The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-07-15

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (27,834 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Yeah.

It was I got.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin this meeting of the Portland city council, we have a pre gavel recognition on pride month. Councilor Zimmerman, take it away.

All right. Are we ready? Okay. Hi, everybody. I think that thank you. Thank you, council president. I do appreciate it. Portland. We're in this unique situation. We get a we get a twofer when it comes to pride. So happy Portland pride week and pride month. I'm just I'm honored to to recognize this holiday, this recognition as a member of the city council in my hometown. You know, portland's commitment to the LGBTQ community is something that I've certainly felt its blessings. I've I've felt that a lot of my success is because I happen to grow up in a town who loved me for who I was from minute one, and I'm proud to serve as one of the openly LGBTQ members of the Portland city council, along councilors Dan Ryan, Angelita Morillo and Elana pirtle-guiney. It used to be that we talked about the phrase, it gets better. And I think that that actually still rings true today for a lot of us. And I'm reminded that as now one of the senior gays of the community, as a person who's gone through a lot of pride proclamations and a lot of pride months, that it's important for us to remember what it was like when we were a younger person and why it matters when your leadership, when the people who are in the community, when the people who are your bosses, when the people who are given a microphone, that we continue to remember that for somebody, it is their first pride month for somebody. It's their first pride week. And that we don't know whenever or wherever a person has come comes from. And it gets better rings as true today as it did in 2012. And and before that. And it is an ever changing, it gets better target. And I have to keep that in mind when we think about the community that we are trying to build in this in Portland. That is why Portland serves largely as the gathering place, not just for portlanders during pride month, but actually for a lot of our suburb neighbors, for other states. We are one of the communities that people have felt is safe to come to, to be open to be who you are and to engage in community with, with, with your fellow persons. And that matters. We work really hard at that. Portland works really hard at that. We create spaces to make that a reality, and I'm very appreciative to the community that I grew up in, into the community. Now that I get to partially be a leader with and for. And so I do want to invite up judge kemp, one of our city employees. And as he gets settled at the dais, I do want to just turn it over to my other colleagues Angelita Morillo, Elana pirtle-guiney, Dan Ryan, and anybody else who would like to make an announcement. If you would like to, if you'd like to say anything before judge kicks us off, or talk about what this week or this month means to you, you are welcome to. And I appreciate our partnership as the big gay caucus on this dais. Colleagues, anybody or we can turn it to councilor. Morillo, please.

Councilor Zimmerman, thank you so much. Appreciate your humor and laughter as always. I think this is such a special month, and I'm so excited to get to celebrate pride with everyone this weekend. As the b and the lgbt. I'm very happy that I get double the fun. And I'm sorry for everyone else that you don't. I'm. I also want to say, you know, it's really interesting being a woman and a public figure in this time. And people oftentimes in right wing cultures in Portland try to transvestite me as an insult. And I can't even express to you how much it is not an insult to me, because the trans community is so beautiful, wonderful, and worthy of love and acceptance. And I, I'm just very cognizant that during this time where the federal government is attacking the our trans brothers and sisters, our trans neighbors, that it is up to us to hold the line for them and to protect them with everything that we have and for them to know that they are loved, accepted, and beautiful. And I just want to take a brief moment to share one of my favorite quotes for the trans community, and it is by julian jarboe, and it says, god bless me by making me trans for the same reason he made wheat, but not bread and fruit, but not wine, so that humanity might share in the act of creation. So this weekend, I hope that we all celebrate together, that we have fun. We experience the joy that it is to be together in Portland, Oregon. That is one of the cities that is bringing people together and taking a stand against a federal government that is making anyone feel like they don't belong. We love you and we are so excited to be here with you, and I hope that you stay with us and we will keep fighting for you. Thank you.

Councilor Zimmerman. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that you called us senior gays. I'm struggling right now.

Let's see what Dan says.

Yeah. You know, Portland is such an incredible place to be. I don't think that my kids have ever been in a class where they were the only student with two moms, and that is that's a real gift for them. That's not the environment that I grew up in at all. And in an environment like that, it is sometimes easy to take for granted the rights that we have, the wins that we've had, the acceptance that we had. And it's sometimes easy to miss or discount the work that there still is to be done. Those places, those pockets where we don't have full rights, full acceptance yet. And pride is so important as an opportunity to come together and celebrate, to remind each other of the importance of our our full LGBTQ culture, and to also remember the fights that have happened, the wins that we've gained, the work that has been done, and commit to continuing that work for those members of the community for whom this is their first pride, and they need a little help getting there. For those members of the community who live in those pockets where work still needs to be done. And so I'm really glad that we get to celebrate this here, that we get to say as leaders, that we are committed to that work, that we are committed to finding those pockets, to being there for those folks for whom this is new. And with that, I want to thank my colleagues who are good allies also for being a part of that work with us, because Portland is a place that has elected a full council worth of people who support our community. And that's a pretty special thing. So glad to glad to be celebrating today. And I am looking forward Portland to celebrating with all of you this weekend.

Thank you. And thank you, councilor Zimmerman, for making this a thing. And judge, it's great to see you in the front looking fabulous. I know we can all boo hiss later on, but right now just see me. As you know, Dan, 64 year old gay, been living with hiv for over 40 years and I've seen a lot. I'll just be real quick. In 1985 was my first gay pride. It was in new york city. It was quite large because it's new york city. And there was also this sadness that was coming into the community because aids was becoming known to more and more people. Then in seattle. When I moved there in 1991, I participated in pride, and I was doing pretty good, I think, in my job at pacific science center. I ended up on the newsreel being in the parade, and I was treated much differently from my boss after they heard about me being in the parade. That was 1991. And then in Portland when I moved here in 97, I was just taken with how cute it was. It just seemed like such a tiny little parade in 1997 when up broadway was on a Saturday. And so I just thought I'd reflect on that. And then it was somewhere in the like 2015, 16. I wasn't really feeling it, but I thought I got to go to pride. Then I got on the max and all these people that were from burns, I think it was burns. Maybe it was baker. One of those be it wasn't bend, but it was one of those cities like towns in eastern Oregon. It wasn't. It was start with a b. And so they were just so happy to be in Portland, to be at pride. I just had the best time listening to them and asking them questions. And I thought, oh, pride is an Oregon thing and we need to allow the rural communities to come here, be seen, be held and supportive. So it just made me really amped up to go down to pride. Now it's special because, you know, I get to go with my husband. I get to say the word husband, and I get to be with my, you know, mexican fluid husband on pride. And it just feels so good to hold hands and to be seen and to be alive and to walk with the living well, people from cascade aids project, because we've been through a lot, those of us that have had hiv for decades, and we can never forget. And we have to continue to lean into the I part to keep including as we've done. And we've demonstrated that for other other causes that you can keep adding to those who you're supporting and you don't water down those who are already there, you just keep adding there's abundance in this equation. That's why we call it pride. Anyway, it's not lost on me that I live in my hometown now, and that we celebrate pride with capital letters. And I want to thank the organizers of the pride foundation of northwest pride. I think deborah is somewhere in the audience, and we're just so grateful as a city council, to be included and to be a part of what will be a wonderful celebration this weekend. Thank you so much.

Thanks to my colleagues. I think that you know each of the stories and you think about pride. There's an aspect of pride about making safe spaces for other people, right? But there's also an aspect about being safer for ourselves wherever we're at in that journey. And it's important to remember that as we walk with pride, there is somebody who sees us walking with pride, who we're walking for them as much as we're walking for ourselves. And I'll never forget that. And with that, my long time friend judge, I'd like to turn it over to you, please, from our employee resource group.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilors ca lee. Good evening. I'm going to first read a piece that was recently published in the city insider, and that's an inside newsletter that's dedicated to our staff. And this piece is called we are the people. And I wrote this because a lot of people don't really realize as employees, we we do a lot of hard work. And I wanted with this piece, I wanted people to feel like someone sees them. So this is we are the people. We are the people who keep the waters flowing night and day, clean, delicious and pure. The ones who fill the potholes, pave the streets and hang the signs telling you where and when to go. We are the people who answer the questions going above and beyond our field of knowledge. Sharing resources to ease troubled minds. We're the ones to call when someone needs help to find their way. Or provide hope for tomorrow. We are the people who risk our lives in service of others, often thankless. When few would lift a hand. We are the ones who create livable spaces. Beautiful parks. Welcome to all. We are the people who make this city work and that is dedicated to the staff of the city of Portland for pride. There's a piece I wrote called we are here. And if you identify as an ally or LGBTQ to us. Plus, when you see me do this, I want you to say with me, we are here. So let's just practice that. Here we go. We are here. Perfect. Thank you so much. We are here. A diverse spectrum of family bound by blood and not representing all shades in celebration and unity. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We are here. Forces old, clad in angry habits of righteousness, condemn my life and whom I choose to love. Governmentally, politicized and medically deprived, we were forced to act up voices young and inexperienced in life's journey. Demand change now, while ignoring lost souls of a time when a place of brick and mortar is now a stonewall monument and genesis to the start of a movement. We are here ridiculed, stereotyped, and victims of violence. Our communities rally onward from lesbians, trans dikes on bikes, drag queens, muscle daddy bears, two spirit, gay, bi and all. Here is something for everyone. For this is pride. Our yearly spectacle of parades, sequins and waving rainbow flags letting the world around us know that we are here. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, council president. And thanks to everybody in the in the chambers and the dais or who's come to the dais. Your presence today is meaningful, and I thank you for that. And I hope that this proclamation is is meaningful, whether you're from cap northwest from from pride, northwest from our employees groups or others. Maybe that I'm forgetting I see you, I thank you, and I'm glad to be in community with you. The mayor and our employees wrote this proclamation. It's my honor to read it, if I can. Now, mr. President. All right. That's long. Okay. Whereas the city of Portland remains committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, social justice, and mutual respect as essential elements of a healthy, thriving and welcoming community. And whereas the long and ongoing struggle of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, two-spirit and other sexual and gender diverse communities for dignity, visibility, safety and equal rights continues to inspire all those who work to end discrimination and oppression. And whereas, it is vital to honor the history of LGBTQ ia2s plus movements and to center the voices and leadership of those most marginalized, especially transgender women of color, including marsha p johnson and sylvia rivera, whose activism, mutual aid and resistance to police violence surrounding stonewall helped ignite a global movement for queer and trans liberation. Whereas, Portland has hosted pride celebrations since 1971 and pride marches since 1970 and 2026 marks the 55th anniversary of pride celebrations in Portland and around the world. And whereas the LGBTQ ia2s plus portlanders contribute every day to the civic, cultural, artistic, educational, economic and public life of our city as artists, advocates, educators, organizers, entrepreneurs, public servants, neighbors, caregivers, and community leaders. And whereas Portland continues to be home to a vibrant network of LGBTQ I, a two plus organizations, community spaces, mutual aid networks, and service providers that support youth, elders, families, and individuals through advocacy, housing support, health services, arts and culture, and community connection. And whereas, despite progress toward equality and inclusion, the LGBTQ ia2s plus people continue to experience discrimination, violence, housing instability, barriers to health care, and targeted political attacks, particularly transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming people. Lgbtq ia2s plus youth, black and indigenous and other people of color. And whereas communities across the nation continue to see efforts to restrict gender affirming health care, censor LGBTQ. Ia2s plus stories and history, limit participation in public life and undermine the civic, civil rights and dignity of the LGBTQ. I two plus people. And whereas the city of Portland recognizes that safety, belonging and liberation require ongoing action and investment, and remain remains committed to advancing policies, services and partnerships that affirm and support LGBTQ ia2s plus residents, employees, visitors. And whereas, in the face of adversity, communities continue to demonstrate resilience, joy, creativity, solidarity and care through organizing, celebration, public art, storytelling, advocacy, and mutual aid that strengthen the entire city. And whereas pride is both a celebration and a call to action honoring the generations who fought for equality while recommitting ourselves to building a future where all people can live openly, safely, and authentically. Now. Therefore, I, keith wilson, mayor of the city of Portland, Oregon, the city of roses do hereby proclaim June and July 2026 to be Portland pride summer in Portland and encourage all to honor, celebrate and support the history, achievements, resilience and vibrant future of the lgbt. Qia2 plus communities. Thank you.

Let's suspend the rules and applaud. Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm now calling to order this meeting of the Portland city council. Keelan, can you please call the roll?

Good evening, claire moline here, here. Novick here. Clark. Green. Zimmerman here. Avalos. Smith here. Kanal. Here. Pirtle-guiney. Here. Ryan here. Dunphy here.

And can we please read the rules of decorum?

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

Thank you very much, colleagues. Our first item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Are there any requests to amend the agenda to reorder items or reschedule an item to a future meeting date? Looking around, seeing avoided eye contact, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? I think so the agenda is approved. Keelan can we please move to public communications?

First up tonight we have david gwyther.

Welcome. Please come on up. Introduce yourself for the record, you're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have three minutes.

My name is david gwyther. I'm with radio cab. I'm testifying today on autonomous vehicles. I specified no waymo as my. And waymo is just one of many companies that will be. You'll be probably hearing from to try to gain access to the Portland market. I'm not PBOT has been working for, I guess nine years or something like that. Hundreds and thousands of hours to regulate something that there's no state statute on. Even if they find or found problems, how are they going to find them? How can they enforce anything if there's no state statutes on this? I'm not a lawyer, but I think this the council and possibly coming from the public works committee, could write a law, get it through the legislature. So we have some legal basis to actually regulate this activity. Any funds that waymo or any of the other vehicle companies gather in Portland, any, any money that leaves and they intend to to raise quite a bit of money. They have something in the neighborhood of $30 billion in funding now, but that's expected to be repaid in dividends or whatnot over the next 20, 30 years. But any money that leaves Portland causes a ripple effect of roughly 5 to 1. That's the sort of standard urban economics theory in terms of economies. The google numbers that you'll be seeing. Remember that if google can't scrub a safety number, nobody can. And it also doesn't include distracted driving. I don't know if you've seen the waymo vehicles, but they have a flashing light on the top of them, very distracting. And their very presence would be quite new to almost every driver that encounters them. In the past. The first waymo light car autonomous vehicle during testing in tempe, arizona, ran over and killed a lady. It had a monitor. Unfortunately, the monitor didn't do her job, but the car failed. First. The. The sensors did not perceive somebody crossing a six Lane road in tempe, arizona. That was roughly nine years ago that. That happened now in Portland. Uber, one of the uber drivers, shot and killed somebody in a road rage and wounded another fellow doubted PBOT find that uber or anybody for it to for hiring this person, not that we know of. And they've been very efficient about burying that whole case. They must have obviously paid off all of the claims against them. So I want you to consider this, and I'd like very much to speak to the public works committee. There's. Thank you.

