The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-05-21
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (23,490 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
On 2025-05-21, the Portland City Council Budget Committee, recessing periodically into a Prosper Portland budget committee session, worked through numerous economic development, transportation, and parks-related budget amendments. Discussion covered storefront damage and security costs affecting small businesses, a proposed System Investment Fund draw for Prosper Portland programs including the Repair and Restore grant program, James Beard Market funding, Summer Works youth employment, the Office of Film and Events, and workforce development items, with dollar figures for these items stated inconsistently across speakers. The body also debated Portland Permitting and Development staffing amendments, a noise office coordinator position, a proposed transportation bond authorization for sidewalk and paving projects, and an increase to the Transportation Network Company per-ride fee, which was later formally amended into the fee schedule with an emergency clause attached. Later discussion addressed reallocating police bureau funds toward parks maintenance, drawing significant debate about public safety and service impacts. Votes occurred throughout on amendments, the fee schedule, tax levies, and the overall budget and Prosper Portland budget; outcomes of these votes are recorded in the vote ledger. The committee closed its meetings after approving the budget for transmission to the Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 To repair due to cost, and they also couldn't get their insurance claims met. So that's why we see, of course, so many boarded up windows in our city all reported increased costs and spending for security. Said 78% have been spending a lot more money on security, and this is dramatically decreasing their profit margins. Again, that's a big factor in why our storefronts aren't renewing their leases. I think this is just us being responsive to our local main streets across the city, and I hope my colleagues will agree. Thanks.
1 Thank you councilor. Is that a motion or because this is a prosper Portland? Do we need to take this within the prosper budget? Councilors, we're entering a messy period where we have some economic development. Things that are are more appropriate and prosper.
2 Yeah, we went out of that. Okay, great. You wanted me to do this when we started the session.
3 That's okay.
4 Just having a moment with you.
5 We're figuring out the order of things here.
6 Donnie, do you have an opinion?
7 Councilor Koyama Lane has a point that she's nudging me on.
8 So to add on, we have had conversations about prosper, and there have been some I've had some conversations with leaders at prosper. They appear ready to support an additional sift draw of about 3 million for economic development within prosper, not backing out of any general fund. And I propose that we consider these items in prosper now.
9 So thank you.
10 We do have prosper open. We've recessed that to enter this meeting. We have a number of economic development items. But I'm hearing that there may be some that we want to take within prosper. So.
11 And this is all been discussed with people at prosper. And they, they, they approve this message.
12 Per million.
13 For how much? Oh, okay.
14 It sounds I'm sorry. Councilor Kanal did you answer councilor Smith's question? Okay. I'm looking at shabri just to get a nod that there's some comfort here. Would you like to come up? Sure. Sabri is here.
15 Thank you sir.
16 And councilors, what I think I might do is as long as robert taylor doesn't give me an I say and I can't. I may move us into recess this meeting and move us into the prosper budget meeting for a few minutes. Let's do it. I'm getting nods that that's okay. So I'm going to recess our budget meeting of the city council and enter us back into the budget meeting as the prosper budget committee. Fantastic. So, councilor Koyama Lane, do you want to speak more to what you were saying? And we have folks here from prosper. If we need nods or thumbs up or details.
17 Yeah. The only other piece is conversations included that money funding the james beard market, the broken window fund. Increasing summer works, youth employment won't be able to do that full amount, but about 500,000 and also about 500,000 for the office of film and events.
18 Okay, so it sounds like we might have some agreement here. Councilors. Before we were dealing with some prosper things where we didn't have agreement. It sounds like we may have some agreement here on a package that would be specific things within prosper budget not backing out general fund that folks have put on the table. We've had one of those moved from councilor Ryan. So I believe if folks are interested in moving forward in this conversation, what we have is Ryan was that Ryan one? Is that this one with Ryan one. And now I'm going to need to look to our attorneys and ruth because Ryan one I don't know if we have to list it differently. If it's an amendment to the prosper budget, we can still call it it's Ryan one on our sheets, but this would be an amendment to the prosper budget now as opposed to the city budget.
19 I believe.
20 That's appropriate.
21 To increase. We may have to do some additional wording here on this because it was written a little differently. But to increase or refund, I guess because it was defunded, but to refund the repair and restore grant program within prosper Portland at a level of $1 million, funded by an additional draw on city funds, is that is that accurate, counselor? Yes. Okay. Is there a second to councilor Ryan's amendment?
22 Second.
23 Okay. I think councilor Koyama Lane beat you to it. Councilor Kanal is there any discussion?
24 Council president.
25 Just for.
26 Clarification.
27 The.
28 Language we have is 1.5. Is it 1 or 1.5?
29 It's one. One. I changed it to one.
30 Yeah.
31 Okay.
32 Point of information. So what just happened? It's a 1 million is coming out of the package that you're talking about. Or is that what you said.
33 We're still working on.
34 I think.
35 I think councilor Koyama Lane described a package that it sounds like she had some conversations with folks about. And councilor Ryan's amendment is a part of that package. So we need to work through these amendments one at a time, unless we'd like to vote on it all as a package. But I think we have one before us that's been made.
36 Point of clarification can can we go over the total of the three? What how does the three break down?
37 Absolutely. Councilor Koyama Lane, would you like to walk us through this?
38 Sure. 1 million to james beard. 1 million to broken windows fund. 1 million to. Summer works youth employment initiative and sorry, 500 to the summer youth employment initiative and 500 to the office of film and events.
39 I'm sorry, some questions. Do you want to go through that one more time?
40 1 million to the james beard market. 1 million to it might have a different name. I'm just calling it broken windows fund.
41 Repair and restore.
42 Repair and restore 500,000 to the office of film and events. 500,000 to the summer youth employment initiative.
43 Councilors, we might speed this up. I don't know if it would help. Would folks nods of heads, yes or no be interested in voting on this in one fell swoop? I'm seeing more yeses, no nos and no.
44 All right.
45 So we have a no from somebody who brought forward one of these proposals. So let's take them one at a time. So we have an amendment and a second on the table. Is there discussion on the amendment. And second from councilor Ryan Ryan, one which has now been slightly changed. So we can reduce that to.
46 It went from 1.5 to 1 million.
47 Okay. 1.5 to 1 million.
48 So a team member with everybody to get to the three okay.
49 Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue on this amendment? Go right ahead.
50 With this amendment and the others. I guess I'm just curious what changed.
51 Asking questions.
52 Yeah.
53 Good afternoon,
54 Commissioners. For the record, director.
55 Of equity policy and communications at prosper Portland.
56 And again, your question.
57 Was with.
58 This particular.
59 Amendment, what changed?
60 We heard a lot earlier in the evening about not not touching the $3 million amendment that was made about prosper general fund. And now I see you sitting, and it looks very supportive of a $3 million general fund change to prosper. So I'm really curious. We understand.
61 The amendment.
62 It wouldn't.
63 Affect the.
64 General fund appropriation.
65 It would be for sif.
66 It would be for sif. Correct. Which your executive director has said your board will need to approve in order for that to be the case.
67 Correct. So we've.
68 Been working.
69 With. Our board, and our.
70 Board is.
71 Absolutely looking forward to being collaborative with all of you.
72 We look forward.
73 To meetings. We could meet.
74 As often.
75 As.
76 You would.
77 Like, and.
78 We're committed.
79 To that and have been doing that.
80 As we.
81 Speak tonight. And so with conversations with our board, along with our executive director and team, yes.
82 This sif.
83 Movement is something that we are.
84 And of the 3 million shabrie, what are. What what will not be included in the sif current plan?
85 So are you saying like how.
86 That when that draws down from sif, what does that mean? So it is.
87 What are you giving up to be amenable to this? What are you giving up? Absolutely. Councilor tony barnes, for the record, tony barnes, cfo, prosper Portland. So there will be an opportunity cost of ongoing interest, earnings and interest from loans that could be made from that $3 million. We anticipate that would be in the time period will be ongoing next year throughout in perpetuity. Since it's a one time cost, it's not going to be replenished. And then. The $3 million will not be available for small business loans or other loans. Other investments that could be made, I guess I'm looking for an idea of. I usually do ten a year. Now I only do seven. That's what I'm kind of looking to hear. We have the. Capacity right now to do, I think, 19 to 21 loans in the next year, and the year after that, it will start impacting year three, four and thereafter. So it just is a drawdown of available financing, and we won't be able to do any acceleration of financing if needed if the demand is there.
88 And with the average loans.
89 At about $600,000.
90 I mean, that's.
91 You can't, you know, match.
92 That up with how many.
93 Excuse me, businesses would be.
94 Coming.
95 To us for that.
96 So that's the.
97 The loss.
98 However, what we've heard from.
99 The counselors is about.
100 Reinvesting in economic development. Through repair.
101 And restore through workforce.
102 Excuse me. And james beard and.
103 The summer works.
104 Program in the film and event.
105 So that to us.
106 Feels aligned.
107 With much of what advanced Portland calls out and our board.
108 Is supportive of.
109 Thanks for clarifying that and I so I just want to make sure I understand. Councilor Ryan, your amendment is not only changed at 1 million, but it's now changed in the cip language because you had general fund identified in there, but it's actually sif, it sounds like. Okay, thanks for the clarification.
110 Councilor.
111 Councilor Ryan, this is your piece. Councilor Smith, are you in the queue to speak to councilor Ryan's amendment?
112 Yes. Thank you. I heard about summerworks. I didn't that wasn't what I was interested in because I'm more interested in making sure that the co-op program that took the money from next generation for 600,000, that that money be put back to help those organizations that help with apprenticeships and do the wraparound support. So we had 600,000 taken out. And I would much rather have that 600,000 put towards next generation that was cut out of the out of the prosper budget.
113 Councilor I believe as part of the 12% reduction that prosper that was included in the mayor's proposed budget, there was, I think, a $200,000 reduction to.
114 It was 600. Next generation was 600. It was 112.
115 112 participants.
116 That's right. Yep.
117 I think.
118 It was 600,000.
119 That's correct.
120 Yes. Yes, sir.
121 Sorry.
122 That's okay.
123 Let me double check.
124 It's been.
125 A long day, but we'll.
126 Check the numbers right now.
127 No worries.
128 Councilor comments to the.
129 Tell them that I didn't want okay summer works. I wanted the coab because that is the workforce development. Those 112 are more important at this time.
130 Councilor I think the conversation was around workforce development and if the wrong thing got labeled.
131 Workforce co-ep next generation is workforce development.
132 I think.
133 That I think that the conversation was around workforce development, and if the wrong thing got labeled.
134 Yeah.
135 So let's change it.
136 We're still on the.
137 And I'd like to I'd like to have it at 600,000 because that's what was taken from the budget.
138 Councilor. So as part of the 12% reductions, there was a $200,000 reduction in workforce as part of the initial.
139 I sure. What was the 600,000?
140 We also had reductions.
141 In councilor I this seems like an important conversation to have, but right now we're debating councilor Ryan's amendment. So I'm wondering if this is something that we can have a couple of folks figure out while we continue the debate on the amendment around.
142 So does that include everything that they talked about summerworks or just his james beard?
143 Just. No, this is just on repair and restore grants, which is an amended. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry you had asked to break this apart into pieces, rather to do it rather than to do it as one package.
144 I am.
145 Councilor that's okay. Councilor Morillo did you have a comment on Ryan? The what was Ryan one? It is now a different version of restore and repair grants.
146 Yeah, I just wanted to say I think this is a good idea and it makes sense. While our small businesses are struggling in Portland, and I hope that as other things come up in the budget, that we also consider that there are amendments that will help our constituents who are struggling with things like rental assistance. So when we do socialism for businesses, we should do it for our constituents too. Thanks.
147 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Dunphy, did you have were you in the queue for councilor Ryan's amendment? Councilor Green, were you in the queue for councilor Ryan's amendment?
148 Yes. I just I think this is really important. This is one of the key hurdles for business activation, which again, as we've talked about, is the ingredient for our general fund revenues. So I support it.
149 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor canal councilor Clark, are you in the queue for councilor Ryan's amendment? Seeing no other discussion on councilor Ryan's amendment? Keelan, could you please call the roll?
150 Canal.
151 Thank you, councilor Ryan, for putting this forward. I was hoping we could get a half a million. And getting a million is great, I support it. Thank you so much. I vote I.
152 Ryan,
153 I.
154 Elaine. I maria.
155 I'm really supportive of our city using our dollars to help people out when they're having hard times.
156 I Novick. I Clark.
157 Small business is critical, so thank you councilor Ryan.
158 I Green.
159 Thanks for having those conversations with your board and supporting us.
160 I Zimmerman.
161 I. Avalos I.
162 Dunphy I.
163 Smith I.
164 Pirtle-guiney I.
165 The amendment is approved with 12 yes votes.
166 Thank you.
167 Councilors look at us getting things done. Councilor Koyama Lane. What was the second piece of what you put forward.
168 To the james beard market? 1 million. It's getting late.
169 The decimals are moving, folks. The decimals are moving. Councilors, do we have councilor Dunphy? I know you had no councilor Green. I'm sorry. Had brought that forward. Did you want to make the formal motion here?
170 Thank you. Yes. I move the motion $1 million to james beard. Original Green two is 1.5. But this is. This is better than zero. Second.
171 Oh, councilor Kanal. I'm going to give that to councilor Clark since it's her district. Okay. And, councilor Green, what was your original amendment number? Just so I can track for us. I know this is a bit changed at this point.
172 The original amendment number was Green two.
173 Thank you. I'm going to find that while we're talking. Looking for anybody in the queue for discussion on this amendment. Councilor, there are folks whose hands are not coming down, councilor Clark. Councilor Dunphy. Oh, your hand is down. Councilor Kanal. No. Councilor Smith, is your hand in the queue on this amendment?
