than it is to stand up a new 50 bed shelter in a place that has not been used to that, or where it's just a quick in and out because those become quite disastrous often. But this looks very, quite planned out and I appreciate that. And so hearing how y'all are approaching that with respect to Multnomah county is helpful. Like I said, I've worked these. I've also been around when we had to really pull back because it got so out of sorts with the previous joint office director and this and the previous leadership over there, but it does seem to have improved, and I'm glad to hear it is staying on that same path. So I appreciate that effort because I what I see here is a shelter program that the county can tap into on the coldest nights of the year, and I think that that's helpful. I would also imagine, given just the number of nighttime shelter beds that the mayor's team and you have created, that the county's numbers have diminished quite a lot based on we already have a new infrastructure set up. And so the number that they're opening up really falls down into the hundreds instead of thousands as it used to. That's correct. Yeah. So. Okay. Thanks. I just needed a little bit more clarity on kind of where we were at and what we're doing there. And I appreciate that a lot. I, I want to just make one closing last point here is that. Over the years. You know, from the very beginning of the test site discussion, we talked about residents who were not going to be successful in other shelters. And that was largely back in the day. In the 2022 era, there were a lot of providers who just like would not take certain residents of our community. And we were looking for test sites with closed pods. So you can have that that level of dignity that comes with a closed pod, but also recognizing that these were supposed to be the hardest of the hard in terms of the crowd. And that was going to require a very challenging staffing model. Can you help us understand, given some of the changes that are going on now with the larger test sites, has the population more or less smoothed out to be a broader set of those who are homeless right now, or does it remain focused on the most difficult, who are not being successful in other places, who the system is designed to be a little bit more, I'll say hands on in terms of community agreements and getting inside, having curfews. Et cetera. Et cetera. Right. There's a there's a level of behavior adjustment that we really talked about in 2022 that other Portland based providers and Portland based ideas were kind of like ignorant to or refused to acknowledge. And they all acknowledge it today. But four years ago, they really didn't. How is the population changed with the test sites or has it changed? I just am not sure if it has.
And councilor, we're at 10.5 minutes.
I'll just say quickly, I think it's still a very highly acute population. I think we are working, especially at the urban alchemy and cultivate initiative sites with folks who have been exited from a lot of other service providers and shelters and services. So I think it is a particularly difficult population. I think commissioner Moyer and the joint meeting talked about 50% suffering from severe and persistent mental illness. I think we see a very high substance use disorder population and meth right now, I will just say anecdotally is horrific. So I think these providers are dealing with a really highly acute population. And frankly, I just as a citizen, we have not figured out how to deal with this. And it's heartbreaking because people are suffering deeply.
Thank you, councilor Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith: Thank you, council president.
Councilor Zimmerman, it is eerie that we think on the same track, and I want to stay there for a second. The mayor asked the question that I wanted to ask, are we in a are we in a housing emergency right now under an order? Yes. Thank you. Urban alchemy. Is that a low barrier shelter?
Yes.
And do all the ones that they basically operate, are they low barrier shelters?
Yes.
So isn't it reasonable that you're going to have a certain amount of people who have drug and alcohol, mental health issues and other issues that you wouldn't see in some other places? I think I don't want to say why, but it is.
Lakes.
Bibi lakes. I can't get over what you. What I mean by lakes, it is a higher barrier. And so these are folks who are working and many of them have health insurance and they have those support systems that the low barrier residents don't have in our. And so I'm trying to make the the point that we're dealing with a population that is highly vulnerable, that have deep, deep issues across the board that we don't necessarily have the resources to be able to put those in. And so I want to distinguish between. If our operator are having problems operating to the way that we are asking them to, versus people who have individual complaints, because everyone has complaints there. There are several hundred complaints in our hr department at the city of Portland, and we're not ready to shut down the city of Portland. And so I want the public to understand that you all are dealing with a very a very vulnerable population that requires a lot of assistance in a way that that other shelters don't. And so it is it is very understandable that there would be complaints. Now, would I have a problem with is if we are doing those things in. And we are victimizing our own folks that are in our shelters, that is a problem. But I think it's important that we get back the reports from you all. First, before we start assuming that, you know, it's coming from our operator. It is also understandable that folks are not always telling the truth, and they're not always with a clear mind. Some people are still on drugs and alcohol. And so I understand that that they need many more services. And I wish that we could offer those services to folks. So I want us to be very clear before we start to say that, I mean, we're working with a population that that things are wrong things. Yeah, we do need to have standard operating procedures. And I want to see the report that you all are putting together in the investigations that are being put together, so we can determine where the, the, the center of all of this is coming from. And that's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in a oversight hearing that that that is at this point, it's too much and it's too exhaustive. I'm going to. If I feel that that is necessary. After you give us the report, I will. I will say that, but I need you all to give me the first stab at it first.
