Municipal councils navigate complex budget compromises by balancing competing priorities, including public safety, workforce preservation, and fiscal responsibility. The July 22, 2026 Portland City Council meeting demonstrates this process through public testimony on public safety concerns, committee deliberations on a 5-year lease for community safety programs, and intense debate over supplemental budget ordinances. The council faced a tie vote on one ordinance, requiring the mayor's tiebreaker vote, illustrating how legislative bodies must balance competing interests while maintaining fiscal stewardship and protecting independent oversight mechanisms like the Office of Community Based Police Accountability (OCPA).
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Portland City Council AM Session 07/22/26
Added:It's Heat. Heat.
Uh-huh.
Okay, let's find Good morning. I am now calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council. It's 9:32 on Wednesday, July 22nd.
>> Hi. Can we please call the role?
>> Quoamine >> here.
>> Maria Novik >> here.
>> Clark >> here.
>> Green >> here.
>> Zimmerman.
>> Avalos >> present.
>> Smith >> here. No. Pearl Guini >> here.
>> Ryan >> here.
>> Duny >> here. And can we please have the uh attorney read the rules of decorum of the chamber?
>> Welcome to the Portland City Council to testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/counsel/aggenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. Pause disruption. A warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. First, that your name for the record, your address is not necessary. Second, if you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Third, a virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you. Thank you very much, colleagues. Our first item on our agenda, as always, is approval of our agenda. Are there any requests to amend the agenda to reorder items or reschedule an item to a future meeting date? Seeing no one looking all excited or in the queue, uh, are there any uh, objections to approval? All right. Oh, sorry, I'm reading my own thing. Do I have unanimous consent? There we go. to approve the agenda. Great. The agenda is approved and please call public communications.
Item two, public comment. Uh first we have Eric Schnure, followed by Eric Shoemaker. You can approach the table.
Uh Megan Lee and Jacob Hoops.
Craig Rogers is unable to join us this morning. Eric Schnore, Eric Shoemaker, Megan Lee, Jacob Hoops.
Uh, Jacob Snores is online. You can go ahead.
>> Hello. I think someone called me Eric Schnore.
>> Uh, yes. Apologies. That's the name we have uh signed up.
>> Oh, sorry. That may have been on my end.
Um, I'm here to discuss um public safety if I may.
>> Yes, you can go. You can go ahead.
>> So, this is going to sound rude and impulsive, but I'm going to say it right now that in my opinion counselors, you have failed are you, Keith Wilson and Tina Cotch have failed Portland, Oregon.
Um, especially the area formerly known as East County. We have a a mass drug issue in this area. I was told yesterday by transit cops that we have a drug house.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many people on my block, this should not be a case where a cop has to tell me that we have a drug house in our area. because it is the job of our leaders to make the funding and make the resources available to our law enforcement to make this possible to be dealt with prior before it becomes an issue. We also have an issue with in mass homeless and in mass um drugs like I said and the drugs and homeless are tied the same. There's a difference, a big big difference between a homeless who is down on their luck like a veteran or an elderly or someone who has lost their home. And there is a major difference between that and a person who is simply choosing a lifestyle based on their addiction to drugs and refusing help which has been provided by the city. There is in mass shelters, places people can go. It is never addressed. Keith Wilson has allowed meals to be handed out. There is a lack of um Portland police response to um a lot of crimes in this area. Um we feel ignored. My fellow um my fellow neighbors feel ignored. Um it took us eight months to get a tiny house a couple years ago that was dropped um on the south side of my property. It took us eight months to get rid of him. Um because 311 is such a slow response. A 10day uh response to these is ridiculous. And I believe that is under house Uh the reason for that is under house bill uh 3115.
Um I suggest we I would suggest that we the people of the city and the our city leaders seriously look at um trying to get the house bill flipped over so we can actually respond to this thing correctly and take care of some of this problem. I know I only have a few seconds left so I'm going to leave it at that. Um um we've had um but on my last note, this is so bad. We have had a neighbor, a couple of neighbors find um trash buried in their gardens. I don't know how many of you walk out into your gardens and find beer cans, broken glass, and old ice cream cones buried in your yard. Ridiculous. I hear the 30 second timer, so I will leave it at that. But I guarantee you I will be back.
Thank you very much.
>> Eric Shoemaker, Megan Lee.
>> Welcome.
>> Thanks everybody. Appreciate the time.