Screen.

Thank you, mr. President. Mr. Gwyther, you've come several times. I just wanted to note your testimony is consistent. On July 28th, the public works committee will be hearing from PBOT on some autonomous vehicles rulemaking. And a number of our offices are considering some legislation to to the direction that you're speaking.

May I attend?

Yes, absolutely.

Or speak? Possibly. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up tonight we have john russell.

Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Good evening, mayor, members of council. And mr. Lee, I'm john russell. I'm here because I love the keller auditorium, and I'm concerned that the current staff draft recommendation for the keller and PSU is seriously flawed. There are two significant issues for council. One is the risk of uncertainty about wsu's costs as compared to the confidence in the keller costs, and the other is simply that the cost of the PSU proposal is substantially more expensive, based on the city's own capital stack of cost projections. Three years ago, the city and metro and our philanthropic community each contributed $200,000 to a process that fleshed out the design for the keller that emerged from the design competition. The process included all the parties that were required city staff, metro staff, the london based firm, the won the design competition. Michael curry PBOT distinguished seating designer and every other discipline that was required. We met every two weeks for a year in the offices of a variety. The designers of the Portland art museum, and we produced a plan that we're proud of that is so complete that

Construction could.

Commence within a year. The plan is included among the vast numbers of materials that you've been given. Psu doesn't have such a detailed design. I'm told it gives rise to my first two points, namely, the city taxpayers are being asked to assume a substantial risk. I've owned a number of buildings. I've borrowed money from banks, construction loans, construction lenders. Believe me, when they convict the commit the funds they want every I dotted and t's crossed because they know that once they start committing funds, it's. If they're in for a dime, you're in for a dollar. And that shouldn't happen to the cities, taxpayers. The city should make a commitment with its eyes open. The other concern is even more serious, namely, that the current capital stack that the city produced of cost projections produced shows that the PSU alternative is substantially more expensive than restoring the keller. So there's not only the risk of cost uncertainty, but the actual certainty that it's more expensive. In conclusion, the current staff draft recommendation makes no sense for city taxpayers. Not only is it risky, but it's a commitment to a more expensive alternative. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here.

Next up we have jeremy Smith.

Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to use your pronouns. And you have three minutes.

Good evening, councilors and city administrator lee. My name is jeremy Smith. We must make it impossible for ice to terrorize the people in our beautiful city. The appalling, state sanctioned executions of lorenzo salgado araujo in texas and juan sebastian guerrero in maine are heinous. Are we going to wait around until another act of ice inflicted violence happens to our community? To the mayor. Why has there been so much stalling on the investigation into the mcadam facility permit and holding ice accountable? There are many things not in our control, but the things that are need to be dealt with swiftly, and we need to push that process along. My friend recently was abducted, detained and sent straight to tacoma. He was deported last week after being in the northwest detention center for months. This shouldn't happen anywhere and it shouldn't happen in our country. We know ice has violated the 2011 permit many times. We need to remember that the people of grays landing matter. The cottonwood school matters. South Portland and OHSU matter. These are portlanders we need to take into account when we're talking about the ice facility. Indifference in the face of injustice is siding with the oppressor. Why does ice get special treatment if others violate the terms of their permit, especially as many times as ice has, they get evicted. And so thank you to councilor Morillo for the detention facility. Fine. It's a great start and I'd like to see it increased. And thank you to councilor Kanal for the right to know who's policing you ordinance. Again, I think this is a great start and we can go further. Ice officers have no credibility to protect the public, follow or enforce the laws. Perk has written this and I fully agree. Ice is able to inflict this violence on us because of impunity and lack of accountability. They feel invincible, but they're not. We need to continue to fully fund the police accountability board and find more ways for law enforcement transparency. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have brandon markov.

Come on down.

After brandon will have patrick fitzpatrick.

Thanks everybody for your patience while we wait for our next speaker to come on down. It's relatively small chamber. Two muffins are sitting in an oven. The first muffin says, man, it's hot in here. And the second one says, ask a talking muffin.

How long have you been waiting a while.

I like that. Can you make more?

Welcome.

Thank you. Go ahead and start. Please go ahead and.

Introduce yourself.

For the record. My name is brandon, and I'm just going to talk briefly about the moda center and the trail blazers. I've been following the back and forth about moda center funding, and I'm a longtime basketball fan. I guess my thoughts on the matter, after having read a couple articles and waking up this morning and seeing the commissioner, adam silver, kind of saying, hey, you know, we might just have to relocate is, to me, it seems kind of ridiculous. I mean, I feel like. The new owner, I would like to see him succeed, you know, and see, you know, everyone kind of come together. But my personal opinion on the matter right now is I think I think the city should ask that the owner come up with 60 million out of the 120 million that they're asking out of the city. And in turn, I would like to see the city as part of that deal. Dedicate 20 million towards work programs and rehab programs for people on the fringe of the homeless. Other people like that also maybe kind of put that into keeping affordable housing solvent. And I think you should tell the owner that if he can't, you know, say, as a matter of good sportsmanship, we ask you to commit 60 million to this. And then if he disagrees, I think you should tell him to like, kind of get the out. And along those lines, I think you should kind of fight him. And I think a way to fight him would be to sounds kind of unusual, but actually, you know, bring some of the ogs into the equation, like brandon roy, clyde drexler, somebody I think would really back a fight against the owners. Acting this way would be maybe charles barkley. If someone can get ahold of him, I bet you he would be sitting there. Okay. I think the owners are being ridiculous. And you get some the old time players. I just think it's ridiculous that nobody comes into a city and just thinks he can just boss everybody around and thinks that's okay, you know? And as well as the nba commissioner, I think that's just ridiculous behavior. So that's it.

Thank you. Thank you very much for being here.

Next up, patrick fitzpatrick.

I think he's coming downstairs. Okay. I already used my one joke, unfortunately.

So.

Yeah. Can we get a slide?

Yeah. We'll talk to our friends at the fire department about getting a fire pole installed. Slides would also be a good option. Yes. Yep. I'm looking at isaac. Ziplines, perhaps. Welcome.

Sorry it was late in the future. I think that we should have some more disability access and have more of those chairs down here in the lobby. So you guys, time is not held up. My name is patrick fitzpatrick. I want to please ask everyone on the council and also in the audience to refrain from, you know, outbursts. I have extreme ptsd given the experience that I've been through in life and in politics, and I think you really respectfully ask for people to put bias and judgment aside and listen with an open heart and an open mind, because what I have to say is really jarring, and I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start with the incident at hand. That's international news right now, which is, well, what happened on the waterfront on Saturday and why yet again, was I like forrest gump, a politics scootering by on scene of yet another event? I'm not brian williams, but I was there. Well, the real brian williams please stand up. And I didn't film that event because, well, I don't feel naked people. I need a hard pass. I'm good on that. That's some epstein stuff. But I did talk to the family and I saw no trauma informed people for the trauma informed tip program there. And how many times have I been on scenes of shootings, stabbings, murders, all sorts of crazy things on the streets of Portland. Hell, I was threatened by jeremy christian. I called the cops on him when I was a peace builder, trying to get a gang truce on prison reform in the streets. Some of y'all literally slandered me into oblivion and thought it was funny that they thought that that was okay. It's not okay. I was the original dialog officer without a badge, in solidarity with people like bruce bizarre, who goes hard, and micah fletcher, who got stabbed in the neck famously never should have got stabbed. Anyways, going back to the issue at hand, yet another heinous incident happened in the city of Portland, and people choose not to see what's going on. And I told the family, I'm really sorry what happened. They should have the trauma intervention program here. Unfortunately, they're not here right now. But I have a resume and although I'm on a scooter doing uber eats and I look like a nobody, I think we're all somebodies. We all can have many talents and gifts. I don't think you guys sleep in your suits, do you? I think that you all have talents and gifts outside of work. I think we can all be connected and also humble at the same time. Anybody can be an expert on something. So my point is, is that I didn't film that. I'm not trying to milk people's trauma for content on the gram, but I could have done a street interview with that family, but it's not the time and place for me to do that. I also didn't film the guy in the back of the squad car because hard pass, I'm filming naked people, but people there actually filmed it because they needed the evidence. Because if they don't have the evidence, people in this city of Portland get called crazy and slandered and gaslit. Oh, that didn't happen. There's no pedophile in the water. Oh, there's someone attacking somebody. Well that's fine. Oh, he's not snatching. I've heard. I've heard from cops. Oh, his his penis is not erect in front of safeway. So we don't we can't arrest him. To me, it's that that's crazy. And the last thing I'll say is I did a story about this. And shout out to lisa phillips and virginia roberts family. They've already heard about this on instagram. So I'm going to ask people to respect the idea that not only that issue is heinous, but we also need to call out mercy corps. And I told the family all about that, and it's in the epstein files. Why am I the only one to speak on that counselor's?

Thank you very much for being here today.

Thank you.

That completes communications.

Okay.

Colleagues. Next item on our agenda is the presidential update. On Friday, the federal government announced that hundreds of thousands of immigrants with temporary protected status from haiti will lose that status on July 24th. Similarly, temporary protected status for immigrants from ethiopia, syria, somalia, yemen, south sudan and myanmar will expire on July 10th or did expire on July 10th. Communities in my district will be in danger because of these decisions. Nationally, federal officers have shot and killed two people in the last week. In the course of immigration enforcement actions that should not have been taking place at all. As a city, we need to remain focused on how much work in resistance, how much work in resistance to this administration, violence and towards justice lies ahead. And with that said, I'm going to turn it over to city administrator lee for an update on the status of our ongoing responses to the federal interventions in our city. Ca lee.

Thank you, council president. This week, I'm going to turn it over to our city attorney, robert taylor, to give this week's update.

Thank you, robert taylor, city attorney, have some good news. Based on some developments on Friday, as I've spoken to the council before the hearings, office held a hearing, there were several writs of review that were filed, and there was a stay issued by the circuit court that had prevented the hearings officer from issuing their decision. And we felt very strongly that the hearings officer should issue that decision, should be allowed to issue that decision. And so we have been litigating that issue in circuit court. On Friday, we successfully. Had the court allow the hearings officer to issue its decision. That decision was issued on Friday. That decision by the hearings officer held in the city's favor and sustained the notice of violation that was issued by the administration against the building owner. So that is a very good news. That is a very good step in this process for the city. Now, by the terms of that court order, once the hearings officer issues that decision, the stay would go back into effect. And now we're going to litigate in circuit court that decision by the hearings office. But I just wanted to give you that update. I do think this is a very good step. It's a necessary step in the process. And it's it's a validating step that the hearings officer upheld the notice of violation by the by the bureau. So good news. More to come. You know, we are this we are in litigation over this. It will take time just to sort of set expectations. This will take time. It may take longer than we want. But this is a good step. And and we're going to keep doing our best here. Thank you.

Thank you, mr. City attorney councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Councilor.

It worked. Go ahead.

Thank you for the updates. And thank you, council president, I wanted to ask, what are the potential next steps beyond the litigation in this process? Under state land use law?

Beyond the litigation, what are the next steps?

Yeah. Meaning after the the decision is made on the stay, let's say the stay is lifted. What what are the potential things that could happen after that?

Well, what what will happen next is the the circuit court will review the decision by the hearings office and decide whether to uphold that decision by the hearings office or not, assuming if the circuit court holds in the city's favor, that could get appealed up to the circuit court, and that could go through the appellate process. So that's where the litigation would go. The if if the notice of violation is is upheld through the judicial process, we can enforce, we can issue fines, we can hopefully bring the owner into compliance. There's also been discussion at council of reconsidering the conditional land use approval based on the failure to meet those conditions. So I think those are all options that that could could be available at the appropriate time. But right now we have a stay in place. We need to respect that stay. We need to move this through the the litigation process. But I feel very good after Friday that we finally have some news and some progress to report to the council.

Thank you for that explanation. Thank you to you and your team.

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Anything further, administrator? Okay. Thank you very much. Keelan can we please call items four and five together?

Item four, document 2026-222222. Amend the fy 2020 627 budget to appropriate. Appropriate $7,150,007 in Portland clean energy fund interest income and other fund resources to restore frontline positions and services reduced in the approved budget and to provide transition support for affected employees. Item five document 2026-223 adopt a supplemental budget for fy 2020 627 to reduce potential risks to city services.

Thank you colleagues. We have before us two supplemental budgets. Both of them restore positions and resources that were cut in the annual budget process. There is a lot in common between these two proposals and some key areas of difference. Under state budget law, only one supplemental budget can be prepared at a time. As such, we can consider both of these ordinances, but only one of them can become law. Today, we will consider both ordinances and consider amendments. A week from today, we're scheduled to return for a second reading. Both items. As these are budget ordinances, either one will become effective immediately upon passage, preventing the relevant layoffs scheduled for early August. So here is how the rest of tonight will go. First, I'm going to recognize the sponsors of both bills to introduce their proposals going in order of the filing. So document two, two, two and then document two, two, three. We will then recognize councilors who have pre-filed amendments to introduce but not move their proposals. We will then allow time for technical clarifying questions from council with a request that we treat the ordinances roughly in order. We'll then hear mixed public testimony on both ordinances and amendment proposals. We will then move to council discussion and debate on the amendments and the underlying. Any further amendments, as a reminder, will need to be reduced to writing before the body takes them up again. We are scheduled to move both items to a second reading for final votes next week. With that, I will start by introducing or turning it to councilor Green and then to councilor Clark, vice president Clark, councilor Green, kick us off.