Okay? Yes, absolutely.
Councilor will provide that for you. I think you're absolutely right. I also think that every, you know, allegation or assertion needs to be investigated. Yes. Yes, ma'am. So I think we commit to doing that every single time. And I think, you know, councilor Ryan mentioned this. It is a messy endeavor. This is there's a lot going on here. There's a lot of context. And I think this is really hard work. But I think by and large, I am pretty happy with what's what our providers are doing. I really appreciate brandy and her team providing that level of oversight, but we will provide you with all the details of the work that they are doing, the work the ombudsman is doing. There's an audit that will be happening, so we'll be able to get you that information.
Thank you. Yeah thank.
You, councilor Smith, councilor Green.
Mitch Green: Thank you. Just just briefly, I wanted to ask one follow up question about the day centers, which we haven't really talked about yet today. Yeah, the oasis day center, which is in my district, I see that it's a $2.2 million cost. And I can you I'd just like to understand a little bit more about the cost drivers for that contract. How much of that's payroll, you know, what are we getting for our services there? Because that's $183,000 a month.
Yeah, it's a lot of staffing, but I'll defer.
We can definitely provide you with the background. It is primarily payroll costs. It's staffing. There's some smaller costs related to kind of the operational pieces, whether it's supplies or the utility costs or, you know, running the the bathrooms and the kitchen and electrical on site. But mostly it's staffing.
Okay. Thank you. And then, so the, the website for the public that describes the oasis shelter says that a minimum of three people on site that can then surge. Do you have a sense of, on average, how many people are staffing that location at any given time?
Yeah. So the the minimum of three holds and usually there's more than that. So I would say more on average, they're looking at about five persons on site staff persons.
Okay. Yeah, I would love to, to get the detailed report. I'm worried that it's paying some administrative overhead that's not actually paying the people on site to do the work, because I'm trying to make this math work, and you'd have to have a lot of people working simultaneously to, to get $2.2 million per year. So just but you guys are the experts. I'm asking the question and I'll leave it there.
We can definitely provide a breakdown.
Thanks. Yeah.
Thank you, councilor Green, vice president Clark.
Thank you, council president. I'm sorry I'm not there. I've been trying to avoid infecting everyone. This has been an excellent conversation. I've learned a lot about management conflicts, governance conflicts. And I just want to say to the team there that I appreciate what you're doing. It's incredibly, as councilor Ryan said, messy work and you're doing yeoman's work. And I appreciate you and my constituents appreciate you. Also, the work that you do to clean feces off the sidewalks and out of storefronts and picking up needles and just appreciate the livability aspect of what you do for our neighborhoods as well. I kind of associate you with teachers in that teachers are dealing with children who come to class with all kinds of issues that they have no control over, and there are lots of upstream causes that you really cannot necessarily address. So I appreciate you. One thing I don't think I've heard today is whether or not you have any kind of a relationship or activity around the transit, around streetcar in particular, or the max, which some people have now referred to as the a mobile homeless shelter? Can you can you address that for me or someone in the audience?
Yeah. Councilor. I was just looking back because we did have somebody from TriMet who was in the audience today who we work with on a daily basis. But yes, I think transit is a huge part. It's also councilor Kanal, I believe was mentioning kind of the north Portland site and it is remote location. So that is something that brandy and I are talking about exactly how we're going to figure out shuttling or TriMet services. We work with them regularly, I think. I can't remember who mentioned, but I think maybe councilor Ryan about metro funding, that there's some regional dollars that I think would be really excellent. We got a pilot project kind of specked from TriMet about a shuttle service that could really help get people to and from different service locations. So I think we're really open to some new ways of doing TriMet TriMet, but also just transit in general. And I really have appreciated their partnership. Streetcar. I'll just say briefly, we, brandy and I are on a weekly behavioral health call with Multnomah county and a bunch of providers, and one of them is streetcar, and they got connected to our outreach team, but also folks from the peer company that provide behavioral health outreach. And now they have a pilot that they're turning into a full on program that connects folks on the streetcar to different services, including the oasis site, but also overnight shelter and then also peer company services. So that's been really successful. They've been able to connect hundreds of people to services already. And it just started. So I think there's a lot of different opportunities for that partnership. And I think there's better ways we can do it than we're doing it now. So deeper partnership with TriMet, I think has really helped. And with streetcar, great.