I'll try and make this quick. Um my name is Eric Shoemaker. I've had the privilege of being uh in Portland real estate and civic stuff for about 20 years. I'm here to talk about Keller. Um and I want to just make sure I'm framing this. It's not about PSU versus the Keller Auditorium. Um I think both are systemically vital to our city. Um it's about how we use our time and energy and planning around uh projects like this.
So we've got rampant budget shortfalls, public safety stuff, housing and affordability crisis, rampant vacancy, all of those things that I know this body is working on very hard hopefully together every day. Um, but it does feel like we're spending precious resources on uh a conversation that is maybe not ripe as yet. It feels a little bit like we're planning next year's flower bed uh when the there's a hayfire in the barn.
Um, so uh I don't want to get too deep in the math, but uh I've been around a lot of real estate projects in my life and I would say that current guidance on this $640 million or so for the combined uh master plan is probably light by 40%.
This could very easily be a billion-dollar boondoggle for which we do not have the money. Um, and I completely respect that this may be about political expediency on behalf of this body and wanting to make sure that we're exploring things collaboratively with, you know, all stakeholders. And if that's the answer, that's completely fine. I just hope that as we move forward, we can be judicious in our use of resources and having this conversation and be very evidence-based.
We don't have modeling. We don't have market studies. Um, Portland can't support another hotel right now. I don't know if we can support another Broadway capable theater. Um, so I hope that you'll just think about this as we're moving along. I know you guys are busy with a thousand other things. Um, and I would say lastly that uh, as we're all choking on wildfire smoke and um, 100 degree temperatures, I think it's important to note that the most green thing that anybody can do is reuse an old building. I say that as an environmentalist and also as a builder.
Um, I think it's really important that no matter what happens, we try and figure out a way to save Keller. Um, and um, I've always respected that Portland has a sense of history. I think this is a historically important building. Um, and uh, I hope we um, think about that as we're moving forward. So, thank you very much for your time.
>> Thank you very much, Mayor.
>> Good morning, Megan Lee. Um, I'd like to talk on the finances and uh, the drug um, um, problem that we have in our community. uh the lack of jobs um available to the people that are going through what they're going through behind uh state employees and um state funded um um >> Can you move your mic a little closer?
I'm having a tough time hearing you.
Thank you.
>> Um um our community is impacted by um uh the homeless situation is due to a lot of state employees and uh where the funding is going. and I have um knowledge on historical cases and maiden names as well as myself fraudulent activity with Department of Justice employees. I have several several years worth of evidence. Um I wasn't even in the state of Oregon when and I have proof behind that as well. But anyway, the the financial situ situation that the state is up under is due to our state funding going to the wrong hands, you know, and how can we help and open up buildings or get the homeless people into more tiny homes when our finances are being intercepted, interrupted or misused by the people who are hired to help, you know, and um um fraudulent activities, cyber bullying and uh uh voice apps and impersonating people and stuff and uh Portland Police Department involvement with Department of Justice employees who are corrupt who do historical cases and embezzle money that are impacting nonprofit organizations.
Care Oregon has an employee that is doing it as well. uh SEI, Urban League, you know, they take North impact Northwest. The money that the state is giving people to pay utility bills are getting put into the hands, transferred into the hands of people who are putting fentanyl on the streets and overdosing bodies and you know and and and and so I just want to um just open up with that and I have a lot more to say and you'll see me more often.
>> Thank you very much for being here.
Thank you both. Thank you.
>> And we had Jacob Hoops online.
>> Oh, go ahead. There he is. Thanks.
>> Hi everyone.
>> Morning.
>> Welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> Hi friends.
My name is Jacob Hops. I use he and they pronouns and I live in the Arbor Lodge neighborhood of District 2. I've had the great pleasure to join you all in this space many dozens of times over this last year. City council chambers have become for me a space where I go to relax and let other folks be stressed about the state of our city and our collective future. My first visits to these halls were not made from passion.
They were made from something like desperation. I was looking for a place to find meaning and survive.
I've been doing community work for a long time, but this last year kicked that into high gear. I have been so grateful to become aware of these hidden systems that structure so much of the fabric of our lives. I did the first part of a graduate program in urban and regional planning at Portland State University, volunteered for dozens of events and community organizations, and have been immensely plugged in into the ongoing work of council.
Tonight is my last night in Portland for a while. The limited freedom that has sustained me will end tomorrow. I will self-surrender to the federal prison system where I will serve my community in a different way for 2 and 1/2 years.
You have changed my life. I'm so grateful. You will see me again. Thank you for everything. Goodbye, >> Jacob. Thank you, >> John Rosa Pepe.
That concludes public comment.