Thank you, council president. I'm going to share my screen as I've just got a few slides that I think will help me kind of run through the motivation of the of the ordinance for me and my co-sponsors here. I hope you guys can see those slides. Can you see them on your screens? Yes. Okay. Wonderful. When I was a professor, I used to make fun of people who read from slides, but I have I have a headache, I am tired, I'm going to read from the slides. So before I get into it, I just I want to note my focus is going to be on what our ordinance does it to the extent that it refers to the other ordinance, it's really just drawing comparisons and some points of difference because that's the whole point. It's not about any anyone involved in the other effort. I don't want it to be about councilors. I want it to be about what we are trying to do tonight. So just wanted to preface that. So what does save our services do? It funds 48 critical positions. The mayor proposed for elimination in his budget. The positions restored. If this ordinance were to become law span across parks, transportation, water, environmental services, fire 311 dispatchers and the Portland bureau's unarmed police bureau's unarmed responders. Pps three restores 24 hour, seven coverage for three Portland fire and rescue vehicles that were proposed for elimination in the mayor's budget. It continues wages in health care through August for over 200 ftes whose jobs were cut by the mayor's budget, directs the city administrator to deliver a service impact analysis for the positions restored in this package to understand the impact of the loss of these positions, if not preserved beyond 2627. So that's a key piece there. The city did not conduct this analysis prior to proposing the elimination. So that's what we wanted to make sure was in here. How do we how do we pay for it? The the full package costs $12.8 million. And it's composed into two broad parts. The first is on the restoration of jobs and services, $10.3 million, of which seven a little over $7 million is funded through PCEF interest. The city has already earned. So it's in the current, I guess. Yeah, it's just the currently accrued interest, plus other non-general fund buckets. And about 1.65 million of the PCEF interest restores the three fire rescue units, and the rest funds those 48 positions. That second broad bucket is transition support for affected employees at a total of. So it's $2.5 million in continued wages and health care paid through contingency set asides. The non-general fund bureaus that employ these workers cover $1.8 million. The general fund covers approximately $706,000 $707,000. So why? Why are we using PCEF interest in this $24.3 million is is there. Right now, it's readily available to be appropriated. Our ordinance uses less than a third of that money already accrued in total. This source does not require a backfill from another fund. It's just it's just there right now. Our proposed use is transparent and clearly defined in the ordinance. This would actually be the first instance of cf interest being allocated to particular line items, as opposed to the kind of relatively recent practice of sweeping PCEF interest accrued in a previous year into the general fund to be proposed in the mayor's budget. So this is a this is an innovation. How does our ordinance differ from the other one on offer tonight? Well, both ordinances do focus on many of the same subjects they seek seeks to restore fire rescues ps3's high risk positions. These are positions that were identified, some from some of the labor partners, as being like, if we do not fund, these, things will break. We heard this in the labor summit 311 jobs, janitorial services. Those are our covered by seiu. Those are seiu members. And extending unemployment and benefits for employees who are losing their jobs. The key differences, in our view, is save our services is more employee focused. It continues about 48 positions versus 30 positions in the alternative. It also requires the admin, the admin to conduct a position by position impact analysis in consultation with labor unions and frontline staff. So this is another thing I heard in that labor summit that there's just a strong desire to have labor up front in a process like this. So we're trying to codify that here. Save our services utilizes a funding source that is guaranteed and available with no backfill requirement that could lead to budget issues or even worse, cuts in the spring town. And it assures any increases we make to the police budget are accompanied by a required increase in the office of community based police accountability budget per charter. Save our services continues. More of council's parks levy promise to portlanders by restoring 13 parks, positions and some park services that the mayor cut ensures community gardens maintain service levels, current service levels and prevents increased fees. It prevents extended closures of community centers, pools, restrooms, event spaces and canceled or disrupted events. It keeps the senior center project and preserves equity in our service offerings. It keeps recreation leaders at peninsula park and charles jordan for after school staffing was a crucial community. Centers. This is probably difficult to see. It is for me, but we. We have this table here, and I think the clerk. The clerk has a version of this for folks following along. But both ordinances spend about the same on actual police positions, roughly $1.5 million. So you'll see that in both. But in the. Ours does not add 3 million for additional training hours. Restores 18 more people, 11 of them in parks, funds the police accountability office instead of drawing on it, and does all of it without touching the general fund reserves. So there's this table at the end here that just shows you a kind of side by side there. That's I mean, I think that's it. So we're going to get into the broader discussion later. We're going to hear the testimony first. And so at that point I'll stop blathering and stop sharing my screen. And I'll probably hand it over to councilor Clark is probably how that's going to go.

Absolutely. So vice president Clark.

Thank you.

Thank you, council president, and my compliments to my colleague mr. Green. Very good. In the words of yogi berra, I have to say I'm having deja vu all over again. And usually I speak off the cuff up here. But this time I'm actually going to read my remarks into the record. This is about what we're calling the risk reduction rescue plan, which is before us today. It's a fiscally responsible plan to stop severe cuts to public safety services, protect essential city staff and keep Portland moving without leaving dollars sitting in a bank account. I believe the restoration at the heart of this plan, these restorations are not optional. The plan uses 9.96 million in general fund contingency to restore the peak hour coverage for public service specialists, the p3s. It has funding to ensure critical police training and professional development. It preserves the Portland fire and rescue teams that save lives during medical emergencies every single day. And further. One other difference it returns 1.75 million to the business license tax reserve fund to shore up the city's financial stability and credit rating. It's only our ordinance that restores or this ordinance that restores some of this funding for critical police training. Our police need training in driving a vehicle in the difficult, dangerous circumstances they encounter in vehicles. Police need ongoing training and crisis, de-escalation, de-escalation, and those kinds of trainings actually save lives. I would just add as a note that even america's leading democratic socialist, the new york mayor, agrees with us on the importance of a well-trained police force. He's also making additional investments in police training. Another key difference is that our ordinance restores the belt reserve fund, which is intended to guard against fluctuations in the volatile source of revenue and to address the risk to our credit rating, that the rate on those reserves and the adopted budget posted posed. Excuse me. In addition to preserving essential public safety services, we worked in coordination with labor unions and city administration to identify and restore the non public safety positions to ensure continued service delivery for portlanders through a 2.25 million from other funds. The personnel that our ordinance restores are public safety personnel, as I mentioned, plus some key positions for afscme and asked me. 189 protect. 17 cp, w, and seiu that layoffs pose particularly great risks to city operations, and the executive and the executive ultimately agreed with us. And the union's analysis. Also, our ordinance would allow a smooth transition during a time of cuts, necessary cuts to balance our budget. This ordinance will extend pay and benefits to all laid off employees through September the 30th. I want to be very clear that what this ordinance does not do, the ordinance does not delay, defund or interfere with the office of police accountability in any way and will allow the strong police oversight and accountability work that portlanders voted for to be delivered. This is a common sense plan to ensure portlanders get the critical services that they depend on. These are not budget line items. They are lifelines to portlanders. Thank you, mr. President.

Thank you, vice president Clark. As also mentioned, I'd like to give the opportunity for the pre-filed amendments or authors of the pre-filed amendments to briefly introduce theirs. I'm going to do my own first, because I get to I filed I have pre-filed an amendment that is on item two, two, three or item five, document 223, titled Dunphy one. My amendment specifically removes consideration of the or the. The language consideration in the text of the office of community police accountability and the Portland clean energy fund to backfill the general fund. Contingency fund and the business license tax reserve fund in the spring and instead directs the city budget office to present options across the general fund bureau, underspending and PCEF interest without prioritizing specific funds within those bureaus. It should be up to the professional assessments which funds are presented as backfill options for the spring thaw. Rather than prioritizing 1 or 2. Importantly, at the time of the spring thaw, every named bureau will have an interim or permanent leadership in place. An anticipated annual expenditure based on that director's assessment of goals and needs within the fiscal year. So whether directed by council, the mayor, the auditor, or by an independent authority, every bureau will be able to go through the same professional process of scoping work, budgeting within available resources, and carrying out that work plan as underspending develops in response to that professional process and as interest accrues in large capital accounts, as council anticipates it may, on both counts, those dollars may be redirected appropriately. And so that is the text of or that is the brief explanation of what Dunphy one would do. I am not moving it. I'm simply explaining it for public testimony. So I'm now going to turn it over to councilor Koyama Lane to explain. Koyama Lane Kanal one.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, council president. So I'd like to make it clear that my amendment that I'm bringing forward is really in the spirit of hoping to have compromise, collaboration. This amendment restores specifically three additional positions and programs. The first is the senior center program. It's a program that we've heard numerous constituents come before us here to come advocate for. The program, supports older adults with disabilities and is partially funded by a fee for service contract with Multnomah county. I've heard directly from constituents that the report from the mayor was incorrect, and that there really are no other programs to transition these participants directly into. So I think that is important to restore. The second is the position for the international relations program, the international international relations program manages our relationships and partners with our sister cities and does a lot of work to. For on the city's behalf in with international relations. And then lastly, the third thing that my amendment restores is the cease fire coordinator position. The cease fire program is vitally is a vitally important program. And while we've restored most of the cuts to the program during our budget process, we'd like to see this this fully restored. I had heard heard that this ask actually came from the administration to make sure that we fund this also. And just noting that the amendment is is revised and includes recommended language from the city attorney's office and clarification from cbo to ensure that we fulfill the requirements for a supplemental budget ordinance. There are union jobs saved with this amendment, and I hope that my colleagues will consider it. I will formally move it later.

Thank you very much. Councilor, Koyama Lane and councilor Kanal. To explain explanations of Kanal two and three as pre-filed.

Thank you very much, council president. Thank you colleagues. Amendment Kanal two. These are both to to ordinance two, 2026-223. The one that was presented by councilor Clark. Amendment Kanal two removes the references to any specific bureaus for underspending while retaining the references to underspending itself, and directs that when looking at underspending, the staff will initially consider accrued interest in cf and that is in two places. In paragraph ten of the. The first section and then in the council ordains. In part c, it is similar to, but slightly different than Kanal three. Kanal three removes the references to underspending altogether and starts with looking at accrued interest in cf. Both of them are. And that those are in the same paragraphs, part part ten and part c. Both of them are attempts to source the repayment of the general fund contingency, which is drawn upon for the. The restoration. The funding cuts in 2026-223. By looking at a different funding source than targeting the police accountability board. And so they offer two different ways of doing it. Underspending first followed by cf interest or cf interest first, and I think the reasons for that have been stated, but we'll probably get into them later on. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal so, colleagues, before we move to public testimony, I want to note we have more than 20 people signed up at this point. And for folks who are in the room or signed up online to testify, we did cross, I believe, the 25 person threshold, which means we have had to reduce everybody's testimony down to two minutes. I apologize before we move into public testimony. Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions about either of the proposals or the amendments? Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Sorry, I just it's a point of information. Council president, you said 25 people. I'm not 100% sure as to the math on this, but do we not have time to hear the full three minutes from everyone?

Usually it's just that is how our our processes work. When we cross over that point, we reduce it.

Okay, well, I, I'd ask while we get through the technical questions for that to be reconsidered, I understand it is your call, but thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: I'd like to ask a technical question of the budget director.

Great.

Welcome, director levine.

Thank you, director levine, I've got some questions about the ordinance. Adopt a supplemental budget for fy 2020 627 to reduce potential risk to city services. If this ordinance passes, does it reduce the budget of the community board for police accountability?

Aye, Morillo. For the record, ruth levine, budget director not not now. No. So the only change to appropriations, which are shown in the table, the exhibits to the ordinance would be it would reduce general fund contingency right now and increase the budgets of the bureaus that are receiving funds to restore the cuts. The ocpa is contemplated in that ordinance as a source to to refill the reduced contingency in the spring.

But that will only happen if they, in fact, underspend their current allocation. Correct?

Right. It directs our office to file a supplemental budget by April 1st, and council would have to adopt that supplemental budget in order to make any further changes, including reducing the budget of ocpa.

So six months from now, will the cvpa continue to have their full budget to spend if they can find a way to spend it?

Yeah. Assuming this ordinance passed and nothing else, then yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Kanal.

Steve Novick: Thank you, council president. And my question is also for for director levine, I have two questions. One is, after assuming that this were to pass 2026-223 unchanged at any point, is it common for you to look at this or for for the cfo, I guess as well to look at the. This sort of legislation, I don't know. We haven't done this exact sort of thing before as a way of understanding what might be available. In other words, will you be looking if if this ordinance directs you to look at ocpa for underspending, would you be looking there to achieve that? Underspending well, it might be a cfo biery question.

Yeah. I mean, certainly if we were directed to, we would. And I mean, I think in general, I guess I don't know if this answers your question or not, but I we have historically drawn sort of pulled back general fund underspending in the spring, not every year, but like in 25, 26, we obviously did it to cover revenues that had come in below forecast in previous years. We have done it in order to then rebudget that underspending in the subsequent fiscal year. So it's not uncommon to look within the general fund to repurpose underspending within a fiscal year as a general matter.

Okay. The other question I had is, if you could just reiterate something you said you were at the community board for police accountability, and there was a question about on Monday night, and there was a question about whether or not you needed to specify a bureau. And your response was, and I'm I'm looking at the transcript here. It it's not required to specify a source as of right now, end quote. And if you could just speak to the necessity of naming a specific bureau when there are, you know, 20 plus potential bureaus that get general fund discretionary allocated to them and could theoretically have under spending.

Sure. Yeah, I think so. I've consulted with the city attorney also, I should say, on that right now, like legally there's not a need. Like we're drawing this ordinance, if it passed, would draw down general fund contingency and put it in various bureaus to spend. There's no requirement legally right now that we identify a source to then go back and refill that general fund contingency. The kind of binding constraint is that by the end of the fiscal year, we can't overextend our budget. So there's obviously reasons that council adopted those contingencies. You know, there's the blt reserve that prevents against current year revenue shortfalls in a volatile revenue source. There's unrestricted contingency that's used to pay for any number of things that we can't, by definition, can't forecast. Those are the the big ones. There's also a policy reserve that council approved in there. So the only binding constraint is that we don't overextend our budget. So we have to make sure come April, that we are on track to not overextend our budget. But right now, no, there's no kind of requirement. I think it's more of a transparency conversation about where, you know, where is council interested in looking for underspending and where is there likely to be underspending or not?

Council interested in looking for underspending. I'm just checking the transcript. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Thank you, councilor Kanal. Councilor Novick. Is that a legacy or.