174 Yes.
175 I have a question. So that was in a another amendment for 1.25 million. Councilor Green, the.
176 Previously I had an independent amendment for 1.5 that I was going to try to fund. If we were successful in the earlier prosper amendment. So this is now a sort of different, different offer here. And so my amendment is actually now reduced down by 500,000.
177 Right. And where did I see this before? I think that was madam president. It was in her package for 500,000. Right.
178 Correct.
179 Okay. I tried to.
180 Put in something there because I thought there was broad support.
181 Yes. So how did they determine which ones got the million dollars and which one got the 500?
182 Councilor, I.
183 Sorry.
184 Is that.
185 A question for. For prosper?
186 We can certainly offer. So repair and restore. We know with those numbers in the past. And I'd love for you to talk about your the programmatic team having at least that amount to what folks have talked about truly helps us. Support those businesses, whether.
187 If it's.
188 Just excuse me, window breaks or as we're really looking at the expanded restore program, do you want to share a little bit more about restore and why that $1 million.
189 That's that's fine. So what I want to do is I just I did check it out. It was 200,000 for next gen. I got the confirmation on that. And so and then the other 300,000 can go to summerworks.
190 Okay. Yeah. I'm trying to wait okay.
191 So 200.
192 So councilor, it sounds like 200. We're good on this on this amendment. Okay. Councilors I'm not seeing anybody else in the queue. Councilor Green.
193 I just I do want to clarify something because the city attorney came up and said, you should probably clarify this, which means I probably clarify it. My original amendment had the 1.5 coming from the city of portland's general fund. This would now come directly from seaf. So that's the change, correct?
194 So much for saving me from clarifying that. So, councilors, that is the amendment before us that change that councilor Green just referred to, to this being funded and $1 million and seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan could you call the roll?
195 Canal I.
196 Ryan.
197 I just have to say I'm very excited about this. Thank you, councilor Green, for your collaboration. And what I hear from good sources is this will leverage hopefully 10 million from the state.
198 I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Dunphy.
199 I Smith.
200 I pirtle-guiney. I amendment is approved with 12 votes okay.
201 Councilor Koyama Lane. I think you have our running list, but I've seen you running around a little bit. Where are we at here?
202 I propose an amendment for 500,000 to go to workforce, a workforce development project, 450,000 to film an events and 500,000 to the large event stability grant.
203 I believe that last one was 50.
204 To add up.
205 You said 500, but if it's adding up, it's.
206 Yeah.
207 Okay, 500 workforce for 50 film and events, 50 large events stability grant program okay.
208 So councilors there is second. Okay. And do we need some color around the workforce piece. Councilor Smith and how that's broken down. Or are those just dollars for workforce programs at prosper Portland?
209 I thought it was on the second one. So are we on this one for the for the 500 to 200.
210 403 hundred summer works? Yes.
211 Perfect.
212 So I believe I'm going to I'm going to try to I'm going to try to capture this. An amendment for $300,000 to summer works, $200,000 to next gen, $450,000 to film and events, and $50,000 to.
213 Large event.
214 Stability grant coming out of cif. All within prosper. Keelan and haley, do you need that in writing or do you have it?
215 What was the.
216 Next gen amount?
217 200,000 300,000. I believe we have a motion and a second on the table. Councilors. Is there any discussion? Seeing none. Keelan can you please call the roll.
218 Canal I, I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
219 Novick I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Dunphy. I Smith. I pirtle-guiney. I amendment is approved with 12 yes votes.
220 Councilors. I think we just gave councilor Clark a run for her money for efficiency. Nice job. Councilor Koyama Lane. Happy to help. I am going to back us out of the prosper hearing back into the council hearing. So, councilors, I am going to recess the budget committee on prosper portland's budget and reopen the budget committee of the Portland city council. We have taken a number of these economic development amendments off the table. If there are economic development amendments that relate not to the prosper budget, but to the city budget that we should consider. I would entertain folks entering the queue to propose amendments again for the city budget related to economic development. Councilor Zimmerman, is that why you are in the queue?
221 Next topic.
222 Councilor Clark. Is that why you are in the queue? Councilor Dunphy is that why you are in the queue?
223 Yes, ma'am.
224 I Dunphy. What say you?
225 What? Say me. I would like to consider Dunphy amendment seven. This is a amendment to restore a one fte a coordinator, one position at the city's noise office and its $146,000. And it is drawing from the ppe and contingency second.
226 Okay.
227 I'm skipping councilor Zimmerman and Clark. Councilor Smith, are you on the queue on this amendment?
228 Could you repeat the amendment again?
229 So this is Dunphy, number seven. I'm going to read off of my remarks that I was supposed to read. I apologize. It's a motion to restore a coordinator. One position in the city's noise office within permitting and development. It's a core element of our regulatory capacity in the city's nighttime and music economy. This increases the bureau program expenses within Portland, permitting and development, the development services fund by $146,000 to restore this coordinator one position. It decreases contingency within the development services fund of Portland, permitting and development by $146,000 to balance. Update attachments a through h as needed.
230 Question where is the money coming from to pay to restore it?
231 This is coming from the contingency fund.
232 Okay. How much is in that fund.
233 I don't know.
234 De oliveira. Oliveira, could you please come forward and help us with that question, which I think may be relevant for further amendments as well?
235 Thank you. Councilors. Daniel, for the record, councilor, your question is.
236 Regarding the development services.
237 Contingency fund. We're projected to have an ending balance at the.
238 End.
239 Of the fiscal year.
240 So this is.
241 When that would be contemplated.
242 At approximately.
243 13 million.
244 But of course, that.
245 Depends on.
246 Our revenues.
247 For the coming months.
248 But I think 13 million is.
249 A.
250 Reasonable forecast.
251 Councilor Smith, do you have any further questions?
252 No, no thank you.
253 Councilor Novick, are you in the queue on this amendment?
254 Yes.
255 Go right ahead.
256 I wanted to add dc oliveira. I mean, what does this mean? What would this mean we will have less money for.
257 Daniel. For the record, councilor, the reserve.
258 Is established.
259 To backfill when we have a.
260 Shortfall in our forecast of revenues.
261 So in this case. It's a contingency.
262 Fund, a reserve.
263 So in theory we would.
264 Just have less to draw down, you know if.
265 If the need came up.
266 Question for the council president how do you see this interacting with your proposal. And paddy.
267 I'm so glad you asked councilor. This my understanding is and I would look to our deputy city administrator to confirm this, but my understanding is that this is one of the positions that would be restored, at least temporarily, and then potentially in an ongoing fashion under my two budget amendments, pirtle-guiney one and two. That asterisk there, of course, is because I restore funds for the first three months of the fiscal year, and then we ask the bureau to come back to us with a report on economic conditions and whether they think they will need continued funding after that in the second amendment. But it is one of the positions that is covered in those amendments.
268 And are you okay with this?
269 I would hope that if we pass this and then pass mine, we would back some amount of money out of mine in order to account for that.
270 Okay.
271 Councilor Clark.
272 I'd just like to ask councilor Dunphy, can you tell us a little bit about what does a noise office coordinator do and why is it important?
273 Absolutely. So under state law, we're required to regulate noise as part of our duties for health. And historically, the office has had a pretty robust team of folks to be able to issue permits. If you're going to get a barbecue and have a loudspeaker system or something like that. In addition to responding to noise complaints for the last decade or so, it has historically been a one person office. We have a noise officer who's been with the city for 20 years, but he does a great job. A couple of years ago, this office was expanded into two positions, plus a director, plus an admin. And this coordinator one is primarily, as I understand it, she's primarily in charge of the permit issuance to be able to get if you're going to have an event, to be able to have a noise variance, to be able to do a public event while the noise officer goes and responds to built environment complaints.
274 Can we have that many applications.
275 Hundreds, thousands of individuals, not thousands, but hundreds certainly.
276 So there's a range of events. I mean, everything from schools that throw, you know, need, need amplification. And there's plan reviews, there's inspections to the counselor's.
277 Point.
278 But it.
279 Is a robust city need.
280 Councilors. Is there any other discussion or debate on dunfee seven? Seeing none keelan could you please call the roll?
281 I know. Koyama Lane I.
282 Mario.
283 It's really important that we move away from having police respond to these type of calls. So I.
284 Novick come feel the noise. Girls rock your boys I.
285 I Green.
286 I.
287 Zimmerman I hope this stays in there, but we're tackling some pretty small stuff before some very big things. And I imagine that this is one of those that I don't know if it makes it through the of the night. I'll vote. I we've run this credit card. Let's keep doing it.
288 Swipe I.
289 I Smith.
290 I.
291 Pirtle-guiney I.
292 The amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote.
293 Ironically, I think I'm next in the queue on this. Councilors, I would like to turn your attention to pirtle-guiney one and pirtle-guiney two in the economic development area. I'm pulling up my notes so that I know which is which. Bear with me for a moment here. Pirtle-guiney one would allow Portland permitting and development to draw $450,000 each month from their bureau to retain 31 of the fte, which were previously cut for a three month period for the months of July, August and September in order to retain staff as we move through things like the conversation, the mayor would like us to have around sdc waivers, which might lead to more applications for permits. This is a package pirtle-guiney two would ask us to find $4 million in our reserves, which we could draw on if economic conditions warrant us continuing those positions through the rest of the fiscal year. I do not have a funding source for pirtle-guiney two. I had proposed some other amendments that did leave us with surpluses. One of those was cut down significantly today, but I didn't have a funding source tied specifically to this. I acknowledge that this is a large amount of money to not have a funding source tied specifically to it. It is funding in contingency. I get nervous about tying up too much contingency to specific projects, but that is of course an option here. I would entertain a second on pirtle-guiney one and two.
294 Second, second.
295 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the. You're in the queue for discussion.
296 All right.
297 So I think this is the what I like about packages is that sometimes you vote for things maybe that you're not totally in love with in order to move an entire thing through. And that's where I was supportive of pirtle-guiney one in the package. As it stands, not being part of a package, not really getting us anything. I think this is a bad amendment. I think it's strings out the transition and the right sizing and all the things that I've spoken about before. And so without that, I won't be supportive of number one on position number two on pirtle-guiney two, $4 million. And you used two different words. And I really think you need to clarify, you first called it a reserve, which is different than a contingency because at the end you called a contingency. And if it's a contingency, then we need to find a place to put this money or get it from. Excuse me if it's a reserve that is saying it's a draw from a reserve, and I don't think you'd have to identify it. So I think that's important to identify. And what you mean there. But I would again say that I, I don't understand this. I've also never seen any government organization all of a sudden hit a metric that then they have to go and exceed and, and drive $4 million worth of hiring. So this to me seems like it's sending a signal, but will be it will cause us to find $4 million in the general fund to put into contingency, to then never be executed. And I worry about $4 million of cuts to programs to fill a contingency just to sit there, because this is never going to get executed. So I don't think either one of these should pass.
298 Councilor Zimmerman. My understanding from our budget office is that at the city of Portland, contingency, which is set aside for a specific purpose, is called a policy reserve. I find it confusing that we use those two words interchangeably as well, but that is why I use them interchangeably. Okay.
299 But it still means four more million dollars of general fund has to be found. If it's that.
300 I appreciate.
301 That de oliveira has come back up to the front. Very frankly, I reached out to our deputy city administrator, who oversees pnd and said, we have a big cut in pnd, and we know that there is sometimes a lag where because these positions are funded by fees, we when permit applications start going up, we don't yet have the fees collected to hire up. So there's a lag there. And I said what would we need to do to with as few resources as possible, knowing that resources are tight, help to address that lag so that the things that we are doing to try to spur development aren't met with a brick wall of us being the slowdown in permitting, given all of the layoffs. And this was the solution that our bureau brought forward.
302 So I understand that. But that is what a contingency is.
303 I understand.
304 Use it later in the year. We already have a $3 million contingency that's unrestricted.
305 That's what it is.
306 I give that introduction because I would love to have de oliveira share any remarks that would be helpful at this time.
307 Thank you, council president.
308 So. Councilor Zimmerman.
309 You're you're flagging.
310 The dilemma that we're. Experiencing here as we're.
311 Introducing interventions.
312 And products that we're hoping to spur development, that lag.
313 In implementation.
314 And realities, that.
315 If.
316 We laid off.
317 And I want to.
318 Acknowledge this, talking about layoffs in a sort of flippant way is not my preference. But I just got to talk about it in this real way. If we laid off 53 people.
319 On July 1st and then.
320 Come November, we see an uptick and.
321 Development and permitting.
322 Now we're at this, this point that council president just flagged where we're trying to catch up with. Hiring by using the reserve policy for the first quarter of the year. It extends those 31. Staff and the bureau.
323 And I.
324 Think director kuhnhausen is in the room to describe those positions that we're. Keeping will allow us more time to see the forecast. So we come back to.
325 You all in.
326 The fall.
327 We'll have higher.
328 Fidelity on what the future looks like. And it may be. And this is where I don't I'm saying this uncomfortably that we still have to look at laying off more staff, but at least it gives us a little bit more time to get a little bit more information to see if the sdc moratorium, some of the other interventions around self-certification or third party certification, if those start to generate more interest in development in Portland. And that's what we're solving for.
329 Yeah.
330 And the second one would be once we get to that point, we have that information, then you all can contemplate what makes sense to introduce that contingency, that general fund contingency into the bureau, to keep those staff on board.
331 Councilor you made the point that this is what we have contingency for. And while I would prefer to pass pirtle-guiney two so that we have that money specifically earmarked for this purpose, and also we have some metrics for when that would happen. We could rely on our contingency, knowing that folks may be coming forward with an ask.
332 I don't want to embarrass folks here, but there's a lot more at play here. And I think we are wading into something. And I think that you've got to seriously consider pulling back number four or the 4 million. Excuse me.