I'm really happy to hear that because I get regular complaints from constituents that use the streetcar or use transit. So I really appreciate those efforts. Thank you, council president. I really don't have any other questions or comments. And thank you to the team. Again, you really do yeoman's work.
Thank you councilor.
Thank you, vice president Clark councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Thank you. I have two things. I just wanted to start by making a slight correction on something I said earlier that safe blocks is trained in September. Not all of them are certified. Just want to clarify that for the record. But I'm looking forward to hearing about everybody catching up and being on the same level there in advance of hopefully having more collaboration there between those two groups in an org chart way, not just a partnership project way. The other thing I just wanted to get across is I think that when someone is in our care, directly or indirectly or custody in some way, we have a greater level of responsibility there to ensure the level of safety of those individuals. It's one thing to say that a person is potentially at risk of being harmed in a in an indirect way. We should obviously try to work on that. But the the standard, I think is higher for us. And that's true whether they may be on drugs or not. That's true as to whether or not they may be in a shelter or not. And I just want to get that across because I don't want to be conflating two issues around someone's substance use and whether or not they should be free from harm, from harassment, from abuse and from sexual assault.
Absolutely.
Let me ask at the beginning of this conversation, director knapp, you mentioned that there's a information that you sent us from brandy and her team, in coordination with urban alchemy. Is there anything going on in terms of investigation, oversight, anything that is not in coordination with urban alchemy?
Yes. So there's oversight going on with the auditor's office, but also with the ombudsman, sometimes with the service provider, but often separately.
So is there anything beyond the auditor's office though? Everything is with with coordination.
Well ombudsman's office. No. So we coordinate with them separately.
Okay. So there's the auditor's office stuff and then there's what you're doing. And what you're doing is in coordination with urban alchemy.
Yes. I mean, I guess it depends on the instance. So we can provide higher level compliance that wouldn't necessarily be in coordination with them, but we provide that oversight level.
Yeah. I guess I'm comfortable to the degree that of the independence of an administrative investigation with waiting. I does not sound like that is happening. I don't think that's exactly what the auditor does in terms of making. In terms of the conflation between an audit and an ombudsman work is what I'm talking about here. And so I'm trying to ensure that we are exercising appropriate levels of oversight as a city council, which is our responsibility, and getting it to the point where, because there are many things across the city that could could use an additional level of scrutiny. I don't want to act like this is the only place by any stretch. But as part of of doing that, if every of everything requires a series of administrative steps that are not happening currently before we even start that conversation, and then that's paired with victim blaming, I think that that's a problem. So I, I just, and I'm not referring to anything from, from your side of the dais there. So I appreciate that. But I do think this is a discussion we need to have. I'm looking forward to having it in the committee, the whole because this is a little bit outside the scope of the budget, but it may affect it at least in an indirect way, in the context of whether or not there's compliance with the original city ordinance that talks about safe access to resources, all those sorts of things in there.
Absolutely. We would welcome any oversight or investigation, any information that you want us to provide. Happy to.
Earlier you mentioned you had numbers on the.
Yeah.
Sorry, break down from my finance person's actually just watching. She didn't realize she needed to get on the zoom. So 8.3 million in direct removal costs 3.1 million in assessment and cleanup. So that's more that central city concern action and then 1 million in micro trash removal, which is that glitter program for ground score.
Okay. So 8.3 in direct removal of campsites, correct. Not of trash in that money.
So when not to get too in the weeds, but when we're at a campsite removal, folks will tell us what is personal property and what is trash. We do remove trash that they indicate is trash and take that to the dump. The property they either keep or we store in the facility, our storage facility, our warehouse.
And all three of those are those three functions you just mentioned. The the people, the personal property and the trash are included in that 8.3 million, correct. Okay. The 3.1 million you said assessment and cleanup. What's the cleanup portion?