I forgot to ask something. I refer to councilor Morillo first.

Angelita Morillo: Okay. Councilor. Morillo.

Thank you, council president. Thank you for being here. So part of what we're trying to do today is obviously like map out further out ahead. And I think that we can partially do that by seeing what's happened before. So in 2024, 2025, I think we were told, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we were going to have around $15.7 million in the fall, and that would help us. But then we later found out that it was around 4.8 million that was left. So we were under the impression that we were going to have a lot more money to play with later in the underspend. And then the reality was very different from that. So does that create the implicit pressure that we would be taking money from ocpa under those circumstances?

I'm not I'm I'm trying to track down the numbers you referenced. I don't remember them off the top of my head, but I think. So going back to like 25, 26 as an example, where and maybe this is what you're referring to in 2425, our revenues came in short of what we had forecast. We absorbed that in 2526. Functionally, one of the ways we absorbed it is essentially through bureau underspending, because we didn't have like a blt reserve, we didn't have sufficient. We had we used some contingency to absorb it, but we also pulled back general fund underspending to address it. We didn't draw from ocpa. There were some differences last year in the way that was budgeted compared to this year, since they were stood up halfway through the fiscal year last year. But. I think there's no. I mean, I guess I'll say part of the reason we recommended establishing the blt reserve that was included in the mayor's proposed was to deal with the volatility in revenue so that we wouldn't have to use bureau underspending to come up with that one time to fill those one time revenue gaps. Like we have financial policy about how council could use one time underspending for things like capital addressing capital needs. And I've talked previously about how to use one time funding. So the hope is not to look for bureau underspending to fill those those revenue gaps. Does that answer your question at all?

Sort of. I guess I you know, the past two spring or the past spring, we were told that we were going to have a lot more money than we ended up having. There was very little underspend left. And so my understanding is we're predicating our decisions on these ordinances based on the idea that there may be money later, but the PCEF interest is there. It's not going to impact any clean energy programs. We're not going to have to cut anything there. It just exists right now. It's actually very simple and straightforward. So I guess what I'm hearing you say is that you're recognizing that we continue to face shortfalls. And the clerk ordinance is using the same source of funding that is meant to combat that shortfall. Is that correct?

I mean, my understanding, to the extent that the ordinance would reduce general fund contingency in the short term, that would, in the short term, kind of reduce our flexibility, it contemplate that ordinance, contemplates looking at ocpa and PCEF interest for sources to refill that contingency. So I think that assuming that happened, would then kind of address that concern.

Okay. So a lot of assumptions is what I'm hearing. No assumptions with ours though, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you counselor. Morillo. Councilor, Novick and Kanal are both in the queue, but councilor Pirtle-guiney has not gone yet, so I'm going to go to her then to councilor. Novick.

Thank you, council president. Ruth, a question based on that line of conversation that just came up. My colleague said that there wasn't very much underspend. I think she said 4 million during the spring town last year was available. But I'm looking at the document in Dunphy one, which suggested that there was something like over $20 million of underspend across bureaus. Can you clarify for us what the total general fund underspend was in the 2526 budget?

I can try. So there's a distinction between the two things that you just mentioned. So in the spring town, we forecast underspending as of April, right? So we're about three quarters of the way through the fiscal year at that point. And we say, what do you think bureaus, you know, based on your projections and your spending and all of the best information you have, what do you think will be left over by the end of the fiscal year? And we did pull that back. I'm trying to get the the number that we pulled back in the spring of 2526. That's typically a conservative estimate. We also did not pull anything from ocpa in 2526. The numbers that are posted in the Dunphy one amendment are the preliminary year end numbers. And I want to heavily caveat that they're preliminary. There's like two rounds of year end closing. We've only done one. So they will change. And they do include ocpa in that number in in that year end number. So there are different for that reason, because one is like, hey, how much do you think you're going to underspend? And the other is like, okay, the year is done. Here's what we're seeing. The other caveats to those numbers are we haven't, we won't really have it until we come back at the fall tore because we have to ask things like, you know, are there certain buckets of money that we're expected to, to carry over? We really clamp down on that, but there may be some here and there anyways, those are their different, their different numbers.

That these are rough. Totally understood that these are rough. I'm going to use these to understand scale as opposed to specificity of numbers. And, and even there, if you take out ocpa, it looks like the scale is in the 5 to 10 million range. Even without that, or maybe 5 to 8 million range even without that. So I just wanted to clarify that. I also councilor Clark, our colleague, was talking about underspend versus PCEF, and I just wanted to clarify that the measure that you brought forward essentially directs our budget staff to look at underspend and accrued interest, and it calls out those two sources, the ocpa and PCEF. But it doesn't limit that. Look, just to either one or both of those sources. It says to look to those sources generally. Is that accurate? Okay. Thank you for those clarifications. Thank you, council president.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Novick.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, mr. President. Director levine, you just mentioned we were just talking about your preliminary estimate of underspending for 2526. What's your preliminary estimate of underspending in 2526 for the police accountability board?

I believe the underspending number we sent over was 12.2 million. But I should note with that that they only stood up partway through the fiscal year. But the 5% constraint was calculated for the full year of the police budget.

Thank you. And not to beat this with a dead horse, but do you think it's clearer than than the Clark proposal? If underspending does not materialize, PCEF interest will be used to refill general fund contingency. At least that that that that.

That's the direction for the proposal. Yes. Assuming again, council would have to adopt that at that point.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Kanal.

Steve Novick: Thanks. I, I wanted to focus for a second on the preceding this this exhibit d, I think, is what you're referring to here in the proposed Dunphy one. I. I also wanted to talk about the preceding couple of years. My understanding is that in the. I appreciate the distinction, director levine, that in the spring town, we're looking at what's forecasted under spending would still, you know, three months left to go at that time, there's probably lesser underspending than what ends up actually happening and going to balance in most cases. And I think you can see that where there's ending fund balance available at the end of the fiscal year, we're seeing a nod there. And yet, despite that fact, there was, as far as I can tell, about $1.2 million. Is the general fund discretionary dollars returned in the fiscal year 2024? Spring town. That's 23, 24 and a 4.8 4.9 million returned in spring 2025, and $9.1 million returned. And again, this is general fund discretionary in 26, meaning a couple months ago. Is that accurate? First off, are those numbers. That's what I've I've received that. And I just want to verify that on the record.

Yes, they're accurate numbers.

Okay. So what that means is that there's significantly more other sources because this came from several different bureaus. For example, there was, you know, 150,000 from housing. There was 605 from the city attorney's office. There was 75,000 from civic life. And it cobbled together to make that much larger number. So I just wanted to, to, to get that on the record. The other question I wanted to have is, you know, you're a you're a director. And so I wanted to ask, not in your capacity, as you know, our budget expert, which you obviously are, but also in the capacity of your bureau director, who receives about $1.6 million in in general fund discretionary. That's that's, I believe, the budget for this year. And if we told you that we were going to need a million of that back in the spring, how would you feel like you could spend more than the remaining $600,000?

I mean, I guess the way I'll answer that is to say, and one thing I was going to add for both of the last two fiscal years, there have been pretty significant. There's been pretty significant guidance from the administration in one form or another relating to. Sort of reducing expenditures in order to generate underspending. So particularly in 2526, we were aware pretty early on that that was going to be necessary. And even in 2425, there was some guidance. So I would I would as a director, I would probably defer to the city administrator's guidance.

Okay.

So let me let me ask, I guess just to add to that question, in pretty early in the fiscal year, there was an awareness for bureau directors, or at least one bureau director, that underspending was going to be necessary, or I should say, reducing expenditures in order to generate underspending that could be reallocated was going to be necessary. And if the city administrator wants to answer this, I don't want to put you on the spot, director levine, but either would be good. Do you think that that affected any of the bureau directors decisions? Do you think that that that advice was he that guidance sorry, was heated?

I can't speak councilor Kanal as it relates to if that guidance was heeded, but it does impact decision making when those type of constraints are being put on the organization as it relates to how they analyze their services and how they will deliver those services overall, in meeting the financial constraints that we may be placing on the organization to meet our budget goals.

Great. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Kanal seeing no one else in the queue for technical or clarifying questions, it is currently 722. Rather than start a testimony and then take a break and then continue testimony, I'm going to give us a break right now and give us a ten minute break. Ask everybody be back here at 732 and we will begin public testimony at that time seeing.

And we are back. Folks, thank you so much for your indulgence as recognizing that we are all human beings. Keelan can we please move to public testimony?

All righty. So before we get started, I will call up testifiers in groups of five. Each individual will have two minutes. For those testifying in person, you will see the timer countdown displayed on the monitor in front of the testimony table. For those testifying virtually, the timer is displayed in zoom. You will hear the timer chime twice. Once when there are 30s left, then a second time when your time is up. Before you begin your testimony, please state your name for the record. All right, let's get going. First up, we have tim pitts, benjamin gilbert, zach white, isaac mcclymont, and christopher olsen.

Welcome, folks. Come on up. Introduce yourselves for the record, you're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have two minutes apiece. And whoever wants to sit down first and go, you get to go first. Right in the middle. You go first. No. I'm choosing. Yeah, you get to go.

My name is zach white. I was born in district one and I'm a field organizer with next up action fund. We are a political home to build upon the collective power and leadership of diverse young people. Since I was able to vote in 2016, my generation has rejected austerity, a mindset of scarcity for the public. While private wealth surpasses the gilded age, young people lead the charge. But austerity hurts everyone, from parents with kids in our schools to seniors. During our marathon day of budget testimony in may, I said I hoped we could balance the budget not on the backs of working people like mayor mamdani said they did in new york today, it seems clear that, sadly, Portland did balance its budget on the backs of working people. While the city is laying off frontline union workers, it is adding administrative level positions. Fingers crossed they don't need to be escorted away with more huge payouts. On behalf of next up action fund, we ask the council to pass the save our services ordinance and thank the five sponsors. This ordinance preserves 48 vital positions and does not pull funds from any voter approved programs. Uses of interest income on a one time and transparent basis without affecting any of the vital work. As organizers who serve young people of color, we uplift councilor Avalos concern with one ordinance reference to police accountability funds. While we grapple with the violence communities of color continue to face. We ask you to respect that voters knew what they were doing when they voted to create the ocpa. Save our services does not tell the budget office to maybe use brand new police accountability funds that may have been overspent in next spring. Also, as someone deeply connected to Sellwood park in mount tabor, I know to save our services restores significantly more parks jobs with both ordinances citing dialog with labor in the abstract. Save our services names, the demands and input of the city of Portland professional workers union. These unions have names just as the city workers being laid off have names. Most of you have acknowledged that these workers were left out of the realignment conversation. Save our services restores more of their jobs. We echo what workers have already said here. Labor remembers. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is ben gilbert, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland chapter of the democratic socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in in the history of the united states, with over 3500 dues paying members in the Portland metro area, councilor Clark. The city would be better if our council followed mayor mamdani on policies he enthusiastically supported, not just on his concessions. I want to speak in strong support of the save our services ordinance, introduced by councilor Mitch Green, Candace Avalos, anita Morillo Sameer Kanal and Tiffany Koyama Lane. This ordinance will prevent cuts to frontline workers in critical programs that portlanders rely on. When our city is under attack from an out of control federal government, the last thing we should be doing is diminishing our municipal capacity by laying off city workers and cutting services that we rely on. Walgreen and co-sponsors have come up with creative ways to save these core services and jobs. The right wing bloc of the city council is introducing a misleadingly titled risk reduction rescue ordinance that would sabotage and ultimately defund the office of community based police accountability. With a significant portion of the money going to the Portland police bureau. Portlanders want police accountability. 82% of voters supported the creation of the ocpa in 2020, taking money from the ocpa, which is the bureau that houses and is run by the community board for police. Accountability. Without the support of the board would violate the city charter. The ordinance uses a workaround. It loans money from the general fund contingency to fill the budget gap, and then has ocpa pay it back. This puts pressure on the ocpa to underspend its legally required budget, which violates the portion of the charter which states that the city council, mayor, city administrator, auditor and city departments, bureaus and other administrative agencies should not interfere in the exercise of the board's independent judgment. The right wing of council and the mayor are threatening parks, which is especially egregious after the passage of the voter approved parks levy, which promised that if we pay higher taxes, that our parks would be maintained at current service levels, please pass the save our services ordinance and if it fails, please amend the ordinance to be less disappointing. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Well, good evening, council president Dunphy, vice president, members of council and city administrator lee. For the record, my name is isaac mcclymont. I serve as the president of the Portland firefighters association, iaff local 43. I'm here today in support of restoring 24 hour staffing for fire rescues 111931, which serve in the neighborhoods and surrounding areas of mount tabor, Montavilla, Lents and rockwood. I know there are. There are different differing options before you today, different funding mechanisms, and I respect these difficult policy decisions will ensue. But I'm not here to tell you how to fund these rescues. I'm here to tell you we're here to ask you to fund them. When someone calls 911 because their loved one is trapped after a crash, because a firefighter is injured inside a burning building, or because a technical rescue is needed, they don't ask where the money is coming from. They expect help to arrive. Over the past several weeks, we've documented incident after incident when these overnight rescue closures have affected emergency response. These aren't these aren't theoretical impacts anymore. They're real calls involving real firefighters and real portlanders. I also want to remind you that restoring these three rescues is not expanding service. Our gis analysis shows that even with these three, these three rescues staffed 24 hours a day, Portland still falls short of the national response standards for dense urban communities like ours. These proposals simply move us closer to the level of service that our residents deserve. Whether. Whatever your position is on the funding source, I ask you not to lose sight of what we're actually voting on. This is about whether Portland has emergency response capacity its residents expect when they dial 911. Public safety should not be can become collateral damage. In a debate over accounting. Please restore rescue companies to 24 hour service. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Tim.