333 I appreciate your input. Councilor councilor Novick. Are you in the queue on these amendments?
334 Yes, I was I'm still just want to be sure. I think that the budget director said earlier that we can't just create 4 million out of thin air. And so if we voted for number two, we'd actually have to find 4 million.
335 That is correct.
336 Thank you.
337 Councilor Morillo.
338 Know, I was in the queue for something.
339 Else.
340 Councilor Smith.
341 Yes, thank you for your amendment. I just don't think it goes far enough. I think we need to give people an opportunity because 63 people are losing their jobs, not 31. And I believe instead of spending 1.35 million, which is 450 times three. We need to be restoring the entire 9.5 million until we can identify if there's going to be an uptick. If we're going to have folks, it's we're not going to have time enough to hire back all those folks if we get rid of them. When, if, when the budget suggests the mayor's budget suggests so. I like what you're doing. I like we're going to we're going along the right track, but I don't I don't think that it goes far enough. And I have an amendment in that would address this. And so I am going to see what everybody else thinks about this. But I just think it just it just does not go far enough.
342 Thank you.
343 Councilor, councilor Green.
344 Thank you, madam president. I support I support pirtle-guiney one for all the reasons that we've discussed. I think we need to keep the capacity in our permitting bureau to be able to execute when we've changed the conditions. I think the sdc thing has a big opportunity to change those conditions. I think. I don't know if I'm there on number two just because I we have a pretty scarce pool of money, and I know my colleagues have other things they'd like to fund. So you have my support on number one.
345 Thank you councilor. I keep hoping we can alternate between pro and con, but I can't get to that point because there's pro on one and con on the other. So I'm continuing down the list. Apologies for the inconsistency. Councilor canal.
346 What councilor Green said. Councilor Clark.
347 Unfortunately, ditto to councilor Green I and I hate to say this, but I feel like we're prolonging the inevitable. I sound like debbie downer, but it just feels like that to me. But I'm I'm I'm ditto to councilor Green. Councilor Avalos.
348 I am definitely supportive of your goals. And so I want to support I'm definitely going to support one. I want to support two. I'm just worried. I don't know, like what's going to happen as the night goes on. If I support that then at the end are we going to just have to come back and then do cuts? So that's like just a big one. We've already been swiping the card, as councilor Zimmerman said, but some of those were a lot smaller. So I just want to understand better. Like, what do you think would happen then? Like, would we have to? Yeah.
349 Councilor Avalos I do strongly believe that we need both of these amendments. I also would very much understand if we chose to pass pirtle-guiney one tonight and wait on pirtle-guiney two until the 11th. I do think we need to pass it. I think that might make some folks nervous if we do that, but I understand that that could be the more fiscally responsible path to take tonight.
350 Yeah. And then on that note, if let's say we put up two for a vote and it fails, would you not be able to bring it back next time?
351 If I put up two for a vote and it fails, somebody who voted no would be able to bring it back for reconsideration. And I could also change my vote to a no to do that. I also vote last so I could just vote no against it. Councilors councilor Councilor Novick. Are you back in the.
352 My question is sort of generic, but how far out of balance are we right now?
353 Director levine could we get an update? I believe we're actually in the positive still.
354 That's correct. On the general fund side. Year to the good by about $300,000.
355 And how much of that is the council office budgets, though?
356 Well, that amendment passed. So the if you took that away you would be to the bad.
357 That's actually what I meant though is I know the council office budget money can't be used one for one for anything except another overhead bureau.
358 The discretionary portion can be used. So I'm that that number I quoted you. Sorry I should have been more clear is just general fund discretionary okay. There's more in overhead. So I'm assuming that you were putting it towards something that is not overhead. You're to the good by $300,000.
359 Thank you.
360 Okay.
361 Councilors, I believe that is everybody who's in the queue for debate. Councilor Zimmerman, would you like. I can't tell when you're back in because you're not lowering your hand ever. Councilor.
362 Of course not. Because I got a bunch of amendments in the section that was supposed to be called three hours ago, so I still want to be first in that one. All right. So I appreciate and I have said over and over that I think that we've got to get serious about these, the inevitable happening a better time. But I've been open until the October 1st timeline. I hear that budget number one, that the president's proposed isn't going to cost any more money. And I think we can get there. But I appreciate what some councilors are recognizing that $4 million for number two is a ton of other general fund that we've got to go cut if that thing gets passed tonight. So I'll support one. But boy number two.
363 Councilors, I believe I don't see anybody else in the queue for debate. Keelan could you please call the roll on pirtle-guiney one?
364 No,
365 I.
366 Ryan no. Koyama Lane I. O'neill I Novick.
367 I mark. I Green. I Zimmerman.
368 I.
369 Dunphy. I.
370 Smith no.
371 Pirtle-guiney I.
372 Amendment is approved with ten yes votes and two no votes.
373 Thank you counselors I hear the hesitation on pirtle-guiney two in the name of time. I am happy to pull it back. I will be bringing it back forward on the 11th. I believe I'm losing our place in the queue here. Councilor Morillo were you next in the queue for an economic development proposal?
374 How many people have left are left with economic with this portions proposals.
375 I believe I see you and canal and Smith in the queue, and then we will close this out and move on to transportation so that we can get back to that fee bill.
376 Okay. So I have a motion to move the amendment topic area, the next one to parks, because it's a high priority area. And it's something that the community has been asking for this entire time as a top priority. So I don't know why we're pushing it off to the 11th.
377 Councilor we need to get back to the fee bill, which is why I have asked us to do transportation after economic development. Are you suggesting that we do parks after transportation if there's still time tonight, or that we do it before transportation?
378 I'm suggesting we do it before transportation so that you guys can have a little hustle in your step. Because that's.
379 Get back to this after we finish economic development. And I will call on you first when we are done with the economic development proposals.
380 Yeah. But if you guys start slow rolling stuff, I'm going to be annoying about it.
381 I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say you guys.
382 My fellow councilors.
383 Try to refrain from impugning each other. Councilor canal, do you have a proposal on economic development? Okay, councilor Smith, do you have a proposal on economic development?
384 Yes, I did a pre amendment for 1.6 million and I want to take I had 600,000 for next gen. And so we kind of. Can you tell us which amendment number this is please.
385 It is Smith one okay. Works and youth employment. And so I want to scratch the 600,000 for the next generation. And I want to take the 1 million for summer works out of the contingency for the opioid dollars. There's $2 million in contingency. Increased funding for summer works youth employment initiative by reallocating or allocating $1 million from the contingency fund for the opioid litigation and take away the 600,000. The second one I want to scratch. Smith two, for increasing funding for prosper Portland office of small business. I guess we kind of handle that as well. And then ten, which is very similar to what council president just did. But I go a little bit further, counselor.
386 We're we're looking for either a package that's related or one top priority so that we can get to everybody and get through as much as possible.
387 So I'm.
388 Going wasn't clear.
389 So I just eliminated two.
390 Oh so eliminating Smith one.
391 I eliminated part of Smith one and I eliminated Smith two okay. And so the third one in the last one that is very similar to yours I don't think that we're going. It's called Smith ten to increase the fund and resources for the Portland permitting and development to preserve the 63 folks who are in the staffing and permitting operations. I want to restore 9.5 million to Portland, permitting and development. I want the general fund to come from 4.5 million to come from the joint office account, and the 5 million to come from pnd reserves.
392 So it sounds like councilor Smith has moved to amendments. A modified version of Smith one. Which lowers that amount to $1 million, and Smith ten. Is there a second on either.
393 Smith two? That's done.
394 Got it.
395 Councilor Smith.
396 Do you have a.
397 Language that you.
398 Could share with me for.
399 Smith ten.
400 Yes. Ten is Smith. Ten is to increase. And. Well, actually it's to restore 9.5 million to Portland permitting and development. They were cut out of the mayor's budget. And the 4.5 coming from the joint office and the 5 million coming from the pnd reserve.
401 Is there a second for Smith? One.
402 Yeah, I'll second.
403 Is there a second for Smith? Ten? Councilor Smith I'm not seeing a second for Smith ten. Why don't we take up Smith one okay. Councilor Kanal not in the queue for that. Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue for Smith one.
404 Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand what we just did not too long ago with 500,000 for something that I forgot. And how that relates to Smith one.
405 The 500,000 councilor Avalos was 200 for next gen. That's for workforce development and 300,000 for summer works.
406 So that's why you amended this down to one?
407 Yeah, that's why I amended it to.
408 1 million.
409 Correct.
410 Okay.
411 Okay. Thanks.
412 Thank you. Councilor I'm next in the queue. I have a question for director levine. Smith. One pulls money from the opioid settlement dollars and.
413 Contingency from the.
414 Contingency for the opioid settlement dollars. Can you help me understand how much is in that contingency? What are the limitations on it? Because I know there are limitations on other dollars. What does that contingency set aside for? I need to understand the implication of this amendment.
415 Yeah. And I'm not sure I have to. I'd have to check on if it's budgeted in contingency or where it's budgeted. But my understanding is that. That there is about $1 million that's expected. Sorry, I'm just pulling up the information. That's expected for between what what has been unspent so far and what we expect to receive next year. The. Thanks. Yeah, just just over $1 million. The restrictions are set by. The I think it's schedule e of the. Opioid settlement. And I don't know robert, if you have it in front of you and can speak to this the eligibility of this use.
416 And I'm sorry you said there was how much in the contingency right now.
417 I don't know that it's actually in contingency, but it's the amount that we expect plus the amount we have left from this current fiscal year is 1.02 million.
418 So we are expecting we don't know if we'll get it yet, but we are expecting to have just over $1 million. Correct. That has not yet been allocated to other uses.
419 Correct.
420 Okay. Robert, do you have information on the limitation and uses?
421 Yes I.
422 Do.
423 And ruth is correctly.
424 Identified the limitations in the settlement agreements.
425 You know.
426 In general, the use of those funds needs.
427 To have. Some nexus.
428 To the prevention or treatment.
429 Of opioid use disorder. So if it's just general. Workforce development that that.
430 Appears that the funds would not qualify for that. If it's workforce development, for additional professionals who. Work with people with opioid use disorder or co-occurring substance abuse or mental health conditions that would qualify training and scholarships for behavioral health practitioners or workers would qualify.
431 Programs aimed. At preventing opioid use.
432 Including youth focused programs designed to prevent. Drug misuse, could be funded. Also, an allowed.
433 Use is. Providing education.
434 To youth focused programs to discourage or prevent opioid misuse.
435 Thank you, robert councilor I don't think I have ever turned down an opportunity to support workforce development in my entire career.
436 Before you say that, let me tell you something. Before you say that. So here's here's.
437 The councilor.
438 So summer works is a very comprehensive program. We have a readiness training that we train kids on how to be ready in the workforce. We also have a component about drug and alcohol prevention. We huddle up every day and talk to the students. And just just from a standpoint of bipoc communities. Fentanyl and substance abuse in bipoc communities is very high. And so knowing that this will be a way to have some sort of opioid justice in making sure that those kids understand the dangers of opioids, understand the dangers of fentanyl prevention strategies, prevention strategies, how educational initiatives can change their day. I have never seen a kid doing a drive by or smoking drugs on their way to work. I just haven't. This has been a huge deterrent using this program, and this will be an excellent opportunity for us to expand it with these opioid dollars because it has impacted particularly the black community really, really heavily. And so this will be an opportunity to have some sort of social justice while we're educating the kids. When they come in the summer, they're with us for a couple of months and we're training them. We're with them every day.
439 So thank you, counselor. And I am a huge supporter of the summer works program and look forward to finding other opportunities to support its expansion with you. I just don't think that I am comfortable using these dollars for that and then potentially not having the funds available when we've made promises to kids.
440 And I believe there's $2 million available.
441 Counselor Avalos, you're next in the queue.
442 Yeah, I guess I have a question because I have an amendment that was for the opioid settlement dollars. It was for 1.5 million for health. But then I was informed that there was only 200,000 left in it because 990 whatever was for bybee lakes. But I'm hearing that there was a new calculation and that there is a million in there. I'm looking to you, ruth. Are you confirming what I'm saying? Yes. So that's news that I just got and puts me in a, you know, so, so I can't support this because I want to I have an amendment to move to put those dollars towards for health. You know, it's for our district. Right. Opening up 62 recovery beds. So yeah. That's that's it.
443 Counselors. I don't see anyone else in the queue to speak to this amendment. Keelan, could you please call the roll on the modified version of Smith one?
444 Canal.
445 No.
446 Ryan, no. Koyama Lane.
447 No.
448 Maria.
449 No.
450 Novick.
451 No.
452 Green.
453 No.
454 Zimmerman.
455 No.
456 Avalos.
457 No.
458 Dunphy.
459 No.
460 Smith.
461 Yes.
462 Pirtle-guiney.
463 No.
464 The amendment fails with one yes vote and ten no votes.
465 Thank you counselor. I believe that that is the end of folks in the queue with economic development budget amendments. I would like us to move now to the transportation section, but I have promised councilor Morillo that I would come back to her first.
466 Okay. So I would like to motion to move the amendment topic area to parks. Next, I get a second.
467 Second.
468 Counselors, we are in discussion on the motion on the table. Councilor Kanal are you in the queue for this purpose?
469 Motion to yes. Yeah.
470 Yeah.
471 I support this. I think we're we've been hearing a lot. There were I don't know how many people up there waiting on us to vote on the amendment on the mac. And there's a lot of things in the broader parks conversation that we need to talk about. So I support this. Thanks, counselor.