Yeah. So central city concerns, clean start crews provide those assessments, but they also offer trash pickups. So they'll go to a campsite and say, hey, do you have anything that you want me to take? And they'll actually take trash from a campsite. They also perform that assessment process. They're not doing a removal, but they're just engaging with the individual, maybe offering services and also picking up any trash that the person would like them to take.
So that cleanup in the 3.1 million bucket is cleanup not associated with the moving of a person.
Correct.
Okay. And then the third bucket, the 1 million in micro trash removal is also not associated with moving people.
Correct.
Okay. I really appreciate that. That's about half of the info I was looking for in the irp place. I would love more understanding on the. On the 8.3 digging deeper into that. And then of course, the pmo part, the last thing I wanted to mention is can you you mentioned at the beginning, pmo stands for public environment. Okay. In the. This is not for you. This is for the budget team. It interchangeably uses Portland environmental management office and public environment management office. So I think it's helpful to for the folks who are preparing the budget documents to, to just this wouldn't be a spellcheck thing, but just to, to check apologies.
It's the bane of my existence, but I will keep trying.
Yeah.
And this is not, again, not unique to this program, not unique to Portland solutions. There's a few things like that. So appreciate it. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Morillo.
Thank you, council president, I just wanted to address some comments that were made earlier regarding urban alchemy, because I think it's serious enough that I have to refute it. The reality is that people who are dealing with addiction or mental health crises face a higher risk of sexual violence than other people do. And the complaints that were done about this shelter, some of them were about sexual harassment or rape, and they were about other situations like drug dealing, theft, the resale of people's items and materials. To say that this vulnerable population could be lying about their experiences or misrepresenting their experiences, is to not believe survivors and to not take seriously the things that are being brought forward to us about how our shelters are being run. And I think that is wholeheartedly unacceptable for elected officials to be saying, and we have a duty if we are giving public dollars to an organization to make sure that people are cared for as much as possible in the spaces that we are funding. So I take that very seriously, and I understand that some councilors up here aren't interested in oversight. That's okay. There are councilors up here that are. And frankly, me and councilor Green were able to lead the oversight hearing on the undisclosed housing dollars together just fine. We went through those 3000 documents that everyone else didn't want to read through, and I suspect that councilors Avalos, Kanal and many others would be glad to do oversight on an issue like this because it is our duty and it is important, and there are councilors here who are ready to actually take a stand and make sure that we are investigating these issues when necessary. But I, I just have to say, it is exactly because these people are dealing with addiction and with mental health crisis that they are more vulnerable, which means that they are people that get preyed upon more often than other people. That is how these power dynamics work. And I can't like sit here and allow us to say those types of things and move past it. Like it's nothing like the housing and homelessness providers that are watching can hear a council not be ready to be accountable to that. I think that's absolutely critical. So I will be watching that very closely. I trust that you and your team care about this issue profoundly and that we are going to look into it. But again, these were issues with urban alchemy that were well documented when they operated in san francisco. This is not anything new. When the city contracted with them before, we knew that this is an issue that they had ongoing at their shelter sites. And I also do not condone that. We seem to say, well, some of the people running these shelters were formerly unhoused, so there is some sort of restorative programing happening here using the lived experience of people. And I say this as someone who has been homeless, to put them into systems where they can further harm others is not justice. There is no restorative justice in that. And so I will be looking at oversight on this very carefully. And thank you for giving me some space to say that, because I think whoever is watching needs to know that we are going to take it very seriously. If homeless people are being abused in our shelters.
Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Ryan.
Angelita Morillo: Yes, thank you, council president. Two additional comments I think could be helpful. I heard from outreach workers with TriMet when I did a ride along that they wished that we had a connectors meeting in Multnomah county that they have in Washington county. They felt more in the system in Washington county than they did Multnomah county. And I was so taken with their own building, their own agency to become resourceful outreach workers. I was just so impressed with how they were. They figured it out, navigated the system. But then in comparison to the person, the peer in Washington county that was at the table, they felt more tapped in and it was easier for them to navigate. So I wanted to give you that note before I.
Forgot.