Hi. Thank you. My name is tim pitts. He him pronouns. I'm a member of the community board for police accountability. And tonight I'm testifying as an individual, not on behalf of the cbpai strongly oppose ordinance 2026-223, which seeks to spend nearly $10 million allocated to the ocpa without knowing that that money will not be used by the ocpa. Even the city budget office calls this scheme unusual. Despite having multiple meetings in the last month, the board has not been asked for details about the budget. This ordinance is based on an assumption. In the meantime, the cba is hard at work. A nationwide recruitment for a director is nearing the interview stage. Multiple other positions for the office are being actively recruited. A search is underway for a facility which will incur build out and furnishing costs, and there are many other critical start up expenses. If there's money left over at the end of the year, it will return to the general fund to be spent next year. And as you all know, the budget hole will still be there next year. This just pushes the pain out by a year. The ocpa is charged with being an independent body, and this is blatant interference against that independence. So please let the ocpa do its work. And don't force the ocpa into a corner where they're pressured to underspend just to keep the city afloat. And if the city budget office and councilors state that pcf interests can fill these gaps, why are we even talking about taking money from the ocpa? Because it's a political power play, is why it's yet another attack on the ocpa, another attack on police accountability. It's hard to keep fighting for what 82% of Portland voters said they wanted in 2020, which is true accountability from the people who are here to serve and protect us. But I will keep doing everything I can to serve that mission, and I'm asking for a little help. Please vote no on 2026-223.

Thank you very much.

Next up, chris christopher olsen, edith gillis, jeremy beausoleil Smith, kenneth March, joe rowe and Ryan sotomayor.

Edith gillis, district three. Saturday I was incapacitated on my bathroom floor with serious symptoms of impending death. I was confused not knowing how that happened or what I could do. But I did know I wanted to kill my call my kids to say I love you. Remember all I role modeled and taught you, but I could not speak. I wanted to call a paramedic to help, but I reasoned that a 911 operator might send cops. Well, I didn't know what was happening or why I did. No, never call cops. Cops are the second worst risk and danger to public health and safety. They rarely ever solve crimes like the rape five year old, whose rape kit the pvb didn't process for 30 years this September, even though she was only with a diagnosed psychopath, rapist, torture and another child. Cops promote lies and fraud to rob pcf when pcf could prevent crimes, cops begin every shift with contempt and paranoid hostility against civilians as their enemies, and they practice, comply or die. If the cops were scared, not knowing why a 911 call came from my address, they could enter with guns aimed yell demands I could not obey and then shoot me. I know too many Oregonians and washingtonians whose loved ones were killed by cops because the cops are biased and scared out of control, and they punish people. They scared. When cops scare us, we freeze. We're shot if we camouflage or hide or shot, if we're deaf or confused or shot if we run, we're shot. If we're angry or ask questions, we're shot. If we fight, we're shot. If we obey, we're shot. If we act calm, we're shot. Those are the only things scared people can do. And all I could do was lie helpless on the floor with my lungs hardly breathing and my heart barely beating 2 to 3. But not train that attitude and pattern of practice out of cops. We have centuries of evidence against the country and 150 years of Portland police committing violent crimes against portlanders, knowing they are not held accountable, and that no amount of training changes their culture of contempt for civilians and human rights, and they refuse to take the free training that portlanders have offered cops for decades. George floyd was killed even after reforms, training, and multiracial gender cops. Historically, the more money police departments have, the more violent crimes they commit. Cops have contempt for the law, as proven by the promoting city councilors breaking the law, city charter, budgeting, fiscal responsibility and breaking the law. Over 80% of portlanders chose for peace and for police accountability. Police do not prevent crimes, but two two, two would prevent and a strong, resilient community.

Thank you edith, thank you very much.

Jeremy.

Good evening councilors. My name is jeremy Smith. When we talk about cutting positions, we're talking about uprooting someone's entire life. A job is how we provide for our families. And these are real portlanders whose lives will be devastated while simultaneously making our city government less effective. There's an opportunity on the table to save portlanders livelihoods, and to not take that opportunity is nothing short of cruel. The voters of Portland approved the parks levy and expect our parks to be maintained like the crown jewels of Portland that they are. I urge the council to support the save our ordinance. The alternative amendment offers a path that saves us jobs. Why is there so much energy always put into moderating productive, progressive plans? Who asked for that? Surely not. Anyone who listens to portlanders and respects the civil service of the city workers facing job loss. It's also not lost on us that most of these positions are union represented to the moderates and conservatives on council. If you vote against the services first amendment, the people of Portland will not forget. Labor remembers and will not forget this. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Joe. Joe. You're muted.

Hello. My name is joe. Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Hello. My name is joe. Can you hear me?

Yeah. Go ahead. We can hear you, joe.

Thank you councilors, for your service and volunteering in our city office. And all the city workers were protecting. I just want to say from the start that we have a clear division in our city. We have six progressives and six people. You can put another label on. And I think there's an unanimous 12 oppose all the fascist tendencies of our leadership in Washington, d.c. So I would like to point out that the charles jordan community center down the street from me and other facilities in north Portland will be restored by one of these choices. So will the six who are not progressive or less progressive. Look me in the face and say, you'd rather give police a slush fund of 3 million in training? I don't know the details of that, but are you going to fund the charles jordan community center to help black kids after school, or are you going to give cops $300 million to travel for their, quote, training air quotes? Right. That's the decision we're making here tonight. And there's just a lot of deception from the not six progressive. Left. I am so tired of the not progressives in Portland. And we have a clear choice. 82% of voters supported joanne hardesty's measure 26 to 18 to fund police accountability. Police accountability hit me in the first month I lived in Portland. I was abused by the cops and cuffed and abused. I went to court. The judge abused me and on appeal before three judges in writing, I won. I won against police abuse and I will still keep fighting police abuse over and over because not everyone who goes to charles jordan community center has the ability to talk to their lawyer friends and write their own appeal pro se. Right. So I want to know, are any of the six less progressives tonight going to abandon your little cadre and vote for the charles jordan community? Senator? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Ryan.

Good evening, council president Dunphy, vice president or vice council president. All of you, wonderful to see you. Happy pride. My name is Ryan sotomayor. I'm the business manager and secretary treasurer of labor's local 43. We represent three different contracts that the city of Portland, the Portland city laborers, which includes folks in environmental services and transportation and parks. And then the recreation contract, which is the recreation side of parks and recreation, and the seasonal maintenance workers. I want to express vocal support and thanks for the save our services ordinance two, two two. There are three positions that I want to speak to that two, two two restores a recreation leader at charles jordan community center that's in district two, charles jordan community center serves some of the most marginalized people that have and continue to live in the city of Portland. I worked there for a year and a half, six months prior to COVID, and then for a year during COVID. It's restores a recreation coordinator position at peninsula park that is in district two. Peninsula park is in district two as a recreation coordinator position, and that provides services and programing for our marginalized children that supports a wrestling program that is world renowned. And the other position I would like to speak to is the senior center position that is within adaptive and inclusion, which is in recreation. That is included in two, two, two. None of those positions are included in two, two, three. So I'd ask the councilors why those positions are not being restored in two, two, three only by the amendment of Kanal and Koyama Lane. One is one of those positions being restored. Please do better. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here.

Okay. Checking to see if kenneth March is here. Okay. Moving on to connor lennon. Ellie murray, terrance hayes, phillip chachka, jordan lewis.

Welcome. Come on down, folks. Feel free to jump on in.

Incredible. Thank you, council president Dunphy. The rest of council and city administrator raymond lee. I appreciate your time today. For the record, my name is connor lennon. I'm a resident in district four and I'm here in support of the Green Morillo Avalos Kanal Koyama Lane save our services ordinance. This ordinance is going to do a number of things, and I think the most important thing is that it's going to save 18 more positions than any other ordinance being presented today. If you want to call yourself a labor champion, I want you to weigh the number 18. Consider looking 18 of those people in the eyes and telling them that you voted against them having a job, because even though you won't have to do that, that is the reality of what's happening here. I personally lost my job two weeks ago, and I can tell you from my experience, even if I was begged to come back, I never would. Because once you show me as a worker that my value to you is not the same as my value to me. You cannot get that back from me ever. So I think protecting our union jobs and protecting those 18 workers needs to be your top priority. Today, you had the opportunity to save 103 jobs. You chose not to. Now I am sitting in front of you asking you to save 48 jobs. It's not as many as we could have, but frankly, we're going to have to accept that and we're going to have to push forward knowing that there are countless employees that will never come back. That is countless work and countless knowledge and experience that will never come back, that will forever be lost. And I am asking you to consider 18 of those people and all of their experience, knowing that that is experience. If you get rid of, you will never get back. This will also save key jobs in parks. The people of Portland voted for our parks levy, and we're expecting our parks to be maintained. I think the very least we can do is our damnedest to protect those jobs and to keep our parks the way they are. They are the crown jewel of Portland, and they are probably the one thing that people that don't live here know of us. So I'm asking you today to support the save our services ordinance, and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Whoever wants to go next.

Hello, city council, my name is jordan lewis. I'm a registered lobbyist with the Portland democratic socialists of America. I wanted to thank everyone for the really awesome pride pre gavel announcement that we had. It took me back to when I had to come out to my parents in back in west virginia, which was actually a really tough time for me. It went okay, but that was one of the hardest things I ever did in my life. And I was very fortunate because coming out was the top thing on my mind at the time. I didn't have to make I wasn't worried about becoming houseless. I had a job. I, my, my needs were generally met. And just what I keep thinking about every pride is like for a lot of people, they are balanced. Like they're struggling with like coming to terms with themselves and coming out and stuff while they are struggling. They're in weird housing situations. They fear losing their job. And so like liberation for a lot of people, liberation happens when they come out, when they're true to themselves. But for a lot of people, liberation cannot happen until their needs are met, until they are, they feel safe and secure. And for a lot of people especially, this is something to keep in mind right now when we're weighing, potentially laying off a bunch of city employees is. Coming out of the closet is great. That is, that is how to get to self-actualization. But it is not the full story. And for a lot of people, liberation is going to seem a lot harder after these layoffs. So that's just something I want to keep in mind, and that's why I'm really urging everyone to support the save our services two, two, two, because we really got to keep an eye out for people and times are about to get really tough. And lastly, as a socialist, people are always telling me about the idea of a silent majority. And I will just say, there is a silent majority in this city, and they want you to keep your hands off of the police accountability board, people who do not care about politics. When I mention this to them, they get really angry. And these people do not care about politics 99% of the time. Thank you. Bye bye.

Thank you very much.

I guess I'll go. How y'all doing? My name is terrance hayes. I am in a unique situation today that I'm usually not in. So I think this is a financial issue, not an ideological one. You all failed to properly fund police, parks and fire, and I believe that you should go back to the drawing board to meet those needs of community. In my opinion, the ocpa spending $16 million by June of next year is really is unrealistic, honestly. But I do believe that taking money from this office before it has the chance to even present a budget is problematic and dangerous. But I do believe that if there's unused money, it's fiscally irresponsible to let it sit there or roll over indefinitely. I don't believe that that office no more should be able to sit on money forever than I believe any offices in government should have. Using opc funds to fund police seems to go against the intentions of the voters and the charter that governs it. This council should work with the ocpa to determine the best usage of those funds that are aligned with the ocpa mission statement. Money assigned to hold police accountable and protect community from police violence should not be used to fund the ppa because you. Because you all failed to properly fund our police office or PPB. This is financial and responsibility and optically problematic. Unless those funds can be proven to decrease to decrease the chance of police violence against community and align with the ocpa mission statement, I support funding our police and other other first responders, but I reject using ocpa funding to do so. I would, however, support y'all using some of your own money. You know that's not going to happen. You could also focus on protecting large and small businesses, creating new businesses, and drawing in larger companies. This will increase tax revenue and help with our budget shortfalls. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

For the record.

Ellie murray, she her pronouns. I live in district four. I'm a critical care nurse here in Portland and a proud union member of orni support the community board for police accountability. And I call on Portland city council to reject ordinance 2026-223. That could have the effect of shifting funds from the ocpa to, in part, the Portland police bureau. Any ordinance that would divert funds from this critical accountability board should be roundly rejected. This. An independent, civilian led oversight board was mandated emphatically by Portland voters. The need for policing oversight has not changed in the six years since passage. We still demand meaningful accountability to the people of this city. Recent political events remind us that oversight, accountability and responsiveness to voters and community are principles of good governance that are as urgent now as they ever have been. Scholarship and reporting on policing and power have shown that those who are entrusted with the means of violence and control often do and will abuse this authority, which is delegated to them by us. This is not new or unique to Portland, and if we are going to yield or license instruments of power and control to any one group of people, we must have a robust system of oversight, and we have learned through bitter experience that this must reside in the hands of civilians rather than law enforcement. Voters created this independent oversight board because they understand this. As a nurse, I value safety and well-being for all, and I understand what safety looks like. It looks like meeting human needs for shelter, nutrition, health care, clean water, air education, living wages and Green spaces. We need to discard the narrative that heavily policed communities are safer communities, and that adding more police will make us safer. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening council. My name is philip tchotchke. I use he him pronouns and I'm a member of Portland copwatch and also live in district three. I come to you today to remind you that the charter designated an equivalent of 5% of the police budget to the office of community, community based police accountability and the cbpa, the ballot measure passed by 82% of the voters voters way back in 2020 and now written into the charter, wisely protects the funding for the new police accountability system from attempts to defund it. The proposed ordinance is an attempt to subvert the will of the voters and the Portland city charter. Please vote no on the 2026 223 ordinance, or else accept the proposed amendments that would remove the wording targeting the ocp. We've waited and struggled for six years for new police accountability system to form and begin their important work. The cbp members are now seated and they have independence and control over their own funds, per the charter. If members of council wish to change the charter, they can write a ballot measure and present it to the voters. If you wish to borrow money from the ocpa, you can send a formal formal request to the cbpa for funds. Until that time, please respect the will of the voters and the independence of the cbpa. Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Next up, we have. Tina Lane. How reverend doctor leroy haynes, vanessa davison, seemab hussaini, nora h.

I have to kick this off right here. Yep.

Okay.