472 Smith, are you in the queue for this purpose? Councilor. Morillo.
473 We should do it.
474 Next in the queue. Counselors, it is 1015. I was informed during our break and I believe all of your offices were informed also that we have a hard stop at midnight because of some staff timing. I know there are some looks about that. I'm frustrated by it as well. That is the reality we are living in right now. We do need to pass the fee bill with the tnc fee. I know some of you would like to talk about raising that. I would like you to have that opportunity. Most things we are talking about tonight can move to the 11th, but if we want to pass a change to this fee bill, I'd like us to do that while we have a fee bill in front of us that we can amend, which is why I'm asking for us to move to transportation next. It is 1015, and I'm concerned that if we go to parks next, we won't have time to come back and do transportation and close out the things we need to do before the end of our night. Councilor Novick are you in the queue to speak to this motion?
475 Yes, madam president, I share your concern. I think we need to get through what we legally need to get through first. However, if we have any time afterwards, I do think that we should get to the amendments to take money from police and give it to parks, because that's the main event. That's what the fans paid to see.
476 Councilor Zimmerman.
477 I am not even going to try and predict what each next section is anymore. But I do agree with with you that first off, we emphasize this approved budget far more than most governments, and it's inappropriate. And the big the big thing to get through is the 11th. And so I agree, we've got to get through the things that require us tonight the sec setting the size of the funds because the fee structure is part of that. I think it's important all of the amendments and all the points that councilor, Morillo and others have brought up are important and can be argued and debated on the 11th just as much. But if we don't get if we change the fee structure, I think we would be in violation then, because we're not setting our revenues. That is very concerning to me, and that is the only reason I would like to stay here.
478 Thank you. Seeing no one else in the queue for debate, keelan could you call the roll on the motion before us? Which is to.
479 I mean, I have a response. I was back in the queue.
480 Okay. Councilor Morillo, you're back in the queue.
481 It will take me one minute to get the votes. I need to move 2 million from police into parks. So I think we can get that done. And you know what? It's not taking. It's not a cut. It's actually an increase. As councilor Sameer Kanal has so called it.
482 Yeah.
483 The parks debate is much broader than that and.
484 I understand. But the parks is what people came here to discuss and to talk about. And it's a resource the community needs. And we have been going in circles for a lot of these things.
485 Maybe Steve can just say the mac isn't.
486 On the list of councilors.
487 I'd like to bring us back into order. Councilor Clark is in the queue.
488 I'm just asking, what are we voting on? I'm sorry. I was out of the room.
489 I councilor Morillo asked if we could if she could make a motion to have us move in a different order than I had previously informed everybody we would move in. I said that I would entertain that motion. Keelan we have a motion on the table to talk about parks next, instead of transportation, could you please. Oh, councilor Avalos, are you in the queue for discussion?
490 I just jumped in really quick just to ask, is it just what is the thing that you're saying? It's just one thing. And transportation that has to happen today. So we could come into parks and then come right back and do that one thing.
491 Or the fee bill is open with the tnc fee, which I know is part of the proposals that are on the table on transportation. I would like us to take up any proposals folks would like to discuss tonight on transportation so that if any of them involve an increase in fees, we can do that while we have a fee bill before us. Keelan would you please call the roll.
492 Canal on the motion to reorder? I'll point out that there's only three hours scheduled on June 11th. Right now.
493 It's more I vote yea. Ryan.
494 No.
495 Koyama Lane.
496 Yes. Morillo I.
497 Novick.
498 No.
499 Clark.
500 No.
501 Green I.
502 Zimmerman I'm not even sure that we can tell the presiding officer how to run this, so no.
503 I Dunphy.
504 I Smith.
505 No.
506 Pirtle-guiney.
507 No.
508 The motion fails with seven. No. No one I'm sorry.
509 Six.
510 Six six. Six. Motion fails with split vote. Thanks.
511 Thanks. Keelan. Councilors. We are moving to the transportation section of our amendments, and I would entertain anybody who has transportation amendments that they would like to move forward. I see councilor Kanal in the queue. Is that for transportation?
512 No.
513 Okay. Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue for transportation? Councilor Novick, are you in the queue for transportation?
514 I am at a clarification. I'm in the queue for amending the tnc fees, but I don't know if we can do that under transportation budget. Or do we have to go back to doing the fee resolutions?
515 Ruth, do we do? I think we do both.
Procedural episode · turns 516–530
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
516 You have to do it in both. Yeah.
517 So I.
518 Believe in budget.
519 We will do it in budget. And if we do pass anything that amends it, as soon as we are done with the transportation section, we will move back into our council meeting to address the fee bill.
520 Just a point of order.
521 Point of order. Councilor Zimmerman.
522 I'd like to remind everybody that the mayor's budget was proposed with $1.30, which is a 65% increase to the uber and lyft fees. That is not the fee schedule that came to the finance committee and that we sent to you all that we heard earlier 12.5 hours ago. So I just want to make that clear that we will have to if we do nothing right now except approve it, we still have to go back and amend that fee schedule. I know some of you have some increases you'd like to, but we're already out of balance. And that was a scrivener's error. Nothing intentional.
523 Thank you councilor. Councilor, we talked to councilor Novick councilor Clark, are you in the queue to bring a transportation amendment forward?
524 Yes, but it's a budget note regarding future revenue hold.
525 If it's a budget note, we will do those. It may be on the 11th councilor. Smith, are you in the queue to bring forward a transportation budget amendment?
526 Yes. Thank you. So I have Smith three. It's funding for the sidewalk improvement and paving program. And this we put a request in to go to the finance committee to issue a series of $250 million limited revenue bonds each year for the next two years. But to authorize a $200 million budget authority. And the reason why I'm bringing this now is because I know that it took it was 11 one vote in support of the resolution. But if we don't set aside the money now in this budget to impact 2526, then we'll be will be out of order. And that's why I'm bringing it early. We have to do an ordinance to change some things, but we also have to put some money into a contingency fund so that we can account for the amount of money that it's going to cost to put cip forward. So I'd like to put a. Put up a, a what do you call it, a. Do I have to put something forward if the amendment is there. But I want to do an authorization motion.
527 Your motioning the amendment.
528 Yeah. I want to put a motion forward to do a 200,000 authorization. But we only want to do $100 million, $50 million for this fiscal year, $50 million for the next fiscal year. And that's going to cost about $8 million. I don't know if. Is jonas still here? 200 million.
529 Exactly which.
530 Amendment this is Smith three.
531 The councilors. We have Smith three before us, which is a $200 million authorization to take out $100 million in bonding. Is that correct?
532 To take out 100 million in bonding, but doing a 200 million authorization so that we can come back in a couple of years? The idea is that if we take out too much money and we're not finished, we have to do some wrangling.
533 Second.
534 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilors discussion to Smith three councilor Canal. Is that your purpose in the queue, councilor Clark.
535 I would like to ask councilor Smith, why are we reducing the housing bureau general fund by 8 million?
536 So that's where we were going to originally take the money from. And I had a conversation with the mayor, and we're not going to take it from there, because we're going to have a bigger conversation about housing on Friday. And so I think that that is where the conversation needs to come from. But I also want to change where the money comes from. And just to give you a couple of figures, I want to take it from the transportation operation fund. And put on just a second in our. In our research, we saw that debt service dropped off by $7 million this year for 2526. Well, in 2627, there's going to be approximately about 35 million that drops off in debt service. And that being said, there will be enough general fund money to put in 20 year bonds for the 2627. But if we take the money out of the transportation operating fund, we could get that funded and started July 1st.
537 Thank you, councilor.
538 Thank you.
539 Councilor Green. I believe you're next in the queue for discussion.
540 Thank you, madam president. Councilor Smith, respectfully, I don't think this is the way to do this authorization. I've been working with jonas to come up with a funding plan for the issuance of this debt. You need to do that because you have an external bond committee that rates the quality of the debt and the overall portfolio of assets. I think we have to we have to do it right. And this doesn't feel right to me. I don't think the debt service is 8 million. I think it's closer to 5 million. I would urge I would urge you to pull this back and.
541 We can pull this back. But understanding we're still going to have to find we're still going to have to find the money out of this fiscal year. And if we don't set it aside or identify where it's going to come from, we're going to be in the same situation a month from now, two months from now.
542 I understand that. But then we if we pass an ordinance before this council to authorize that debt.
543 No, it's not an ordinance. This is just to put the money aside when we pass the ordinance.
544 Let me finish. Thank you. I don't want to put this money aside before we pass the ordinance and we pass the ordinance, we will do a budget amendment to this to then to then next fiscal year to move money around. If this council if this body thinks that's the right thing to do. But I think this is premature, we have to figure out what the cost of this debt is. I know that we passed a resolution last month, but I don't feel comfortable setting aside $8 million from this fiscal year from any source.
545 Not this fiscal year.
546 I'm sorry.
547 For 26.
548 For the budget we are considering from any source, for any fund before we have voted on an ordinance.
549 The ordinance will identify the money. You won't have to do anything after the ordinance.
550 Councilor we have to vote on an ordinance to authorize the debt, and during that period we will have two readings on it. We will have some analysis. I've asked the chief financial officer to help us out with that. We will identify that. Will we make our budget offset that time? I'm not prepared to support this part of cip at this moment. I don't think it works in the best interest of our program. That's all I'll say.
551 Thank you, councilor. Councilor zimmermann.
552 Thanks. I appreciate that councilor Smith has been willing to look for a way to leverage our debt payments to achieve what we passed. I think it was 12 zero. The resolution for those two districts to get sidewalks. And while the ordinance and I'm going to give it all the time that I can this summer at the finance committee to develop the proper ordinance, I don't think of this too dissimilar from the ADA debt that we just recently authorized. And so the way I read this, and way I understand councilor Smith's adaptations in the last week or so, is that this is a signal of money that is already sitting in the transportation contingency fund. And if at a future time, we were to create the ordinance to create the debt, that we could use that. So I look at this as the second signal of what the previous resolution was, was about cip. This says if we can get it together and pass a funding mechanism, that we have a payment, a payment mechanism as well. I, I wanted to go even further. I think that, you know, PCEF does $20 million worth of sidewalks right now for safe routes to school. I think it is very connected, but she's identified transportation. I think there have been some other ideas ideas out there. And that's why I'm going to support it, because I don't see it deferring anything currently in our plan. I don't see it creating a larger gap tonight because it's already a contingency ready to be paid if the ordinance mechanism is created this summer. Thank you.
553 Thank you, councilor. Councilor Smith I'm in the queue for a point of clarification. You talked about authorizing 100 million. I'm looking at something authorizing 200 million to go out for a bond for 100 million. I'm looking at something that talks about a series of $50 million bonds each year for four years, which I think would be 50 million this year. I just want to make sure that we're capturing your amendment correctly. For our staff who are making this all legal for us.
554 So it would legally be 50 million. The 200 million would cover four years. But we're only asking for the 100 million so we can do for next fiscal year in the following. I didn't get a chance to talk to councilor Green because he he wasn't he didn't have the information that I had. And I'm sorry about that. Councilor ruth had given me the amount of money that had dropped off. So you didn't have that information, and I apologize for that. So I knew that there was money sitting there. I just want the conversation and I want to be able to ride the wave and, and I'll be honest with you, a couple things happened that that really made me jump the gun on this. We're going to be asked for a lot of different things. I saw the keller go up. I saw the Portland trail blazers. Blazers go up for sale. We're going to be asked for a lot of money and possible bond authority. I do not want to get caught in the middle of all of that stuff. And then east Portland is stuck again without sidewalks. District four on the west side is stuck again without sidewalks. So that's why I'm bringing it forward, because I knew that there was an opportunity to have it paid for, and if we could do it now and then, we'd still have to go back and do the ordinance to make it legal. But this is just putting the money aside into a fund that we already have. So.
555 Councilor. Clark.
556 Thank you, madam chair. Okay, councilor Smith, I'm confused when I'm when I'm looking at has a three bullets on it. The third bullet is the Portland housing bureau. Did you take.
557 I took I took that off and said we're going to do the transportation operations fund. As I said before, I talked to the mayor and he said a bigger conversation is going to be had about housing and homelessness on Friday. So I took that back.
558 So I don't know what the downside is of actually approving this. Can can you help me out with that? I don't I don't understand the downside.
559 There wouldn't be a downside. But it's just it's just style. It's not it's style. It's not substance. Substance is here we have different styles on how we want to do things. I like to get things done early, quick so that we can set it up okay, but it still does not prevent us from I mean, we actually still have to do an ordinance, but we're just setting the money aside so that we have it there and that we know that this money is going to be set aside for cip.
560 Okay. Councilor Green was saying he doesn't think it has to be 8 million.
561 Well, at 7.5%. And you do 100 million. That's darn near close to.
562 I can.
563 Okay. Can he speak to this?
564 Can we if we're going to throw around numbers, if we're going to throw around numbers, I want us to defer to the numbers that our budget team puts forward. So do we have a clear answer on what the debt payment would be for issuing $50 million?
565 100 million?
566 Well.
567 I'm sorry, councilor, I'm still not seeing the 100 million in here, but let's go with 100 million.
568 Go ahead.
569 Okay. Sorry, I didn't know if there was a question. So.
Procedural episode · turns 570–578
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
570 Sorry I dropped the question.
571 Yeah, apologies. So, my understanding, just to level set the resolution authorized, looking into issuing up to $200 million for the cip program. We are working on doing the due diligence so we can come forward. As councilor Green mentioned, with a legally viable ordinance to authorize that financing. Often those financing ordinances also include, well, they will include authorization of the payment source, which could be a budget amendment at that moment or could be budget resources identified ahead of time. I will also flag that under the current projection, which I want to be clear, we're meeting with PBOT. Tomorrow to begin that due diligence and really nail down the drafting of the ordinance. But under the current expectation of issuing bonds during fiscal 2526, there would not be a first payment until fiscal 2627, at which point the projected payment would be just over $8 million.
572 Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane, are you in the queue to speak to this amendment? You can stay in the queue if you're there for another purpose.