You know, when connecting with operators on site where this entry is low barrier, like we've been talking about with the villages and test sites, the plan was that they could live, that they enter low barrier, but the hope was they would leave high barrier. And the pathway to becoming high barrier was getting tapped into recovery and also engaging with recovery, not a straight line. It isn't for anyone's life, especially for an addict in recovery, and then also to be tapped into and connected to workforce. So I made it always a conversation. I don't think some of the managers liked it, where I would just be curious and ask workers at the sites how their engagements going with with those challenges to get people tapped into recovery. And at the sunstone site twice over a period of a year, it was always a really low number, like one person, less than 10%. And they felt I could tell it was a heavy heart that they gave me that information. But I appreciate the honesty. When I was at the sites that just happened to be managed by urban alchemy, there was a lot of humility in the answer. I was waiting for the number. They were basically saying, we're really trying. I'm like, what's what's the. It was like being in a meeting at the county or something, but eventually they would get there, with all due respect, because they wanted me to really understand the complexity. But the numbers were always around 50%, and I appreciated what I listened to from them. And then they explained that because we as staff are also in recovery and have that lived experience of addiction recovery, they think it allows them to be a better they can do the 12 step better, if you will, and recovery terms. That means you're reaching out and helping the suffering addict. So I just wanted to say that I appreciate those results, and I think that I am a big advocate for oversight, and I think we should do oversight with these shelters. I also want to say that I did emails to chair Avalos early in February about home forward, and then there's new allegations of other, let's just say, public housing units where the elders that live in those units are being abused by those that are living there. And we have challenges at those sites. And I hope when we do. The next oversight, I understand, was on the agenda last week. I wasn't at the meeting. Instead of having the suits, we need to listen to the residents of those buildings so that we have some fairness when we do oversight on this council. That's what I would ask for, and I look forward to truth and honesty always.
Thank you. Thanks, councilor.
I will just say, hot off the presses. I believe brandy can share some detox numbers from one of our sites. But I think treatment right now for me seems even harder for folks. Detoxing off of fentanyl is a nightmare. And these synthetic drugs are new. So I think it's it's really amazing when people enter detox and treatment. But brandy has some.
Numbers quickly to give you a bit of an anecdote. So this is clinton triangle figures. Since August 1st of 25, they've helped 28 people enter detox. And each one of those, of course, has a number of complexities around it. So each one of those is really valuable. I think the other thing that I do want to emphasize, councilor Ryan, is the work that we are doing to build out the continuum of recovery shelter. So working at the overnight shelter level to ensure that there is a safe place for individuals who are interested in recovery to enter the system. Wellness areas within the alternative shelters for folks who are interested in recovery services to transition into. And now we're looking at a dedicated site that is focused on high, intense services for people who are in recovery with the ultimate goal of helping them to stability and independence. After that stay.
Boy, that was music to my ears. So if someone has a desire to be sober, we will offer an environment where that will be more conducive.
Yeah, we're trying to build out that continuum to make it make sense.
All right. Getting that desire is a big part of the journey. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith: Thank you.
So much. I have a question I forgot to ask you. I looked at the budget and the Portland police took a real big hit with $4.5 million. And I've been struggling here, and I want to take 10% off of your budget. What would that do? And how would that impact if we took $5 million off your budget?
It would depend on the color of money. If it was general fund. General fund. Yeah, I think most of that would be probably shelter related. I don't have a lot of other kind of one time general fund money that's out there. I think you could take some ongoing from irp and pmo, but it's a pretty small amount, right?
I'm trying to figure out how to take it, and I don't want to be so prescriptive that I just say that I'm taking it from a particular place. And just a 10% cut out of general fund, because I think that the Portland police, they were hit very hard, and they would actually close an east precinct and take away all of the non-sworn officers away. And so for me, that's I'm weighing what, what it would cost us if we took $5 million from your budget.
Absolutely. Yeah. I think these are all really difficult decisions. So I think from just top of my head, most of that would probably come from the shelter services budget. Our other budgets are much smaller. So it probably looks like just cutting the shelter services budget. You might be able to pull a million from some of the other programs, but you wouldn't be able to pull a ton of money from other programs.
But you're saying that's the biggest place we could take.
That from.
For general fund.
Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you, councilor Smith. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. Looks like that does it for us for today. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. Thank you, everybody for all your questions. We will be back here tomorrow for more work sessions. We are adjourned.
And we will give you any kind of follow up for questions. But then please also feel free to reach out anytime.
Thank you, thank you.