Hi, everybody. I'm I'm tita Lane. How. And I'm a resident of d3. I work as an o two at the district attorney's office. I'm on the executive board for afscme local 88 and a board member of the ocpa. Today I'm here speaking my own opinions. I urge you to preserve the ocpa budget and honor the purpose for which these funds were established. Dedicated funds exist to fulfill a specific mission and using them to address broader budget challenges can undermine both the purpose and the public trust placed in the council to steward them. The independence of the community board for police accountability was intentionally established in portland's charter to protect these bodies from influence. Charter chapter two article ten, including section 2-1001 and the Portland city code, section 35.1, 0.010. Provide that the mayor, city council and other administrative agencies must not interfere with the board's independent judgment. Respecting that independence includes ensuring that these entities have the resources necessary to carry out their charter mandated responsibilities, reducing or redirecting these funds sets a troubling case in point that restricted resources can be used whenever general revenues fall short. Portland's physical challenges are real, but they deserve long term, sustainable solutions developed through regular forensic budget analysis and not temporary measures that create pressure on dedicated funds for many of city services, workers and governing bodies. Protecting these millions is about more than a single decision. It is about upholding the charter, preserving independent oversight and maintaining transparency and accountability that portland's residents expect from their government. I respectfully ask that the council preserve the ocpa budget in the future, and honor the charter's protections and focus on the lasting structural solutions to the city's fiscal challenges for generations to come. This is what city is truly made of.

Thank you very much. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead?

Okay.

Sorry.

I'm nora beach. I've worked for the city for 19 years. I'm currently a business systems analyst in the city budget service area, and I volunteer with my local afscme 189 as the chapter chair for bsas. I want to start by thanking you for continuing to try to protect city services. After finalizing the budget, I had the privilege of collaborating with other labor leaders at the Novick summit, where we were able to identify critical positions that should not be cut. An important thing is that city councilors, not the administration, heard our concerns. You took action proposing various amendments to correct mistakes made as part of the core services realignment, some of which were later acknowledged by the administration. Unfortunately, we've already lost an experienced bsa in one of those critical positions after they found employment outside the city. I'm hoping we can save the remaining three bsas scheduled to be laid off August 3rd. You may also be aware that we have concerns about the way that layoffs are being conducted in a way that doesn't comport with our collective bargaining agreements, and has led to the filing of multiple grievances and at least one unfair labor practice. My hope is that all of you will be willing to compromise and find agreement in favor of protecting frontline workers, city services, and take action to reduce risks to the city, rather than allowing political divides to thwart this important effort. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Reverend doctor leroy haynes.

Thank you.

Yes.

I am the reverend doctor leroy haynes. To the distinguished mayor in absentia, to the chief of administrator lee, to the council president, and the distinguished members of the city council. And president of the ministerial alliance, chairperson of the coalition for justice and police reform, co-chair of the ballot measure that was passed on police accountability and chief amicus and the police settlement agreement with the city in 2012 on police reform. The coalition for justice and police reform, in reference to the adoption of and supplement of the budget. We oppose any attempt to bari pull from a shift from relocated from the office of the community police accountability. Committee. For over two decades, the coalition has been building trust in the community to police reform and police accountability. The heart of this reform is in police accountability. You cannot have a good police force without police accountability. That would be destruction and chaos will take place once again in our city that we have time and time pull out of crisis after crisis in this city. We believe that funding for the city deficit should be looked at at other options. We oppose any shift in finding as a political means to undermine the office of the community based police accountability, and to undermine the will of the citizens who voted 82% for this ballot measure. Thank you so very much.

Thank you very much.

Seema.

Greetings, everybody. Mayor wilson councilor, president pirtle-guiney, respected councilors. Good evening. My name is seema husseini, a Portland small business owner, a member of Portland, copwatch, and former commissioner on the police accountability commission that drafted this oversight system as an organizer. My work is with black and brown immigrant and refugee communities, and I testify in my individual capacity. I support 2026-222 and oppose 223. They are not the same. And the difference is the whole point. Both promise this won't become a recurring raid. Only 222 keeps that promise expands interest that already exists once. Restores 48 frontline positions 18 more than 223 and demands an accountability analysis in return without touching police oversight. 2026-223 is different, it read. Directive c it spends contingency now in order to spring backfill from ocpa, underspent and PCEF interest. That backfill is the recurring draw aimed at the one office meant to be independent of this council. And notice where the sweep actually happens. Not here tonight, but next spring in the technical adjustment ordinance, which takes no public testimony at all. Ocpa underspending is not a surplus, it's a startup artifact. The office hasn't hired its investigators, attorneys, or director. An office that isn't built yet was not overfunded and councilor Clerks. Mamdani comparison holds only in the abstract. Mamdani signature safety priority sends mental health teams to some 911 calls instead of police, and he canceled the plan to hire 5000 officers. What he did not do was fund police training by sweeping a civilian oversight body. That is exactly what 223 does. Police accountability is taking on an overhaul. After over 20 years of death and destruction, distrust of the Portland police and the police accountability system, please don't become a part of that distrust. Past. 222 reject. 223 thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right. Checking to see if vanessa davison is here. And our last testifiers carrie co.

Welcome carrie.

Doctor haynes gave good testimony. My name is carrie co. I am the president of the city of Portland professional workers union here at the city of Portland. And I'm here to show support for continuing to unwind some of the damage done by the budget this year. And I'm thankful to have this opportunity to talk more about it. Speaking first to the Koyama Lane amendment, the cease fire program is a crucial public safety program. The funding for this community based grant and safety program work was preserved in the budget process, but not the staffing to run the program. As you know, we cannot do anything without staff, so you should reinstate the funding for that critical position to create a safer Portland for all of us. As for the ordinances, using funding sources that honor the democratic votes of portlanders, we want you to focus on maintaining services and jobs and giving your staff the time to make good decisions over fast decisions. I want to call to mind that venn diagram that maybe we're all familiar with. If you can do it fast, you can do it cheap, or you can do it well and you can't have all three, right. And you have the opportunity. You in the past, for the last budget, chose fast and cheap last time, and now you have given yourselves the opportunity to adjust and allow the time to do core realignment and this budget well. And I really hope that you take it, for example, the core realignment leaders for the city of hr procurement and technology just launched in June, like a couple of weeks ago, a spreadsheet to all the staff impacted by this to collect and capture the work that these staff do. They just launched a spreadsheet to capture the work that staff do after the cuts had already been passed. This is what we were talking about before, and this is what you have the opportunity to give more time to do things well, to preserve jobs, and to preserve services for portlanders. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That completes testimony.

Okay, colleagues, we are now into discussion of the two different amendments, and I will note that there are a number of amendments that are two different ordinances. Excuse me. And there are at least is it four four different amendments that we have heard introduced? I have already put myself in the queue. I will also note that the amendments are entirely for a document two, two, three, not for two, two, two. And putting myself in the queue, I would like to formally move Dunphy one. As a reminder, Dunphy one is pre filed. It is available for you to take a look at. And as I explained previously, what this does is removes the language specifically referring to ocpa and pcf for backfilling and instead directs a more general look towards the the professional city budget office to analyze all underspending in the spring and a lists in the amendment different. The different funds of the general fund that historically are available, as well as lists some of the funds that were underspent last year, so I am. I would like to move Dunphy one and would welcome a second.

Point of information and maybe a request, because we have two ordinances. If you could state, when you're naming your amendment, which ordinance it's for, so we can keep track.

I did say that.

So tell.

Me.

I did it. So it was for 223. Yes. Sorry. Yeah. The only amendments that have been posted are for two, two, three. There are no amendments posted or discussed on two, two two. So okay. Thank you. So I thank you councilor Novick councilor Novick seconds. Dunphy one colleagues, is there any discussion of Dunphy one? Okay. There's not oh, there we go. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. So let's get some background by seconding this amendment. The reason that the clerk. Et cetera. Proposal mentions the ocpa as a potential source of funds to refill the general fund contingency is that there is every is simply a matter of mathematics. Last year, the ocpa

Underspent its budget by $12 billion this year. It hasn't yet hired executive director. It is just getting started. It's just starting to staff up, which is going to take months. And there's no rational way that it's going to spend in part of the year, the amount that next year it'll spend for the whole. So the Clark proposal just sort of acknowledges the math. And if a ballot measure had been passed, which gave the police bureau $400 million a year starting now, and if we saw that there was no prospect that the police bureau could actually spend that money in a year, then we do exactly the same thing with that. We rely on the projected underspending. So that is the actual math. However, there's been a concerted effort to point to, to, to say that the fact that the ocpa was identified as a potential source of funding as an effort to sabotage the ocpa. In fact, councilor Kanal said as much in a newsletter he sent to his constituents. Now, councilor Kanal knows that that is false, but the people who got his newsletter do not. And I think that the language in. In councilor in the president's amendment will do, will help to reassure those people that councilor Kanal has misled. And I think it's important that the president's amendment would include a list of the underspending in last year's budget, which is led by the $12 billion in underspending by the ocpa that will let people know what some of the likely sources of underspending are, and also let people who are watching know why. Some of us thought that it made specifically reference the ocpa. I realized that amendment. Some of my colleagues will think that I'm rewarding bad behavior by. By trying to address the misleading statements of my colleagues have made. And I understand and appreciate that argument. But to me, it's more important to reassure the people who have been told falsely that this proposal undermines the ocpa. So that is why I'm going to support this amendment.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you, council president. You know, we have a a unique piece of our budget this year. Most of the time we budget based on expected expenses. And we have one place where we budget based on a legally required amount. And I want to be clear, we absolutely should do that. We absolutely not only must, but should do that, but we budgeted that full amount knowing that was that it was incredibly unlikely the money would be spent. It's just a peculiarity of getting an organization up and running in its first year. But we heard from many of our colleagues and portlanders that there was concern that identifying ocpa as a place to pull underspend would be seen as hampering the work of the director as council influencing that body. Hearing that concern, as the new measure was drafted, we clearly laid out a few funding sources. Underspend generally interest? Yes, beginning with the one where we suspect the bulk of the funding will be available under spend in the ocpa, but naming others as well. And what I appreciate about your amendment, council president, is that you retain that that interest, that interest in making sure that we are clearly identifying the types of funds that we will be turning to. But you clear up the concern that has been raised clearly by naming the space where we thought the bulk of the underspend would be. We have raised red flags that folks thought that it was just that space being identified. And I want to be clear, portlanders believe that because they have been led to believe that that's not what this measure has ever said. This measure since its filing has said under spend and interest, such as ocpa and sph. But I appreciate your attempt to clear that up. And I appreciate, as my colleague mentioned, that you do lay out where the underspend has been in the past because we need to be giving direction to our staff, to our professional staff, who are going to have to take what we say and figure out how to implement it and bring us back a proposal. I know that it is hard sometimes to find that narrow path that addresses the concerns sitting on both sides of us, making sure we have sufficient direction, and also clearing up confusion. Misconception that never should have been there, but unfortunately is, and I appreciate your work to try to find that path. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you, council president. I will be supporting this amendment because I do think that it improves upon what is here. And so, you know, I think that's important to do when we have the opportunity to do that, because I think our top priority this evening is to save as many jobs and city services as we can, and to do it the right way with as much integrity as we can. I do want to note that with the ocpa funding, ocpa right now has around $16 million in the general fund budget, 4.7 of that, 16 million is ongoing dollars, but 11.3 million of that is one time funding. So we need to really think about that, because any underspending that ocpa does does not get to they don't get to keep that later. That means that every single year they're going to have to find new funding. That's a very different position than the PCEF interest, which does not have any of these issues. There is also an implication with this that the ocpa board is going to be put in the position of having to underspend in order to fulfill the will of council, as we are laying it out here tonight in a way that is, again, not implied with the pcf interest. So I am a little bit at a loss as to why we wouldn't do the reverse, which is to use the interest from the other ordinance now and then if council needs to utilize any potential underspending later, we could do that in the future. That makes much more sense, since the PCEF interest is already a stable revenue source. But because I think that this improves upon what we have, I will be supporting it just in case either ordinance goes through. But I'm really hoping that we can approach this from a practical matter moving forward, and that we're going to vote for the ordinance that just makes more sense and is much more streamlined, because what I'm hearing is that people are okay with using PCEF interest for this, but they want to do it a year down the line instead of now. And I don't really understand the logic in that, but with that, I will leave it at that and I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Green.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you, council president, for introducing this. I think there's there's a couple different strands that are in these ordinances. And in this one, there's the, you know, there's the difference in how much is being funded and what is trying to be saved. I'm, I'm, I'm going to make all the calls I need to make. I'm going to I'm going to lobby. I'm going to try to convince my colleagues to vote for two, two, two next week because it's a better ordinance. But and it crucially does. It does the thing that gives the gives the labor leaders time to work with the administration to help us rightsize this ship. But then there's this other piece, which is the ocpa albatross here. And I, I think this is an improvement. I'll echo a lot of what councilor Morillo just said by sort of laying out an exhibit of, of fund balances. It doesn't privilege that there and I think helps reduce the risk that that fund becomes a target of underspend, which is what you're also hearing from communities. And I will note that I don't think I think people know how to people who've been in this fight for a long time, who have this lived experience with policing in the city of Portland, are are pretty critical thinkers and know how to think for themselves. And so when they get an email, they don't necessarily just consume that without critical engagement. So I think we can give our readers and voters a little more credit. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. There we go. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I'd like an assessment from the attorney about what this change of this amendment is actually going to do.

Great.

We have. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is heidi brown. I'm chief deputy with the city attorney's office. Good evening, council president, council vice president, and all councilors. It's nice to see you and city administrator lee. Councilor Zimmerman, you asked what would this amendment do as far as legally, how does it change anything? As director levine noted earlier, the inclusion of the ocpa or not is not a legal requirement. I think what she had shared was that it had a little more transparency to it, that that was the most likely place where they where understanding could be expected because it's such a large budget, but it wasn't legally required to be in there. So removing the reference to the ocpa with council council presidents amendment will not violate any budget laws or other laws for for the city.

Okay.

So I guess to the sponsors. You've made the case that there's going to be probably not done. Heidi, you've made the case to the sponsors that there's going to be unused money, and that you highlighted the ocpa as an unused can't be spent by by June. Okay. Councilor Dunphy and his red block language says it should be up to the professional assessment which funds are presented as backfill options in the spring. Tor rather than prioritizing 1 or 2. To me, I guess I'm surprised that the sponsors, at least two of the sponsors, are changing their own ordinance because it kind of looks like it is neutering your ordinance. And so I guess I'm I'm not a sponsor of any of these. I'm trying to catch up. This clearly seems like it was designed to avoid the six six that was presented during the budget, so that the mayor doesn't have to have a tie breaking vote. So I'm trying to understand why the sponsors are still even presenting their own ordinance. If you are not identifying the position from which the funds are being taken. And then I guess I would look to the others who are on it. Would you even continue to have your name on this if this is changed? So first, to those who are supporting this one, I'm just truly trying to understand because I. City attorney brown's explanation about legality, I get that. I think that makes sense to me. But we are the budget committee. We're the budget authority. And it seems strange, council president, to say that should be up to somebody else. So I'm just trying to gauge what's going on, because I feel like the back room just took over, and I would like to understand. It always. So thank you. And I, after they respond, I might have a technical question, heidi. That's why I thank you.