573 I think.
574 It's time to call the question. I call the question.
575 Councilors. Is there a second? Second councilors, do we have unanimous consent to move to a vote on this issue? I'm not seeing anybody shaking their head. No. Keelan, can you please read the roll?
576 Canal I look forward to doing a supplemental budget ordinance alongside the future ordinance, but for now, no.
577 No Koyama Lane. No. Morillo.
578 No.
579 Novick.
580 No.
581 Clark.
582 Yes.
583 Sorry. It was that. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
584 Green. I appreciate your fight, but I'm a no. Yes.
585 Avalos.
586 No.
587 Dunphy.
588 Yes.
589 Smith.
590 Yes.
591 Pirtle-guiney.
592 Councilor. I look forward to working on this in the budget or in the in the bill that I know you'll bring forward to us the ordinance that I know you'll bring forward to us later. But for today, I'm a no. I have too many questions about what's in here.
593 The amendment fails with four yes votes and eight no votes.
594 Second, all, I believe you councilor Kanal.
595 I believe you said you were not in the queue for this for transportation. Is that correct? Novick are you in the queue for transportation?
596 I am in the queue for transportation, but I'm in the queue to move to raise the tnc fees and I want to know if we can do that at as a standalone thing outside the budget amendments discussion.
597 Well.
598 If we're doing it as an amendment to the budget, then you would do it right here in this budget amendment discussion. I don't see a Novick transportation amendment. So are you making a new amendment from the floor?
599 Okay. I'm confused. I thought that we were. So at some point we'll go back to just do fees. Is that right?
600 If it is, if you're moving, if there are a few people who have amendments that would affect the tnc, and if you are moving to raise the tnc to have more money in the transportation budget or to back general funds out of the transportation budget, then we would entertain that motion. Now, I'm just noting that we don't have an amendment from you. So it would be an amendment from the floor unless you are moving somebody else's amendment.
601 It would be an amendment from the from the floor.
602 Okay. Go right ahead.
603 I would like to propose an amendment that I've been working on with councilor Morillo, Green and Dunphy to amend the tnc fee per ride and exhibit f, and increase the rate from the listed $0.65 to $2 per ride. The mayor's proposed budget includes an increase to $1.30 per ride. I believe we believe that an increase to $2 is fair. The total increase would raise an additional $10 million, 5 million of which is already included in the mayor's budget. The revenue is currently restricted to the tnc use for the tnc regulatory program, so we'll be bringing additional ordinance next week to allow the funds to move more freely. As gdr, we know that the transportation bureau is starved for money. I just to give a preview, I think some folks will be tempted to rely on this to reduce the amount of general fund going to transportation. I don't think that that's a good idea. I think we should use every dollar we can to address our failing streets. I think that it's ten years ago. I was one of the deciding votes to let the rideshare companies operate in the city. I actually now believe that that was a mistake. At the time, some environmentalists thought that that would reduce the use of cars because we encourage people to take transit and then use the rideshare companies for the last mile instead, it just resulted in more cars in the streets and more carbon emissions. And I think as long as they're out there, which I regret doing, then we should use it to raise the money for transportation. One specific thing I have in mind is I'm worried that the proposed suspension of sdcs will cost $6 million, that PBOT is counting for counting on to for the federal match for the 82nd avenue bus rapid transit. I think that it's that we could probably rely on increased tnc fees to make up for the $6 million that they would lose, which could destroy the project. And I think that'd be kind of fitting to have money from the rideshare companies help ensure transit project. I'm also planning to continue examining the relationship between PBOT and the rideshare companies generally, but for now, my proposal is to raise the fees to $2, and I will note that the city attorney has told me that since the mayor's. Well, since normally since this is a proposal in the second reading, it would require another meeting to pass it. Unless we add an emergency ordinance. So I would ask for consent that regardless of how people vote on the amendment, whatever amount we wind up with, that they vote to be one of the nine people to have it be an emergency ordinance. I also just wanted to ask council to Zimmerman, based on what you just said about the scrivener's error, is it true that we're going to need to make this an emergency ordinance no matter what, no matter what figure we wind up with? Yes. Okay. So one way or another, it's going to have to be an emergency ordinance. Thank you.
604 And for folks who didn't catch it, this is listed in your packets as Morillo two. For anybody who's watching this is I believe, in the revenue generating section but is related to transportation as well. So we are taking it up here Morillo two. Councilor Kanal are you in the queue to speak to this amendment?
605 No.
606 Councilor. Morillo.
607 Oh no, I was just trying to say that it was Morillo two and it's been brought. Yeah.
608 Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue to speak to this amendment? Go right ahead.
609 Thanks. Madam president. And I, I do think that the councilors who are proposing this have been thoughtful. I think that I have a firm disagreement on it. I looked at my uber receipts. I know that the uber receipt says city of Portland fee $0.65. City of Portland. Accessibility fee $0.11. I know that this sounds great that we're taxing some big company, but it goes directly to the users, to the riders. I am reminded when I worked in the mayor's office upstairs and the vice president of Portland state university called me because we had started a new school year, and it was coming out of the pandemic, and he had students who had signed up for in-person class and within the first 30 days, had disenrolled from in-person to go back to virtual because of the situation on TriMet, getting to class because it was a little too expensive for them to live in the central city. So they were taking TriMet. I also remember a later conversation with that same person, who then said a number of students were taking uber and lyft in and they didn't prefer it. But because of the situation on TriMet, which is, as some people on this dais have said, our largest homeless shelter, where dangerous behavior happens every single day, where TriMet has had to hire over 200 safety specialists in order to make the trains and the busses barely palatable. I think it is rich that we are going to then tell those people. Those kids are one example, but there's thousands. There were 8 million rides by uber and lyft last year in Portland. That's $8,000,002 charges that we're about to do. And I don't want to raise taxes on individual portlanders, particularly when the other alternatives are pretty crappy right now. And I think we're also going to decrease the footprint that police and public safety have in this city in the same action tonight. And so to do that and take away the tools that people have, I hope we don't I know it's going to pass, but I just don't think raising taxes on individuals right now, in a time I don't think that we have to I don't think we're in a budget crisis. I think we're in a crisis. Thank you.
610 Thank you. Councilor, councilors, I was remiss in not actually confirming that that introduction was councilor Novick motion. And then taking a second.
611 It was my motion.
612 Second.
613 Okay.
614 Councilor Morillo, are you back in the queue?
615 Yeah. As the only person here who's dependent on transit because I don't have a car, I don't have a license. And my mom only knew how to drive a motorcycle, so we never learned how to drive. I don't know why. It's always the men that are, like, six feet tall that are terrified of being on the bus. It's really not a big deal. I ride the bus all the time and I'm five foot two and 130 pounds soaking wet, so I think we will all survive it. People love the bus. I see people fall in love on the bus, and the reality is that we need this funding for our budget. We don't have any funding to play with right now, as we've all discussed, and we are running that credit card up, so I suggest we pass this quickly.
616 Councilor Dunphy.
617 I just wanted to express my support for this. Also, while this is a dramatic increase from where we are now, it is worth noting that comparable cities are far in excess of this. As I understand it, the city of seattle is $4 a ride and the city of new york is seven. I even think that I understand it that the port of Portland has their separate. If you get a pickup at the airport, if you get dropped off at the airport, it's the city of Portland. If you get picked up at the airport, they have their own and I believe it's a $2 fee as it is right now. So I think we have a lot of room to be able to make flexibility in this, and it is still worth noting that the overall cost for an entrance to being an uber driver or a lyft driver is less than that of being a taxi driver. And the investment in there, we need to provide some level of market stability there. Because I was in city hall when the vote to implement tax happened as well, and it's time to have a bigger look at that, that arrangement. And I think this is a really good first start.
618 Councilor I'm in the queue. Just to note that I did ask if it was possible to find out how many riders. Had accounts that were from Portland, meaning people who live here and take this as part of their regular transportation, versus people who are visiting our city. And that's not data that the city has access to. I just wanted to share with folks that we don't have any way of knowing that. Councilor Kanal I'm sorry, I thought you were not in the queue for this, but it looked like you were raising your hand there.
619 I saw nobody else in the queue, so I'll just let it go.
620 Councilor Dunphy is back in the queue.
621 Yeah. I'm sorry. I had one more thing to say that we have also heard directly from the uber drivers union and radio cab staff, and they are in support of this and also are interested in that, that broader conversation.
622 Thank you. Councilor councilor Kanal. Were you in the queue or not in the queue? Okay. Councilor, councilor Morillo, you've spoken to this twice.
623 I just had a quick question. So are we moving the Morillo amendment forward? My amendment or the verbal one? They're the same. Really? I don't.
624 Believe that councilor Novick has moved Morillo to. And you seconded it.
625 Okay.
626 Let's vote. I've tracked this.
627 Let's vote.
628 Okay.
629 Keelan, could you please call the roll canal.
630 Thank you.
631 I Ryan.
632 I know it's going to pass. I really think it deserves more dialog. And I would have liked to have had more time to look into that. So I'm usually a no on floor amendments.
633 No. Koyama Lane.
634 Yes. Morillo I.
635 Novick I.
636 Clark.
637 As much as I want more money for transportation, I'm very concerned about this. I'm going to vote no.
638 Green.
639 We got to get more people taking transit. And this is one step of the way. I vote I.
640 Zimmerman.
641 No.
642 I Dunphy. I Smith no. Pirtle-guiney.
643 I.
644 Amendment is approved with eight yes votes and four no votes.
645 Councilors. Are there any other transportation amendments that folks would like to move this evening? Councilor Dunphy?
646 Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I would like to move for the purposes of discussion. At the very least. Dunphy eight. But I would like to amend the text of Dunphy eight as pre-filed. Dunphy eight is a motion to decrease the Portland bureau of transportation general fund dollars following a tnc fee. After the tnc fee passes, I move to. Dedicate to fully to use these new revenues to fully fund the vision zero based off of the. Reflecting this off of the Koyama Lane amendment regarding fully funding vision zero, they are receiving a $677,664 reduction. I would like to earmark 677,000 $664,000 to the vision zero programing, and a $2 million. Decrease of interfund cash transfers within bureau of transportation to reduce general fund support by 2 million councilor.
647 I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this. You are taking general fund is within the within PBOT you are redirecting $677,664 of general fund within PBOT to the vision zero program, which had been previously reduced by netbackup and then backing up, backing out the balance of 2.5 million -677,000. So just under 2 million in general fund back out of PBOT and to general fund discretionary sitting within our usable budgets.
648 That was so much better than what I said at 11:00 at night. Yes, I am attempting to offset our general fund by using these dollars instead.
649 Is there a second.
650 Second?
651 Keelan haley. Ruth, did you catch that? This is okay. So we are looking at Dunphy eight, which was backing out 2.5 million of general fund from PBOT. What councilor Dunphy just did is reduced that by 677,664. This is the vision zero programing that was previously funded with cannabis tax reductions. We're buying that back up with general fund within PBOT, the balance of the 2.5 million that is in Dunphy, eight is being backed out of PBOT and is available general fund discretionary dollars.
652 It's combining.
653 Got it can I jeremy's going to come up I think I'm not sure how the confusion resulted, but there's only about $2 million of general $2.3 million of general fund in PBOT. So there's a $200,000 discrepancy that would need to come from transportation, general transportation revenue.
654 Pbot councilor Dunphy.
655 Are you intending to back out additional funds, or are you intending to back out all general fund dollars beyond the 677,664, whatever that balance happens to be?
656 That is my intention is to back out the general funds in there, minus the full funding for vision zero.
657 Can I try something here, please? I believe that councilor Dunphy is proposing a floor amendment which would redirect $677,664 of general fund within PBOT to the vision zero programing line, and would back out the balance of the general fund within PBOT to general fund discretionary, leaving no general fund within PBOT except for that general fund, which has been redirected to vision zero programing. And whatever that number that balance is, is what you all tell us it is it appears that it's somewhere around between 1.5 and 2 million.
658 Yes, about 1.6.
659 1.6 in.
660 That area. There we go. Is there a second for this amendment? Okay. Councilor Dunphy, are you or councilor Kanal are you in the queue to discuss this?
661 Yes.
662 I'm going to move to limit debate to one round per person on this item.
663 Yes.
664 Councilor Smith, are you in the queue on this amendment?
665 Yes, madam president, could donna powell come up to the dais? Good evening. Good morning, I guess.
666 Good morning.
667 I'm trying to get something clear. So how much in outreach dollars did vision zero lose? I thought it was 274,000.
668 With the cannabis. For the.
669 Record, this is.
670 Nepal and.
671 Public works for the fiscal. We are having a reduction of $277,000 for the cannabis. Tax reduction. The $400,000. Additional was.
672 A.
673 One time.
674 Funding that was.
675 Taken away from.
676 The previous year.
677 So that was a okay.
678 So we're going back a year. Yes, two years actually. But for this year it was 277,000. Yes okay. That's what I needed to clear up because I, I think what they do is very important. And vision zero at this time. I mean people are. Crossing the street and they're being killed. We need to do something different, but we can't afford to take this 277 out. I'm not sure about all the other moving parts on this amendment, this floor amendment. I'm not I'm not with that, but I'm with bringing the cannabis money back. And I just wanted to make sure that I was correct because these numbers, they didn't. The numbers didn't number, I guess didn't work. Thank you.
679 Councilor Novick.
680 I support restoring the vision zero money opposed backing up the general fund. But I also just wanted to raise a question. I realized that after having said that, we need to make the tnc increase an emergency. I don't know if I specifically stated that, although I asked about it to begin with. So I wanted to ask the city attorney, do we need to take further action to make that ordinance an emergency? When the council.
681 Moves back into.
682 Their regular council.
683 Meeting and takes up. Item 14, they will move to amend it. To change the fee to $2.
684 They will also move.
685 To amend to.
686 Add.
687 An emergency clause.
688 Okay.
689 Councilor Clark.
690 Thank you, madam chair. Like councilor Novick, I support filling in from the cannabis tax reduction. But what? I'm having a hard time. It's late. Why are we doing what we're doing with the general fund, though? I mean, we need that general fund in PBOT. So why? Why aren't we why aren't we just doing the cannabis amount?
691 May I respond.
692 Please go ahead, councilor.
693 Thank you. As I said when I was introducing it, for the purposes of discussion, there are certainly vital needs within the general to use general fund within PBOT. There are also vital needs in every corner. And also we are all voting on a thousand other things. And so I wanted to, for the purposes of this body, making the right decision.
694 Well, I'm strongly.
695 In support of vision zero and our whole committee has made it a priority. But I don't want to take additional general fund away from PBOT. I'm fine with replacing the $677,000, but not the rest of the general fund.
696 Would you like to split it into two? Is that.
697 I believe I'm looking to robert, but I believe one could move to divide the amendment. Is that appropriate or would we?
698 If an amendment has multiple.
699 Parts, any member.
700 May ask to divide the question.
701 The maker.
702 Of the.
703 Motion can.
704 Then decide. Which part of it is voted on first.
705 So, councilor Dunphy, I'm asking you to divide this.
706 Absolutely. I'm happy to divide it. And I'd like to take the vision zero part first.
707 Okay, so, councilors, we are in debate on redirecting general fund within PBOT to vision zero programing in an amount of $677,664. Councilor Koyama Lane, you are next in the queue.
708 You all know how I feel about this. I feel very passionate. No one should die or be incapacitated from just going about their day, from moving through their neighborhood. We need to show portlanders that we're serious about this. These are our streets. We have a responsibility to make them safe for everyone. We need to make vision zero whole. We need to make sure that we continue doing this work and we keep uplifting it. I know that our constituents matter to all of us, and this is very important. I urge you to support this and vote for it. I can say more, but I it's late. I don't think I need to. Councilors. I call the vote.
709 I don't see anybody else in the queue. Can we take councilor Ryan's quick question? Can you?
710 Okay.
711 Well, since PBOT folks are up here, what won't be done with the. If we direct this to vision zero, like, how many sidewalks won't be built, etc?
712 Yeah. Jeremy pan with PBOT again.
713 So the.
714 Funding right now, the general fund.
715 The 2.3 million, 1 million is for derelict.
716 Rv removal.
717 So that funding will go away if we if we move all the funding the full 2.3. So we either redirecting the 677 division zero and then returning the rest to the general fund. It's a million and derelict rv. It's about a half.
718 A million in.
719 Paving gravel streets.
720 Can I pause you for one minute? We've divided this. So what we have before us for a vote right now is just the 677,664 going division zero.
721 So we would have to decide out of these programs which of those would.
722 Lose.
723 That funding would lose. Yes.
724 And then the remaining.
725 Funding is street cleaning Sunday parkways.
726 Information, though I thought we just increased the fee. So I thought the point of this was we increased the fee to pay for these programs. So I don't see why it would be taking from other things. When we're adding revenue.
727 There are some limitations to what those tnc fees can be used for. Are there items that are currently general fund funded that the tnc fees could offset?
728 The tnc.
729 Fees are going into general transportation revenues. I know they sound a lot like general fund revenues, but they're they're separate. The general transportation revenues can be spent on these particular programs as well. They could also be spent on vision zero work if you wanted to keep the general fund for these programs.
730 Okay. Councilors, it looks like a number of other people just got in the queue. And I'm hoping that we are moving toward a vote on this. Councilor Ryan, are you in the queue on this councilor Green, are you in the queue on this councilor Green?
731 I just want to flag that. I think I heard councilor Novick say earlier that he was going to introduce an ordinance next week to relax the use restrictions on tnc fees.
732 Councilor zimmermann.
733 I think we've worked really hard to combat the issue of people dumping their rvs in our community. I think the mayor was smart to increase the fee, to tow them and destroy them, and end the fact that most of them are just drug dens right now. I am not willing to give up those sacred general fund dollars for something that is about the livability and safety in this community, which is the number one thing that we've heard in the majority of our polls. So I, I hate that these two things are being pitted together, and I and I'm frustrated by that. But hearing what it will be given up with the few bucks that are in general fund and transportation, I'm not sure I'm there.
734 I just want to clarify. Did we also hear that general transportation revenues, which we've just increased, could be used for many of those programs that you listed?
735 That's correct.
736 Okay.
737 So let me let me clarify. So general transportation dollars for maintenance stuff is now going to be used to. For the rv destruction program that the mayor has funded.
738 We can use those. And we. Currently we currently use those as well for part of the program costs.
739 And what was the reason then that general fund was used to? Because I was under the impression that that's why general fund had to be put into that bureau.
740 Historically, the general fund has pitched in for derelict rvs just as to reduce the impact on transportation. So transportation puts in funding for the program. The general fund is also putting in $1 million of one time in this particular year for the program.
741 I, I, I appreciate that thank you for helping me clarify. I think this falls in this category of, you know, getting rid of the program to tow rvs or whatever it is. I wish we could be more specific about what an impact would have if we're going to pull out this stuff in the quite literally, the 11th hour. And so it's hard to make it's hard to make decisions like that when it's just a everything kind of goes down. Everything kind of goes down is exactly what I've talked about from the very beginning, which is let's do some stuff well and let's stop doing some other stuff really poorly. And I think millicent came up because she probably has something very powerful to say.
742 Director williams, would you like to give us some sense of what might happen if we were to take this action? Then we will move on to the last two people in the queue, go to a vote and get to finalizing our actions for this meeting.
743 Yes, and I will.
744 Try to do.
745 So very quickly.
746 For the record.
747 Millicent williams, director of the Portland.
748 Bureau of.
749 Transportation.
750 I just wanted.
751 To share that.
752 The earlier.
753 Conversation that.
754 We were having.
755 About the increase in. Tnc fees would generate roughly $5 million.
756 Of which. The sorry, I'm.
757 Trying.
758 To talk as quickly. As I.
759 Can as well.
760 The proposed.
761 Increase to $2 in.
762 The tnc fee would would.
763 Result in an additional $5 million. In what would be considered general transportation revenue. That would go to the bureau specifically.
764 And could. Be used for.
765 Vision zero and.
766 Other activities that are.
767 Related specifically to the.
768 Transportation bureau.
769 If we.
770 Were to.
771 Address the issue. In terms of reducing general fund. As the councilor has recommended, which is an option, of course, yes, it.
772 Would have.
773 An immediate and direct impact on some of those very limited.
774 Ways that we are.
775 Using general.
776 Fund within.
777 The bureau.
778 And most of those things are for livability. We do not use general fund within the bureau. For things like planning. It is maintenance and operations, the very basic things that we do.
779 So that would be the.
780 Impact that we.
781 Would feel. But of course.
782 That is.
783 What we.
784 Are instructed to do or directed to do. We will make the adjustments.
785 But we would have to make cuts.
786 In other places.
787 Councilor Novick.
788 I just wanted to know. I mean, I'm excited about the vision zero money, but it seems to me maybe that the simplest thing to do is to not mess with the general fund amount. And now that we have an extra $5 million, come back on June 11th and figure out how to spend it on vision zero and a few other things too. Does that make sense? Director williams.
789 Yes it does.
790 Thank you.
791 Other option councilor Koyama Lane.
792 I want to remind everyone that last year, 58 people were killed in traffic crashes in all of our districts. I don't love that. Right now, vision zero is being pitted against livability. I did wait to bring this amendment forward until we voted to increase the tnc fees, which we did. It's going to result in 5 million extra, we know that. I think this is an important amendment to show our constituents that we care about making our streets safe.
793 Councilors, I see that people keep getting in the queue, and I just want to remind us that I need to move us very quickly into wrapping up this meeting, because we have a number of votes we have to take. Still, councilor Smith, did you have a you did limit debate? You're right. We've heard from councilor Smith, I believe and I believe we've heard from councilor Morillo on this. Okay.
794 That's what.
795 I was.
796 Going for. Councilors, I believe we are going to move to a vote. Keelan, could you please call the roll?
797 Canal?
798 Just clarifying. We're voting on the vision zero part of the amended Dunphy.
799 Yes, the vision zero portion.
800 Thank you. For the sake of moving this along, I won't do a long speech, but thank you so much to councilor Koyama Lane for your leadership on this. And I vote aye.
801 Ryan.
802 Yeah. Pedestrian safety. I actually think this could be a big mistake, because I'm hearing that we'll have to pull money from the general fund to do some of the maintenance work that's necessary. And so I'm going to vote no.
803 Koyama Lane. I Morillo.
804 We increase, we increase tnc fees so that we could do transformative things like this. And being able to walk safely in your neighborhood is a livability issue.
805 I Novick.
806 I am totally prepared to vote on June 11th to allocate 677,000 of the 5 million that we're raising to vision zero. I just tired, confused. I don't want to back out of the general fund, and I think it's just easier to leave the general fund there and take this up in a couple of weeks.
807 We need to.
808 Vote no.
809 This is a very, very high priority for the transportation infrastructure committee. We voted on it. We had a celebration, a lot of testimony. So I'm voting yes.
810 Green.
811 Ditto. Yes.
812 Zimmerman.
813 No. I.
814 Dunphy. I Smith.
815 No.
816 Pirtle-guiney I.
817 Amendment is approved with eight yes votes and four no votes.
818 Councilor Dunphy, in order to get through the things we need to do to close out this meeting, I'm asking if you would withdraw your motion, knowing that we can come the other half of your motion, knowing that we can come back to it on the.
819 Absolutely.
820 Yeah. Withdrawn.
821 Okay.
822 Do we not have till midnight? I'm confused.
823 We have until midnight. But we need to move back into the fee bill. Take that vote, move back into the budget bill. Take that vote. Move into prosper. Take that vote. And I am and we literally have to be closing our meeting before the clock strikes midnight. So I'm going to move us to the feeble now, councilors, I'm going to recess our meeting, our budget committee meeting, and open back up a council meeting. Councilors. I believe we have item 14 left open in our council agenda from this morning. This is the revised transportation and fee schedule. We have debated this bill. I believe we need an amendment to this bill. Would anybody like to make an amendment to the fee schedule in agenda item 14? I'm sorry. Keelan do you need to call the roll as we switch meetings, or are we okay? We're all here.
824 You are. You're fine. You can.
825 Call.
826 The roll if you want to verify.
827 A quorum, but a quorum is present.
828 Quorum is present. Great. Thank you. So, councilors, I would entertain an amendment to agenda item 14, which we left open to the fee schedule, which is in exhibit I am trying to grab which one f I'm being told from my right. Thank you. The fee schedule in exhibit f, where it says tnc fee per ride $0.65. And in the fiscal year 2526 column to increase that to $2. Would anybody care to make that motion?
829 So moved.
830 I heard a so moved from councilor Canal councilor Novick. Would you like to second second. Okay. Councilors, is there any debate on this motion? Councilor Kanal is that why you are in the queue? Councilor Green? Is that why you are in the queue seeing no debate? Keelan could you please call the roll?
831 Hi, Ryan.
832 Koyama Lane this is to amend the fee schedule.
833 Yes.
834 Maria.
835 I'm sorry, I'm delirious. I.
836 Novick I.
837 Clark, I Green. I Zimmerman.
838 No.
839 Avalos I Dunphy. Yes.
840 Smith.
841 No.
842 Pirtle-guiney I councilor.
843 Oh, sorry.
844 The amendment is approved with nine yes votes.
845 Thank you. Councilors. I would entertain a motion to attach an emergency clause to agenda item 14. Somebody might tell me where we put this emergency clause on here. I believe it would be in the ordinance language.
846 The emergency clause would be added as section two to the ordinance. The emergency.
847 We should spell.
848 Out the reason for.
849 The emergency leave.
850 The emergency is in order to pass this in time to have a balanced budget. You tell me legally what emergency we.
851 Move.
852 We're good.
853 Zimmerman. Do we have a second?
854 Robert, are you okay with the legality of that emergency clause?
855 Yes. I believe the need to pass the budget on.
856 A timeline.
857 So that we can.
858 Send this.
859 To the tsk as an emergency.
860 Yes.
861 Thank you. And I believe that was moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Novick. Any discussion? Seeing none. Keelan, could you please call the roll?
862 Aye.
863 Ryan.
864 Hi.
865 Koyama Lane I.
866 Morillo I.
867 Novick I.
868 Clark, I Green. I Zimmerman.
869 No.
870 Avalos I.
871 Dunphy I Smith. I pirtle-guiney. I the amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote.
872 Councilors. We are back to the underlying ordinance. Is there any discussion on the underlying ordinance seeing no discussion in the queue? I will note that this is the amended agenda item 14. With the new fee schedule and an emergency clause attached to it. Keelan, could you please call the roll. Canal constitutes an emergency ordinance, I vote aye.
873 I know. Koyama Lane yes. Morillo I.
874 Novick I Clark.
875 I Green.
876 I.
877 Zimmerman no.
878 Avalos I. Dunphy I. Smith I. Pirtle-guiney I.
879 Emergency ordinance is passed as amended with ten yes votes and two no votes.
880 Thank you. Keelan I believe that was the last agenda item open in our meeting. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, councilors, I am going to close.
881 Oh, no. The whole meeting?
882 No, the council meeting. Closing the council meeting.
883 I'm just checking.
884 I'm awake. Everyone had a panic attack there. We are only closing the council meeting. We are going to reopen the budget committee meeting. How's that? Do we feel a little better now? We're reopening the budget committee meeting. Councilors. I told my staff we could do all of this closeout work in a half an hour. And they told me they thought we'd need an hour at least. And I think I am going to be right on this one. If you all keep going at this speed, and if I can find my paperwork. So, ruth, could you please update us on where we stand as it relates to balance?