Respond. Jumping.

Thank you, mr. President. Councilor major reason why the sponsors are continuing to propose this ordinance is it is substantively, very substantively has important substantive provisions, in particular, as councilor as vice president Clark said, it restores 3 million in desperately needed money to. For police training, because we think like the police should be properly trained. As far as the language is concerned, there's no substantive difference. I mean, the cbo will still look to underspending in for the fall tor, and we know that the underspending, the biggest source of underspending, is incredibly likely to be the ocpa. So that's so substantively, there's no difference. Rhetorically, there's a difference in that. I think that the language that we had before was misused by some of our colleagues to mislead people into thinking they were trying to sabotage the ocpa. And as I said in my earlier remarks, I think it's worth changing the language a bit, knowing it has no substantive effect to address some of those concerns that have been raised through misleading tactics. So I don't see any substantive difference at all. It's a linguistic difference, and I'm reassured by the fact that the president has included the list of underspending from last year. I think people can look at that and say, okay, you can probably expect to see the same underspending this year.

Council president, may I respond?

Absolutely.

So the unamended language reads, when anticipated funds from underspending, interest accruals and other resources develop in the spring technical adjustment ordinance period in fiscal year 2020 627, the funds will be used to restore the general fund contingency in the amount of 9.96 million. These anticipated funds may include and will initially consider underspending in the office of community police accountability and accrued interest in the Portland clean energy and community benefits fund. So the ordinance, as introduced, specifically directs our staff to look at underspending interest accruals and other resources and names. The two sources where we know from past experience that the largest underspend and interest accrual will come from. The amendment does not actually change the funding sources. It will still say, when anticipated funds from underspending, interest accruals and other resources develop et-cetera. The funds will be used to restore the general fund contingency in the amount of 9.96 million. The line that's taken out that says, hey, look here first, was helpful in providing direction about intent and about. I don't even want to say intent was helpful in providing direction about where we, looking to past years, assume the bulk of that opportunity. The bulk of those resources will be we're taking that out. I think if the exhibits were not included, I might have some concern. But by pointing in the exhibits to the bureaus, I think it's eight bureaus where the bulk of the underspend has been in past years. I think we achieve the same thing of pointing and saying staff. Here are the places to look in a way that clears up that concern. That, again, should not have ever been there because the language was very clear in the original, but that was unfortunately created by some misinformation. And so if we have the opportunity to clear that up with portlanders while still saying, hey, staff, here's the places we're now listing eight of them where we think the underspend will be. Look there. Functionally, I don't see that as different on the funding source side. And I still think that the restoration of positions that labor identified as clear mistakes in the the work of realignment, that the administration also looked at and said, yeah, you're right, continue to be important. I thought they were important last month. I still think they're critical, as well as many of the other things that are in the proposal.

I appreciate both of those answers, and I'm tracking along, I guess. If that is the case and I I'm not going to ask folks how they vote, but if that is the case for members like, you know, councilor Avalos and councilor Aye, Morillo, who kind of spoken on the other side of this. The way that this is being described is that it's not the use of ocpa money. And yet there was quite a lot of opposition to it. And I I'm trying to understand if, if the language actually based on those two explanations meant nothing, then what was the opposition to? And so the reason I ask is I believe that it did mean something. And so this does seem like a substantive change, because I don't think that councilor Kanal and others, I don't think that they would have raised a concern if the language didn't mean anything. And so that's where I'm struggling with why. Why such a discussion, both on this dais as well as in the public did occur if the second half of paragraph ten actually was just extra words, I guess I'm struggling with that to understand it. And and if that's the case, because I think some might say it did it did mean something. In terms of from a technical perspective and how we budget. Miss brown. Is there. I guess I'm going to pause. Actually, I'm going to hold. Thank you for staying up there, but I think I'm done with my questions. Unless I'd be interested to hear what others are saying. Because if this were to pass broadly, I'm kind of confused what we were even arguing about and why there are two. Well, no, there are different things getting funded. I'll get that. But this seems like extreme opposition to something that the sponsors just said means nothing. And that's lost on me a little bit.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, council president. Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. I agree with you. Council president's amendment is sloppy and it doesn't do anything to be very direct about how you write language and policy and other people who are very familiar with policy making. They know as well that this is sloppily written, and we don't write like that. And I don't give my power away easily to. A department head that's not responsible. We have to be more specific than that. And I agree with you, if we're not going to do it's so simple. Why are we here? Why do we have these two? And if we're going to go down this road, we need to be prepared to go down the road because I feel some deep hatred on this, on this board for a mayor. And it's the elephant in the room, and I do not like it, that we would go as far to be sloppy policy makers so that a mayor cannot break a vote. I'm not a sloppy policy maker. I'm very specific. And if we're going to be corrective, we need to start doing what the charter says. Let the mayor break all matters before council. If you're not going to follow that, I don't know why you would consider anything that the council president is putting forward today, because it is wrong, it is underhanded, and the two people who are supporting it, who are part of the original. 23, shame on you. So no, I will not support what you put forward. If you want to change the mayor's ability to to, to do all matters under the council, everything, then we can have that conversation every week. You all give me. I try to figure it out and say, we're going to figure it out with ourselves and we're going to figure it out and we're going to vote. But every week you give me one more reason why we need to have a declarative judgment. I mean, one more reason. Thank you very much.

Councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you. Council president, I actually have a question that may be for jonas or ruth. I'm not sure. I thought that the. Estimate of the underspend on the ocpa was actually underestimated, because I think. Is it true, ruth, I know one of you. I don't know which one can answer this question, but weren't the ocpa funds used to pay for their predecessor? Is that I thought that they were dipped into to pay for the. I can't remember the name of the other board.

I think I can answer this, but feel free to jump in. So I think there may be some confusion. So the. And I hinted at this earlier, but didn't fully get into the details. The way we budgeted the ocpa in 2526 is different from the way we did it in 2627. Specifically, the $12.6 million that was budgeted that was that I referred to earlier as their budget is just for the the standing up of the board itself. And then there was a contingency amount essentially held in 2526 in order to meet the 5%. There was a third piece that counted towards the 5%, which was the ipr budget, and that was sort of per the legal guidance before the board existed, because that was the predecessor, it counted towards the 5%. Under charter, we have no. We're sort of separating those out. So in 2627, that's no longer a factor. So the board, the budget in 2627 is much simpler. It's just the $16 million in general fund.

So does that mean in 2627, if you take the ipr out, there may be even more money available under the ocpa?

No, it where it's again, it's just looking at the 16 million. The ipr budget is just sort of stands on its own. So to. It just isn't counted towards the. Five.

Can you tell us what that was the ipr budget.

In 2627. We can get it. I don't have it offhand, but I can get it.

For even the. 25.

26 yeah. I don't have it. I'll get it in a minute.

Okay. You can go on. Okay. Thank you, thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you. And colleagues, it is my intention this evening to get through the discussion of the amendments, but I don't think we're going to have enough time to get through the discussion of the underlying as well. So we will almost certainly have to hold this over. Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue again or or is that a legacy hand?

I I'll finish comment on this amendment. I guess my my reading of this is that whether you agree with it or not, it's somewhat of a kicking down, kicking the can down the road for a fight on some ocpa money. And it seems to me like a way to avoid a mayor's tie breaking vote. And it seems like a rhetorical. I don't know, some sort of contorting of oneself. And and I do expect that we're going to basically just have the exact same discussion. Once my anticipation would be that ocpa. S budget will not be fully executed in this current fiscal year, and that when it comes to the tor, that some of it will be returned, just like a whole lot of bureau budgets are, and that we'll have a conversation about how it should or shouldn't be used. And for this again, and I just. I think that this amendment makes little substantive change and a whole lot of rhetorical change for a fight six months from now. And that doesn't sound very interesting to me.

Okay. Councilor Novick last word.

Steve Novick: Thank you, mr. President. I just wanted to respond to councilor Zimmerman's point by pointing out that, as director levine said earlier, the council will ultimately have to vote on the tor in the spring anyway. So if so, even if this had passed, as with the original language, we could still wind up having the fight you're anticipating. I kind of I don't really think the fight will will materialize, because this language says that we're going to defer to the expertise of the cbo in determining what to use. So if somebody's supporting that, I think that they're going to be bound by that. The introductory language. Anyway.

Thank you, councilor Novick keelan, can we please call roll on. Dunphy one.

Koyama Lane.

Hi.

My aye, Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. No Green. I Zimmerman. No Avalos. I Smith.

Two sloppy no.

Kanal I.

Pirtle-guiney trying to find some compromise here, folks, I.

Sorry, was that an I yeah.

Thank you I.

Ryan.

No.

Dunphy I.

The amendment is approved with a vote of eight eyes and four noes.

Thank you. Councilor. Koyama Lane.

Thank you, council president. I would like to move. Koyama Lane. Kanal one colleagues, this amendment is about frontline positions that directly serve our community and shape our future as a city. Investing in our older adults, strengthening international relations, reducing gun violence, our priorities that I think many of us, if not all of us, agree, are very important. These are vital programs, and I urge my colleagues to restore these positions in the supplemental budget. And I will clarify that I am talking about ordinance 223323223. Thank you. So first, first, the senior center center program, we heard testimony from community members about how important it is. You know, I mentioned earlier, this program is specifically designed to serve older adults with physical and intellectual disabilities who need consistent supervision, support, opportunities for connection. This program was also supported, has been supported with county funding. I believe in Portland that works for all ages. I think a lot of us do, and hope that Portland can be a place where people can not only grow up in, but also grow old with dignity. Serving our seniors is a really essential part of fulfilling that promise. So that's the first one. The second one is international relations program. We know about this program. This this position is responsible for coordinating our sister city program, maintaining portland's relationships with communities around the whole world. I've personally seen firsthand the value of that these that this partnership brings to our city. Councilor Ryan, I appreciate your long standing and very public support for this work for the sister city program, for highlighting how events like the rose festival attracts visitors from across the globe. These international relations strengthen our economy, expand cultural exchange, and reinforce Portland. Reinforce portland's reputation as a welcoming and globally connected city. Restoring this position ensures that we can continue that important work. And then finally, the ceasefire program coordinator, city administration requested that this program be restored. Colleagues who already voted to restore funding for the ceasefire program know that this is important. Restoring this position is the final step needed to make sure that we don't have these cuts, and that we can make sure that gun violence prevention efforts have the staffing that they need in order to succeed. So I think if we believe in this program, we should make sure that it has what it needs to fully deliver results. Council president, I would like to move to divide my amendment into three parts. If it's helpful, we can call it 1a1b1c, so we can vote on each separately. Colleagues, I ask that you please consider which you could support and restoring. Even if it's just one of these three. I would really appreciate your consideration and I would like to formally move. Koyama Lane Kanal one and we would appreciate a second.

Second councilor. Koyama Lane moves. Koyama Lane. Kanal one and councilor Kanal seconds. Colleagues to the amendment and the amendment has been divided. The question has been divided when we vote so. But for now, debate can be to all three parts, but please specify councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. I see that the total dollar amount is about $782,000. This is a one time thing. It's just just buying some time. Is that the idea? Okay. I think we spent, I think exceedance of twice that on severance payouts. So I think if we're in a situation where we're kind of drawing down reserves to. You know, to buy ourselves a little time and we have to look to future savings in the future, let's, let's stop, let's stop the severance payouts. And we can pay for that a couple times over. So I support it. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Yeah, I just wanted to say I appreciate the attempt of compromise that I see up here from a few of my colleagues. And I think that it's really important that we consider long term what the impacts will be if we can't compromise as a legislative body, because you may have a tiebreaker vote that will go your way now. But let's say we get a mamdani mayor the next time around and you don't agree with him or her, who knows? Or they them, whatever, then you're going to have a problem and you're going to wish that the executive power hadn't been stretched out more. So you have to think about the institution that we're establishing here and the precedent that it sets. So I appreciate the attempts of compromise that I'm seeing from some of my colleagues up here. And I. I think that we can do it. I also would point out that our ordinance came out first. So I am going to be supportive of councilor Koyama Lane amendment. I think that it preserves more jobs that I think are really critical, and I'm really grateful for that. So I will be supporting that. I do want to say that while we're talking about preserving frontline workers and services, the other ordinance does more of that and it does it more efficiently. So I will continue to be supporting amendments that I think are improvements to this ordinance. But the other ordinance is still, frankly, superior in its simplicity, straightforwardness and the amount of jobs that it saves. So I will be happy to support your amendment. Thank you for bringing this forward and for your relentless attempt to compromise and try to make things work for everybody.

Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. These are important programs. And I and I see that I'm interested to the sponsor of it to find some routes for funding. You know, during the budget, this council passed $450,000 increase to the small donor program. And you all talked about it as if it would not affect this year's elections. But I think it was about a week and a half ago or so. The small donors elections program sent out an email and said, congratulations, they funded us. So the current election cycle is now going to be fully funded. And that was not what was discussed on this dais. That was counter to everything that was sold about it. So to councilor Koyama Lane, I would look to I would look to you and say, I wonder if we could take that 450, which I feel like really was a disingenuous ad. And the way it's been implemented now immediately into the program, it changed the rules. Mid-stride I didn't vote, I felt it was a conflict of interest because I'm in that program. But adding that $450,000 as a funding source to your list here is something that I'm very interested in, given the changes and given the way that that money came about and the way that it was discussed here, and then used very opposite in the program later on. So I want to offer that up as a route to maybe a significant portion of this would be covered by that. And that would be interesting to me. And I'm just going to kind of put it out there for maybe consideration, whether that's favorable or not, because I do, I do like some of these programs. I'd like to see what kind of path there might exist. Thank you for bringing it.