885 Yes. Sorry, I. Believe you are still to the good on general fund discretionary by. $309,914. So I think you need to put that into contingency.
886 I'm sorry, 309,914. And then on. On overhead.
887 It's. 689,426.
888 And we need to do anything with that overhead to go into balance.
889 Sorry.
890 Hold on. I'm getting a message.
891 The reason I'm asking this is that we need to send a balanced budget. So what we can do, because we're only partway through our work today, is add money that is in the positive, out of balance to contingency, knowing that we intend to pull that back out of contingency for our work when we come back on the 11th, should we need it. But that will allow us to send a balanced budget to ten to the tsk. In order to do that, we need to know what our current balance is.
892 Madam president, I would move to move all remaining positive balance into contingency.
893 I'm sorry, councilor Kanal, I did not realize you were in the queue for this moment.
894 Yes.
895 I would like to make sure that we are still going to parks before that. So I will make the motion that councilor Morillo made earlier to reorder to get into the parks section of this. And I.
896 Second.
897 Other than the votes on prosper and on the budget. What other closeout items do we need to do tonight that we need to make sure we have time for?
898 You have.
899 To vote.
900 You have to vote to approve tax levies.
901 Okay. So we need about 20 minutes probably for all of that closeout work.
902 Yeah.
903 Councilors. That gives us because I would like some buffer just in case. About 15 minutes of flex time right now. We are not going to get through all of the parks amendments. I would suggest that we close here. So that we can get through things on time. And I will give you all my word that my intention is, as long as I'm not overridden by your colleagues. To start with, parks, when we pick this back up on the 11th.
904 No.
905 No, I think we can hustle through this and we can get to the parks amendment that the entire community is waiting for.
906 I don't think there's just one that the entire community is waiting for. I think there are.
907 That's an increase which is more exciting.
908 Councilors.
909 I believe that. We need to keep moving here.
910 So thank you.
911 Ruth, what is our what is our out of balance right now?
912 Yeah. I think you need to put $999,340 into contingency.
913 999,340.
914 So moved.
915 I made a motion. Point of. Order I there is a motion already on the floor to reorder the agenda and go.
916 So I was actually asking for a motion when you said you were in the queue and councilor Zimmerman had said so moved. And that is something we regularly do outside of the queue.
917 Second.
918 We have a second to move. $999,340. Into contingency. We can then allocate those back in the adopted budget actions on the 11th, so that we can send a balanced budget to cc. Is there any discussion on the motion? The motion keelan was made by Zimmerman and seconded by councilor Novick. Is there anyone in the queue for discussion? Councilor Kanal. Are you in the queue for discussion? Councilor Zimmerman you took yourself out of the queue. Okay. Keelan could you please call the roll?
919 Canal.
920 No.
921 Ryan I.
922 Koyama Lane I.
923 Morillo I.
924 Novick I.
925 Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman.
926 I.
927 I Smith. I pirtle-guiney. I the amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote.
928 Thank you. So we have. Switching here. Director levine. I am not finding the script for the next portion that we need to do here.
929 Yeah.
930 Can you help me out? I apologize.
931 You need to vote on the tax levies. So. Sorry, I. Think. I have the script. Sorry. I think you need to vote to update the change memo, which is attachment b and c.
932 Rate.
933 To reflect the amendments that have been approved tonight.
934 So, councilors, I would entertain a motion to update amendments b and c to reflect the amendments that were adopted this evening.
935 So moved.
936 Moved by canal. Seconded by Green. Is there any discussion? Okay. Seeing none canal. Is that what you. Okay. Keelan, can you please call the roll?
937 Canal I.
938 Ryan,
939 I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
940 Novick I.
941 Mark.
942 I Green hi Zimmerman.
943 I.
944 Carlos I.
945 Dunphy I.
946 Smith I.
947 Pirtle-guiney I. Motion carries with 12 yes votes.
948 Okay councilors we need to vote to approve the amended budget. So I would entertain a motion to approve the budget as amended. I will note that we know that we have much more work to do on this, but it is in a state where it is balanced and we can send it to. Tsk.
949 So moved. Thank you. I'd like to speak to it.
950 Wait. What do.
951 We need to approve? The amended budget? There's an asterisk here because we know that we are going to further amend it later. But in order to send it to. Tsk.
952 Second.
953 So you're trying to close.
954 This out?
955 You're trying to close it out.
956 Closes it for tonight.
957 We are at 1123. We have the right to be here till midnight. We have one balanced amendment. 2 million from police to 2 million to parks maintenance, which still has not been filled, by the way. So we don't have to close this meeting right now at all.
958 Councilors, do we have a motion?
959 I made the motion and I'd like to speak.
960 To it.
961 Councilor. So we have a motion from canal and a second from Zimmerman. Councilor Kanal. Please speak to your motion.
962 I withdraw the motion and yield to councilor Avalos.
963 I still motion it then.
964 I already had the floor and I.
965 Yield it.
966 He had the floor and yielded councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Avalos.
967 I would like to make a motion to move. Avalos.
968 One second.
969 Okay. We have a motion and a second to move. Avalos one.
970 Councilor.
971 Speak to your amendment.
972 All right. Thank you. I know we are at the end here, but this feels like an important vote. This is the increase to the police increases credit to councilor Kanal that terminology. Number one, this is not about reducing police effectiveness. It is about a balanced approach to public safety that includes well maintained parks where families feel safe gathering, a park with working facilities, proper lighting and regular maintenance is a safe park and that makes a safe community. This funding preserves the safety infrastructure that our neighborhoods depend on, especially district one, which is being disproportionately hurt by the maintenance cuts. I was really disheartened to see that two parks that we haven't even cut the ribbon to open are getting cut all their maintenance before they even open. When a park bathroom is closed due to plumbing issues or or playground, residents lose access to the public spaces they deserve. Right now, Portland police has 90 vacant positions while successfully reducing crime rates, and this amendment redirects the one time funds that they were increased by above their base budget that would likely remain unspent due to ongoing recruitment challenges. I'm going to leave it at that. I think it's pretty self-explanatory.
973 Yeah.
974 And I guess. Do I need a second?
975 You do need a second.
976 Have a second. Oh, I guess hold on. One more thing. The last thing I'll say is I would like to thank councilor Morillo. We are teaming up on this. So Avalos one and Morillo one are one. And I also want to give a shout out to councilor Novick, who also had been proposing similar ideas to this to be able to fund our maintenance needs. So. And now I'm done. Thank you.
977 I'm going to ask everybody to limit themselves to one time in the queue. We need to move quickly. This has been proposed and seconded. Councilor Novick, are you in the queue on this amendment?
978 Yes. First of all, a question for the budget director. I had a confusing conversation about the police. $2 million. That's a swap with something in the $2 million. That's a pure one time increase. And I just want to make sure that this is 2 million. That's the pure one time increase.
979 Yes.
980 Yeah. There is a one time increase of 2 million.
981 Okay. And I just wanted to say that I personally would rather we be increasing the police budget. I think that we could use a dedicated burglary unit, but I can't accept having all most of the cuts fall on parks maintenance and increasing the police budget. When we were slashing parks, maintenance did not sit well with me. I also want to say, however, note an interesting conversation I had with the Portland chamber yesterday where they said, interestingly, that they'd been misquoted. They're not unalterably opposed to an increased parks levy, but they sort of suggested that their support for a levy might be conditioned on the discussions about the police budget. So I told them, that's very interesting. Let's have some discussions over the next couple of weeks.
982 Thank you. Councilor. Councilors. I am in the queue. I agree with much of what councilor Novick said. I don't want to be pitting these things against each other. Unfortunately, it cuts budget, makes tough decisions. There are a lot of proposals that have been brought forward for funding parks maintenance. I would like to find a way to fund parks maintenance. I am not interested in cutting police budgets to fund parks maintenance. Until we have looked at other options to see whether those other options have legs, have support or not. Therefore, I will be a no on this amendment tonight. Councilor Morillo you're in the queue.
983 So what I'm hearing from councilor Novick is that apparently the Portland metro chamber gets to run this town and tell everybody under vague threat what we can or cannot do with our budget. This is not a cut to police. There will not be a single officer laid off. This was a $2 million increase to the police budget, which no other bureau received at this time. They have 91 fully funded vacant positions. You have been one of the leaders on this discussion. I would hope that one measly call with a metro chamber wouldn't shiver your timbers so much.
984 That.
985 You couldn't vote with us. I really hope that we can just.
986 Get this done.
987 Come on, Novick, come on. Come on.
988 Councilor Ryan.
989 Yeah. Thank you, madam president. Earlier today, we heard from chief bob day on this on the topic of cuts to police. And I'm. I would like to see mike myers. Are you still on the in the queue? Yes, yes. Do you see myers? Can you please tell us what impact this will have on police operations and services?
990 So.
991 The chief may or may not be in the audience, but I would like to redirect to him. But ultimately, you know, I'm not in favor of reducing funding from one public safety bureau. To fund another. The mayor's proposed budget does an excellent job in balancing the need to maintain core services, with the need to create sustainability around new initiatives that are showing results like cease fire. So I think we have an opportunity to talk about this. I do think there will be an impact. I'd like to turn it over to the budget team. If they have any other comments about the impacts on the reduction for the police budget. If there's someone there present that can talk about that from the police bureau.
992 If elizabeth coming.
993 Oh, no.
994 I was just going to say chief jay is going to come on. So I will let.
995 Him take it away.
996 Chief, thank you for joining us. Are you do you were you here for the question?
997 Yes I was. Okay. Can you hear me?
998 All right, we can.
999 Go ahead, chief.
1000 All right.
1001 Guys.
1002 Chief, you're cutting in and out now.
1003 Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I apologize. I left a little bit early and been having the conversation. I had to leave a little bit early times over the last several weeks. Clearly, some of the councilors did not either respect or trust the responsibility given to me in my role as chief of police. This is significant effort that we've been making over the last 20 months, I think demonstrates a high level of accountability and respect for the wish of portlanders across the board. As we partner with numerous folks inside and outside of law enforcement and across the community to help restore public safety as it is individual and unique to each person and each district. I understand that, chief.
1004 Chief, we are very short on time, and I believe the question before us is what the impact on the ground would be of a reduction like this on the force, and I'm hoping that you can answer that question. For us.
1005 It is the it is the answer that I have been sharing that there will be a reduction in services, how those services will show up. I don't know yet because I don't know how much money and what the impact is going to be at the end of the budget cycle, but I can tell you that it will be a reduction of services. The mayor up this $2 million to help us support with recruitment and hiring, and so that will be impacted. And also the ongoing support for some of the specific crime reduction plan that we're doing so that those will will be decreased. Thank you.
1006 Chief Ryan, did you have additional comments?
1007 Well, I'm just I want to hear from my district one councilors. Also. How will you explain this to your. Constituents?
1008 Councilor the district, one can get in the queue to respond to this.
1009 I'm curious how they're going to explain this to their constituents, who overwhelmingly. I'm like all of my constituents I talk to in storefronts who will be very, very disappointed if we take this action at this time.
1010 Councilor Zimmerman.
1011 Thanks. I have never seen a city council or county commission in my life be so giddy to cut public safety. This is this is not a laughing matter. It's 1130 at night and I know that folks want to have fun, but this is serious stuff. This is a city who was rocked five years ago. This is a city who has difficulty retaining officers. This is a city who has built back over the last five years. This is a city who has renewed its investment in the Portland police because we know after their response, job, the next most important job that I've asked the chief to do is increase retention and increase recruitment to fill these vacancies. Right now is not the reason. It is not the time to cut public safety. It is not the time to cut police officers. Yes, there are vacancies, but there are multiple other offers out here to backfill the parks. We are choosing to keep $100 million in contingency in the PCEF fund when PCEF is already funding so much of parks, they can take on a little bit more so that they can fill that vacancy or excuse me, that backlog of maintenance. We are pitting parks against police, and those are the two things that portlanders want right now. They don't have to be pitted together. This is a move. This council is ready to cut it. Councilor Ryan is correct.
1012 Please don't impugn your colleague's.
1013 Motives and impugn any motives. What I'm saying is that this council has been giddy to cut police all day long to get to this vote at the 1135 point. This is not necessary. We can backfill parks with many other amendments that have been proposed. I hope you will consider those instead.
1014 Councilor Clark.
1015 Thank you, madam chair. This is not amusing to me. There's been a lot of hyperbole that I don't appreciate. I think we are. Absolutely. If you vote for this, we are absolutely sending the wrong signal to the public and to the rest of the country that watches us. We're turning the corner right now, and this is going backwards. I want to restore the transit police. I want to restore traffic enforcement. I want to restore or build a burglary unit.
1016 And this is.
1017 What people want. So I don't find it amusing. It's very difficult for me. I don't want to send the wrong signal. And I want people to feel safe. I'll leave it at that.
1018 Councilor Koyama Lane.
1019 I want people to feel safe too. That resonates. I would like director long to come up and paint the picture for us of what the cuts look like, as briefly as possible for our constituents.
1020 Director long, please do this in two minutes or less. We are stretching thin the time that our staff can be here to support us. I'm sorry.
1021 Thank you. Council.
1022 For the.
1023 Record.
1024 Adena long, director.
1025 Of Portland parks.
1026 And recreation.
1027 Proposed budget cuts to.
1028 For fiscal.
1029 Year 2526.
1030 Will significantly reduce. The staff.
1031 Needed to. Maintain parks, natural areas.
1032 Trails, community gardens.
1033 And community.
1034 Center and.
1035 Other recreational.
1036 Facilities.
1037 Without adequate personnel.
1038 We face declines.
1039 In basic services like.
1040 Litter removal.
1041 Restroom cleaning. Play equipment, lighting, fencing.
1042 Amenity repairs.
1043 Fire risk, mowing.
1044 And ADA. Barrier removal.
1045 This will directly.
1046 Impact public.
1047 Safety.
1048 Cleanliness, accessibility. And our.
1049 Ability to.
1050 Manage.
1051 The.
1052 Maintenance workload.
1053 Cutting staff now means. Higher costs.
1054 Later, as.
1055 Deferred maintenance leads.
1056 To broken equipment. Asset failure, deteriorating.
1057 Trails.
1058 Unsafe structures.
1059 And emergency repairs. These reductions will also.
1060 Slow our response to storm damage, vandalism.
1061 And safety hazards while deepening.
1062 Inequities in park access across all of our communities. Protecting maintenance.
1063 Personnel is. A direct investment.
1064 In public.
1065 Health, safety.
1066 And the long term.
1067 Stewardship of our parks. I could go on about external materials and services. Which is a. Part of the maintenance reductions. This would cause our maintenance teams.
1068 To be.
1069 Severely limited, and our land.
1070 Service and.
1071 Professional repair.
1072 And maintenance services, and those are tradespeople. The ability. To perform essential upkeep across.
1073 Our.
1074 Parks. Facilities and natural areas. This funding supports critical. Tasks like restroom.
1075 Cleaning, graffiti.
1076 Removal.
1077 Roof repairs. And the. Maintenance of dog parks, playgrounds, trails, lighting and more. Without it, even basic repairs.
1078 And upkeep. Will stall, leading to faster.
1079 Deterioration of public assets.
1080 Increased safety risks.
1081 And higher long term costs.
1082 These reductions will.
1083 Directly impact park quality. Community use, and our.
1084 Ability to.
1085 Protect public investments.
1086 Sustaining this funding.
1087 Is vital for portland's parks to.
1088 Remain clean.
1089 Safe and. Functional for all. Happy to take any other questions?
1090 Thank you. Director. Councilor canal I don't believe you've spoken yet.
1091 I have not yet. Madam president, I have a quick question just on the subject of where this money would go, and I think my understanding is for councilor Novick, my understanding is that your support is contingent on this going to parks maintenance. Is that accurate? Yes. Thank you. So what I'm just going to speak to the parks maintenance side, as I've been seeing here. We've we've talked about picnic tables and benches that have rotted. We've talked about graffiti. We've talked about grass and weeds. We talked about a fire hazard, which is a very obvious public safety need in the community. We've talked about reducing restroom cleanings and turf maintenance and facility repairs, repairs and also taking out the trash. These are the things that that really affect people who go to parks. I'll note that in all the information that I've received, both anecdotally and in terms of surveys, not only the entire city, but district two in particular cares a great deal about their parks. We have separate issues to deal with at parks, with the recreation funding. That's really important with the park ranger funding, which is really important to. I've often said that a when most people are describing the ideal response to a low acuity public safety issue, they're talking about park rangers, but they're also talking about the conditions that allow people to thrive. And, you know, we had a meeting with the with the parks alliance, and they asked what the mission of Portland parks were. And I said, the best way I can explain it is it's the gap between surviving in this city and thriving in this city is where the parks bureau fits in. It's the thing that makes life a little bit better and more than just the baseline. So, you know, working on that has really, really been influential as I've dug into that, preparing for this budget. The other thing that I'd like to point out, I didn't study math. I know there's some phds up here, but 316 and 316 appear to me to be the same number and not higher or lower than each other. And so characterizing something that went from 316 to 318 and then would go back to 316 as a cut, is disingenuous. Okay. Incredibly disingenuous. And we deserve as portlanders, everybody out here deserves that. We don't mislead them about what the numbers here are. Thank you.
1092 Councilor Smith. I don't believe you've spoken to this yet.
1093 Thank you, madam president. You know, maya angelou said, when people show you who they are, believe them. I've been fighting for cip ever since I got here so we can have safe streets, safe sidewalks, and I didn't once think about taking away money from the police to pay for my sidewalks, because people in district one. They believe that police don't come quick enough. They believe that we should have twice the number of police that we have. And so having this conversation around parks, police, sidewalks, safety, you know, vision zero, all those kinds of things, we can have that conversation, but we can't start to defund the police in little ways and keep picking off of it. Keep picking off of it. Everybody knows it takes 18 to 20 months to hire someone. And it is my understanding that we have about 2000 applicants in the queue right now for police officers. If we start picking off of the budgets, we're going to have a real problem, and I'm not ready to do that right now. Thank you, madam president.
1094 Thank you, councilor, councilors. Everybody else in the queue, I believe, has already spoken to this measure. Councilor Avalos, you introduced this. I had asked that we speak once to this so that we can be done by midnight, out of respect for our staff. So I'm going to ask that we move to a vote at this time.
1095 Canal.
1096 We're voting.
1097 Thank you. Yeah.
1098 Can we please just vote? We've all had a chance to.
1099 Speak now. What's up y'all?
1100 We need to be done in 16 minutes. If we have a budget to vote.
1101 On.
1102 I'll do one sentence. If this was a cut, then this would be a different conversation. But again, going up and then saying no, let's not go up is not a cut. I vote I Ryan.
1103 I was elected in September of 2020. It was a really difficult vote. And the political realities were, you know, you better go ahead and cut the police, defund the police. That was a slogan. I felt like I got it right, even though I took a lot of heat for it. And we stopped the bleeding. We stopped the cuts. We've been slowly building back over the last four years. You've seen the culture respond. You're seeing more and more people on the streets saying, thank you. We're starting to finally get responses. When I went around to every small business storefront that you approved earlier, the grants, they all said, do not cut the police. This council will make a big, big mistake that you will regret if we go ahead and put this through, residents and businesses will continue to leave. The tax base will continue to erode. There will be a decrease in public services because this is connected to our economic development. That's where we get our revenue. Councilor decline in public satisfaction. So I really hope that this council blocks this shortsighted amendment, and we get to fund parks maintenance through the levy that we're going to talk about later. And I deserved every second of what I just use my time for.
1104 No Koyama Lane.
1105 This is not a cut, I vote I.
1106 Morillo police have had 91 fully funded vacant positions for the past five years, so even if it takes a few months to hire, they should have already done that by now. They are unable to hire for other reasons. I also want to point out that Morillo amendment seven talks about the police special revenue fund, which currently holds around $6 million in asset forfeiture fees that the police can use to fill some of their budget. We have confirmed that with city attorneys. So when they say that there is no money, there is money for them. And this increase does not have to go to police, it could go to parks. And people are asking for these park services. So with that I vote.
1107 I Novick.
1108 If the mayor had proposed cutting the police budget by $6 million and adding 2 million in general fund to the parks budget, I'd be voting to restore some police funding tonight I vote I.
1109 Clark.
1110 This is absolutely a false choice. I vote no.
1111 Green. I Zimmerman.
1112 We chose to cut parks maintenance at the expense or excuse me to keep tree code regulators who we've heard about. That same recommendation came from the same director who proposed in her preliminary budget to cut sports. Mayor, you got played. They knew that this was going to happen. You got played I vote no.
1113 In general, I would really appreciate not being districts blamed. I know my district. I knock on those doors. They want to be safe. I want them to be safe. My entire agenda is about safety. I just don't believe that a police budget that has over 300 million, when we're in a dire budget needs to have an increase. So I vote to increase by 2 million. I vote I.
1114 Dunphy.
1115 I've asked repeatedly what these funds are designated to be used for. I have heard broadly around call time, but I've not been able to understand what that means because everybody agrees that the academy is full. It takes 18 months to get an officer hired, and we have a 91 vacancy or 80 plus vacancies. And I don't know, one has been able to explain to me how these $2 million will actually be used this year, I vote I.
1116 Smith no. Pirtle-guiney.
1117 I was prepared to reconsider this after considering other options. No.
1118 The amendment is approved with seven yes votes and five no votes.
1119 Councilors, we need to approve this budget. The votes are here to approve this budget. And then we need to approve the proper budget. So I would entertain an amendment to approve the budget, to be able to send it to tsk.
1120 Madam chair.
1121 With the addition.
1122 Of that amendment.
1123 We need to reconsider.
1124 No.
1125 I would.
1126 I. Believe it would be in order for.
1127 A motion to.
1128 Approve the adjustments in attachments b, c, and d of the of the memo. That would.
1129 Just again.
1130 Yeah, just do we.
1131 Need to repeat that work because we were interrupted last time. Fantastic. Councilors. We now have 11 minutes. I hope that no one speaks as they explain their votes. I would point out that that is against robert's rules, though I generally do not enforce that. I would entertain a motion to amend the attachments, the exhibits necessary to reflect the changes in our budget.
1132 So moved.
1133 Second.
1134 I see no discussion. Keelan can you please call the roll?
1135 Council?
1136 I Ryan. So this is on the entire package. Based on all the amendments that were passed tonight.
1137 We are not yet voting on the budget. We are voting to update the attachments to reflect the new changes to the budget.
1138 So this is a technical.
1139 This is a technical vote.
1140 After what we just experienced. I had to have that explained to.
1141 Me, understood.
1142 That was devastating.
1143 I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick.
1144 I, I.
1145 Green.
1146 I.
1147 Zimmerman no.
1148 Avalos I.
1149 Dunphy. I Smith. No pirtle-guiney.
1150 I'm changing my vote. No.
1151 Elana I voted I what are we at.
1152 Elana amendment or no. The motion carries with nine yes votes and three no votes.
1153 Thank you councilors. I would now entertain a motion to pass our budget.
1154 So moved.
1155 Second.
1156 Moved by Avalos, seconded by councilor Novick seeing no discussion in the queue. Keelan, can you please call the roll?
1157 No.
1158 This is on the whole thing.
1159 This is on the budget as it currently stands to send to tsk. Knowing that we will reopen it on the 11th.
1160 I will have more to say when we get to the full thing then and I will for the interest of time, vote.
1161 I thank you Ryan.
1162 Yeah, based on the cuts to police, I vote no.
1163 Koyama Lane I.
1164 Morillo negotiating with your fellow councilors is part of the job I.
1165 Novick I clerk.
1166 No Green. I Zimmerman. No Avalos. I Dunphy. I Smith. No pirtle-guiney. I motion carries with eight yes votes and four no votes.
1167 Thank you. Do we have.
1168 Anything else we need to do in this meeting before I close it and move us back into our prosper Portland?
1169 You have to read the paragraph about the tax levies and vote on that.
1170 We voted on the tax levies. Do we need to do it again?
1171 I do not believe you've done that yet.
1172 Okay. So, colleagues, the city shall levy its full permanent rate of $4 and 57 and 7/10 cent per thousand dollars of assessed value, and $32,589,672 for the payment of voter approved general obligation, bond, principal and interest. Is this the right paragraph? Ruth, you look like this is the wrong paragraph.
1173 It's the right paragraph, the wrong number. I don't know why. 33,570,654 of voter approved.
1174 I have different numbers. So I'm going to let you read the numbers.
1175 Okay. Keep going.
1176 And 243. 251,613,821 for the obligations for fire and police disability and retirement fund. $0.80 per thousand of assessed value for the parks local option levy. We doing okay there? 40 and 40.2 $0.06 per thousand of assessed value for the children's levy. We're doing okay. Furthermore, the city shall levy the amounts listed in attachment e for urban renewal collections. I would entertain a motion to approve the tax levy.
1177 So moved.
1178 Point of.
1179 Order, councilor.
1180 I thought we had $100 million variance.
1181 This is just to approve tax levies. You have to vote to approve tax levies in order to levy taxes.
1182 Okay.
1183 Moved by councilor Kanal. Do we have a second?
1184 Second?
1185 Thank you, councilor Dunphy. Seeing no discussion in the queue. Keelan, can you please call the roll? We are voting to levy taxes.
1186 Councilors canal.
1187 I.
1188 Ryan.
1189 I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
1190 Novick I.
1191 Mark I.
1192 Green. I Zimmerman. Hi Avalos. I Dunphy I Smith. I pirtle-guiney. I motion carries with 12 yes votes okay.
1193 Director levine, my script says that you discuss next steps. But we are at 1154. So I'm going to propose we skip that for now. Thank you. Is there any reason I cannot close our budget committee hearing?
1194 Go ahead.
1195 Okay. I have the go ahead from our budget director and our attorneys counselors. I'm going to close our meeting as the budget committee of the Portland city council. We are moving back into the still open meeting of the prosper budget committee. Councilors, we have an amended prosper budget. I am not sure that we need to make any other special changes here. I believe we have adopted the amendments that we need to. So I would entertain a motion to approve the prosper budget and send it to tcc as well. Moved by councilor Morillo, seconded by councilor Canal seeing no discussion in the queue. Keelan can you please call the roll?
1196 No thank you I.
1197 Ryan I.
1198 Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick.
1199 I.
1200 Mark no.
1201 No.
1202 Zimmerman I. Avalos I. Dunphy I.
1203 Smith I.
1204 Pirtle-guiney I.
1205 Motion carries with ten yes votes and two no votes.
1206 Councilors I will close. Yes. Anything else we need to do for prosper seeing nothing else from our budget director. Seeing nothing else from our attorney. I am looking to shabri anything else you need from us for your budget? I will close the budget here. The meeting of the budget committee for prosper Portland councilors. We have closed out all of our meetings. We have done our work for tonight. We will follow up with next steps on the budget sometime later this week. Thank you all for your diligence, time, patience and work together throughout the day.
1207 Yes.
1208 They talked about 9:00.
1209 Talk about.
1210 I can't.
1211 Say.
1212 I.
1213 Work.
1214 I saw you. I'm not gonna s2