I'm sure.

Thank you, councilor, for acknowledging the importance of these programs. And this is kind of the first I'm hearing about switching that out, changing the the funding source. But I appreciate your creativity. I think at this point, to keep it as clean as possible. I would like to keep it as it is, but I do appreciate your consideration and acknowledging how important these programs are.

Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, thank you, council president. We actually we argued extensively at this dais during the different I think multiple times we talked about small donor election program. And I know that I made the argument that an incumbent has the advantage. You have the advantage of name recognition. You have advantage of all the endorsers and all that. And sometimes you lose a couple endorsers along the way, but you can pick up some other ones. That's called having a sense of humor. But the point, the point that I made was that for folks to unseat us, they need the full funding because we don't need it as bad. And we have some challengers in our district who are doing quite well and are going to have more resources to run their campaigns with us than we did when we ran ours. And so I think that that's a you know, it wasn't about whether or not the program was funded this year. It's about whether or not the people running this year have a chance to beat us. So I just, you know, go back and look at the transcripts because we did talk about that.

Thank you, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Councilor Kanal yeah, I mean, councilor Green just pretty much said the first thing about what was talked about back then, it was pretty clear that it was going to affect this year's election in the transcripts. But I do want to talk about the the needs for these particular positions. I think having an age friendly city is something that I could talk about, but I think councilor Koyama Lane has talked about quite a bit and frankly, more effectively than I might, so I won't. But I did want to mention that that position is represented by liuna 43 laborers. And I also wanted to mention that the the. Cease fire position is cpb w. Additionally, I want to talk about the cease fire position really quick because originally we thought that it wasn't needed. In fact, I asked about this at one of the work sessions, and we got the request from the administration for this. And that was not something that we were aware of at the time of the budget. In fact, of everything that we've talked about, this is the one that I think most clearly meets the requirements of a supplemental budget, because the request did come in later. It is new information that we'd be building a request around. As for the international relations program, I think, you know, we heard in testimony earlier, obviously, a lot about the ocpa piece. We can talk about that more. But one thing that that a couple testifiers have have said in the last week and a half, including up until today, is the importance of economic development so that we're not in budget crises to begin with. And I think, as some of my colleagues have pointed out in other contexts, our international relations, not just the program, but the actual relationship of the city of Portland with people outside our borders is really vital. We've talked about this in the context of canadian travel and how it's actually growing in some places where one of the places where we're growing international travel of that type. And so continuing to build on that is, I think, a part of how we're going to not only grow our financial well-being and our tax revenue and receipts over the years, but I mentioned for district two, in particular, with the convention center being in our district, the importance and the expo center that the importance of having events, having international travelers come to town as well. So I just wanted to get those on the record and, and ask for your support in funding these three positions. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal vice president.

Sameer Kanal: Clark.

Just really briefly, thank you, council president. I think when I was crafting 2026-223, we were thinking to limit ourselves to a $10 million lid on the restoration. So there's a teeny bit of room there, but it's very little room. So I'm glad you separated these. I, I'm interested in one of them, but that would break the $10 million ceiling that some of us were established in. Two, two, three. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Sorry. I'll put my hand down. Okay.

Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, council president, I want to go back to something that councilor Kanal said. He said the administration asked for that position. Who are you talking about, the city administrator or are you talking about the mayor? Who are you talking about? Because I want to be clear on who asked for what. Because the mayor put his budget forward and it didn't include it. So now you're saying he's asking you to put it back in.

Council president, may I please. Yeah, I just came from the public safety service area.

Okay. So that's not administration this. Be clear. That's not administration.

Service area is not part of the administration.

When you say administration, that means either the city administrator or the mayor, because the dcas don't make no decisions.

Okay. Just just to be clear, the city administrator is the also the deputy interim deputy.

But he I just asked him. He said he didn't say it. He said he didn't ask for it.

I think I think the idea that the public safety service area is not part of the administration is, is a new one for me. So I might need some time to go back and cite the particular part of the charter. But thanks.

Thank you. See, the problem is, and the reason why we're in the situation that we're in right now is because you have misled the public and you have misstated some things. And so we had councilor Novick get a little intimidated by that. And he, he, he changed and ran the other way. But I'm going to hold you accountable because when you say something, you better mean it and you better be able to back it up. And you just talk and talk and talk and you give people the wrong impression and you mislead all the time.

Councilor I have a responsibility to uphold disparaging comments. We are able to discuss issues, but that's. Thank you. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: I wish at some times that I was as able to do the things that I'm accused of doing. I don't think that councilor Novick is intimidated by me in the slightest, and I also don't think that I could go back in time before my birth and start reverend haines on a path that he was on long before. And I think the idea that that I am influencing these folks is laughable. But I do think it's appropriate for us to say that there are times where requests are going to get routed through different parts of the administration, where the administration is the as far as we've been told on this dais by the city attorneys that the administration basically starts at the mayor and goes down to everybody that doesn't work for the auditor or the council side of of the house. So I do want to offer that there. If you'd like to verify this with some of the staff that are in that area, and ask them whether or not they'd prefer to have this position funded. I know that that some of the leadership of of that particular agency are here on the call, and you can feel free to ask them. I also know that that you can speak to this. The attorneys can probably speak to this more, but there are requirements for supplemental budgets. And I wanted to just highlight that this was a new piece of information that was the context of of the request or me me articulating a request. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney and colleagues, I will note it is 905.

Thank you, council president. Let's it is so easy to to pick at each other up here. When we hear that the administration asked for something, we generally assume that that came up through the channels to the top and over to us, which means it came from the city administrator or perhaps one of the dcas when it comes from the mayor. I hope we're talking about the executive branch, because that is separate from the administration. It is also very normal for us to hear things from other people who we have relationships with within the administration, but we need to be careful with our language, because when I hear something from a front line worker, it is equally important is when I hear something from the city administrator. But I need to be honest with all of my colleagues about where it came from. So I also, when I heard that this came from the administration, assumed that that meant that the city administrator or dca had said, oh, there was a problem. It's helpful to understand that that is not where it came from. But I just. For portlanders who are watching and are watching us quibble over this, I want to be clear. Yes, it's all the administration. Yes, we get information through a lot of different channels, and it's incumbent upon us to be clear about what we're talking about. Thank you, council president.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Smith.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I just want to say ditto, ditto, ditto to what councilor Pirtle-guiney said. But as you all remember from last week, the mayor asked us not to put folks in the bureaus in that position and saying that they said something. He asked us not to do that. And so when we do that, you you perk everybody's ears up. And that's all I'm asking. I'm not trying to impugn anyone, council president. I just want us to be careful about what we say and how we say it.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. I think after a year and a half, I pretty much well aware that when a councilor says, I talked to the administration, that doesn't mean anything other than I talked to them. We use that a lot. I picked up on it. People use it as this cover. I talked to the city attorney. I talked to the service area. It means nothing. A couple of us over the over the year have been asked by the administration, please bring this forward because we have a technical thing. And since the mayor doesn't set the dais, we need you to do it. And you've all at times said that. But this is a tactic. It is a tactic for credibility that I hear all the time. And when somebody says this was requested, unless it truly was, you know, let's refrain from it. I want to go back to a point that councilor Clark brought up. And frankly, the reason that some of the conversations about what might be possible in the supplemental were requested to be under $10 million, was your request. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. There were others of us who were willing to go bigger and do more. And I'm frustrated because there was a request to not go above ten. And I think that I conveyed that I was amenable to that. But we've now engaged in what would be a secondary budget, and I'm uninterested at this point. I'm a no on everything tonight because. As one of the sponsors of of the thing, it's been now changed by the sponsors. And I'm and I'm, I'm not loving redoing the budget. This is not the intent of a supplemental budget. And, and I appreciate the passion on some positions. I'm not taking that away. But now we've gone to, you know, inserting an amendment. We've changed it. We're back into new amendments. We're on to the next position. We're going to do the thing. I don't want to play that game. We can play that game all day long, but we're in that game because we were asked to keep it below a certain number by some members, and now we're in this game because some of those members have changed their own ordinance. So I'm not sure I'm a yes on either one of these underlying at this point even anymore. And I'm kind of prepared to walk away. This this is not intended to be a government whose budget season never ends. I was I was willing to hear these and read these because I did believe that a supplemental would be possible. I'm glad. Council president, thank you for bringing them quickly in the new fiscal year. That was appreciated. You didn't have to do that. But I think we're losing the thread here, and I think we're making a mess of it. And I, I don't want to participate in that anymore. I think I think the sponsors have made their own things messy, and now they're regretting more mess happening after they started it.

Okay.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. It is 910. Colleagues, I'm going to extend this courtesy to the city administrator. I'm going to limit debate to those in the queue, and then we're going to move to a vote. City administrator.

I'll be very quick on this. This request did come from administration as it relates to a bumping issue. As a part of this relates to our layoff structure. So this did come from staff.

Councilor. Koyama Lane.

I appreciate the comment that this does feel messy. I think it is a bit. I think what we're seeing is that there were challenges with trying to figure out a compromise in coming together. And so what we are doing a bit is we're doing some of the compromise and some of that work in in front of everyone. It's not ideal. I understand that we're tired. We want this all the budget stuff behind us, we're annoyed with each other. This feels hard. Hopefully this is we're done after this. But bringing these three things forward, I did want to give my colleagues a chance to say if, if they want to try to save some of these because we there wasn't really a chance for us for different groups to come together and do that compromise. I understand and respect that everyone has their own lines and boundaries, so please do what feels right. But if if the senior center project means a lot to you, or the international relations program means a lot to you, or that cease fire coordinator position means a lot to you, please consider supporting one or all of these.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane, councilor, Novick and councilor Kanal and pirtle-guiney. I did limit debate at this point, so we will move debate after councilor. Novick. Apologies, counselor.

Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. Councilor Zimmerman, I also am voting against any more any substantive amendments. I voted for what I see as a linguistic change, but as far as the substance of what's in the budget, I'm going to stick with exactly what councilor Smith and pirtle-guiney and Clark and I put forward. End of sentence.

Thank you, councilor Novick keelan, can we please move to a vote? The question was divided. Councilor Koyama Lane, what would you like to which section would you like to vote on first?

The senior center program, please.

Go ahead and call the roll. We're going to call the Koyama Lane Kanal one a, which is.

Yeah, well, we'll refer to it as senior center project. Just to be super clear about what. Love it.

Okay. For you. Thank you. Keelan.

Okay. Okay. So moved by Koyama Lane. Seconded by Kanal. Koyama Lane. Aye, Morillo. Morillo. I Novick. Know Clark. No Green. I Zimmerman. No.

Avalos I. Smith no, no. Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney no.

Ryan no.

Dunphy I.

The amendment fails with a vote of six eyes and six noes.

Okay. And to the what is the second.

The international relations program.

The international relations.

Koyama Lane I.

Morillo I.

Novick no.

Clark no.

Green I.

Zimmerman no. I. Smith no. Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney no. Ryan no.

Dunphy I.

The amendment fails with a vote of six ayes and six noes.

And to the last part, please.

Koyama Lane. Oh, sorry, this is for the coordinator. Coordinator hi. Thanks. Morillo. I Novick. No Clark. No Green. I Zimmerman. No Avalos.

Y'all are being very strange I.

Smith no. Kanal I pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan no.

Dunphy I.

The amendment fails with a vote of six ayes and six noes.

Colleagues, the time is now 913. We do have time tomorrow afternoon, as a part of our recessed meeting to continue debate of the underlying at this point. Oh, councilor Kanal. I'm sorry.

It's moot now. I just wanted to clarify. I because I had a little bit of a difficulty hearing city administrator lee, that the the request did actually come from the administration on that cease fire position, but. Correct now, but I'd still love a confirmation just so I can hear it.

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, colleagues, is there just gut check at this exact moment? Is there an interest among the members here to have further discussion of the underlying amended ordinance or as a body, or should we at this point move this to second reading if there is additional interest in having further debate, we can move it to a recess meeting tomorrow.

We.

So we've now made it through the amendments. And the question is, do we is there more debate to the underlying. That would warrant a recess meeting? Additionally, hearing this tomorrow afternoon, or have counselors felt as though they have discussed everything and we can move it to a second reading next week. And so that is the open the question to colleagues. I'm going to feel free to get in the queue.

Councilor Kanal what point are you on? What information are we in the queue to answer that question.

Specifically that question. Right. The second yeah, I'm getting a quick gut check from folks to figure out what my next immediate decision is. So councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you.

Thank you, council president. I do think it's worth debating it further. I'd like to ask that it be done, put on next week's agenda and continue the first reading then.

Thanks. Okay.

And just to be clear, we will actually be able to continue this to tomorrow afternoon's recess meeting.

Yeah, I'm aware we could.

Thanks.

Understood. Just be clear. Okay. Thank you. Counselor pirtle-guiney.

Council president. I think that there's likely a need for folks to say their piece about this, but I don't know that there's significantly more debate. I would ask that you move it to second reading, but do so with the understanding that there will likely be comments at that second reading and schedule. Schedule it with the appropriate amount of time for that.

Okay.

Thank you counselor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor.

Morillo.

I think that tonight showed me that there are additional opportunities for compromise, and I have something that is not ready, but I would like to bring tomorrow. So I would ask that we carry this over so that I can bring that forward, because I think that there's something that would work. And that's that's all I'll say on that.

Okay.

Thank you. Counselor. Aye, Morillo councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, go ahead and carry it over. We need to have, I think, some more discussion on these these amended items. Thanks.

Thank you.

Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: I think it needs to be carried over to tomorrow. I haven't even had a chance to make any kind of arguments. And I think that by pressuring us to put it as second reading, that just makes any possible more compromise or amendments at risk, and I don't think it's worth it. So I think we should continue tomorrow.

Thank you.

Councilor clerk.

Thank you, council president, I don't think anything changes. I think we could do it tonight. We just demonstrated three, six, six votes. I think it's pretty clear.

Okay.

Thank you. And councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: I agree with councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Okay, colleagues, I'm going to make a judgment call and we are going to continue this item to tomorrow's afternoon schedule for further debate. With a vote continued for the second reading planned for the following week. With that, we are recessing this meeting of the Portland city council. Thank you all very much.