>> Okay, >> colleagues, our next item on our agenda is uh our regular update on uh the federal ongoing federal interventions or responses to ongoing federal uh interventions in our city. City Administrator Lee, any updates?
>> No updates this week, Council. Uh we'll keep you up to date as we get new information. If nothing happens new before our next update, we'll give an update at our next council meeting.
>> Thank you very much. Rebecca, can we please call uh the consent agenda item four?
>> Item four, appoint voting members to the Portland Utility Board.
>> Thank you. Uh colleagues, are there any objections to the consent agenda? Oh, great. Please call the role.
Coyaline.
>> Hi.
>> Mario.
>> Hi.
>> Novik.
>> Hi.
>> Clark.
>> Hi.
>> Green.
>> Hi.
>> Zimmerman.
>> Hi.
>> Avalos.
>> Hi.
>> Smith.
>> I >> Canel.
>> I >> Pearl Guini.
>> I >> Ryan.
>> I >> Duny.
>> I.
>> Consent agenda is approved with 12 eye votes.
>> Thank you. Could we please call item number five? Item five, authorize a 5-year lease with the American Property Management for Community Safety Division East Side Office. Document number 2026-236.
>> Colleagues, this is an emergency ordinance. Uh with us is Christopher Hair from Council Operations for a Committee Staff summary report. Thank you.
>> Good morning, Council President, uh vice president, counselors. For the record, Christopher Hair, council operations policy analyst, and I serve as staff to the city life committee. The emergency ordinance before you, document number 2026-236, was considered in the city life committee on July 14th where it was referred to council with the recommendation that it be passed. The emergency ordinance authorizes the execution of a 5-year lease with Multma Plaza landlord along with all associated costs for occupancy and use by the community safety division, CSD. Fiscal and performance responsibilities under the lease are assigned to the Bureau of Fleet and Facilities, BFF. uh while CSD programs will occupy and operate the space in accordance with the lease terms and condition. The ordinance also authorizes the city administrator or their designate to prepare future budget documents necessary to fulfill all legal, contractual, and fiscal obligations associated with the lease and an emergency is declared due to the office of violence prevention. OVP's current lease expiring in August of this year. The emergency clause allows the ordinance to take effect immediately upon passage, enabling the city to execute the new lease in time for OBP to relocate to the new facility by September 1st, 2026. The full impact statements on this item uh includes uh budgetary and fiscal impacts and analysis. Uh the uh there was no verbal or written testimony submitted prior to committee action. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Christopher. Councelor Pleggini, this came out of the city life committee. that it did. Thank you, Council President. Um I will flag that we moved through this item relatively quickly and um did not give it the level of scrutiny that we normally would. Uh but despite that, I think folks were comfortable moving forward. Uh the administration had told us that as we often see with leases and contracts, we needed to move quickly and we had another item that had a significant amount of public testimony. Uh the debate centered around two things. There was some concern about leasing a private sector space when we might have spaces available that we own. There was also excitement about the opportunity to have a space where we could bring these programs all together in a location that can better serve particularly East Portland. Uh, and I think the majority of the committee, I'll note that it was a 4-1 vote, but the majority of the committee felt comfortable with the information that we had, that this was a a straightforward lease, that the terms of the lease were responsible for the city, and that the tradeoffs that private sector space versus an opportunity to bring the programs together in East Portland was a clear set of trade-offs and folks were comfortable moving forward.
>> Thank you, counselor. Uh colleagues, there's no one signed up to testify on this item, so we can get both into technical or clarifying questions and also council discussion. So, feel free to jump into the queue and we'll start with councelor Green.
Thank you, Council President. I'm looking at the committee staff summary and it notes that the um the gross rental rate is $27 per rentable square foot uh which includes operating expenses and janitorial services. And then it notes that utility costs may increase by up to $3.5,000 annually. So, I'm just curious, is the base grit gross rental rate um inclusive of of utilities and then the sort of adder is then called out or was there a separate um is there separate cost for the utilities? Is that can anyone speak to that?
>> Let's see. Do we have Stephanie Howard or Rick Dyer in the room? Come on up.
Hi.
>> And then the other reason I got in the queue is to ask why Zimmerman voted no, but I see you're in right after me and you're going to explain. Okay, great.
Thanks.
Good morning, council president and fellow counselors. My name is Rick Dyer.
I'm the real estate planning and portfolio manager for the Bureau of Fleet and Facilities.
Good question. The reason the numbers don't quite add up is because we built a cushion in um the client wanted to have some ability to add additional storage space which is available in the building. They're also looking for the opportunity to add a washer and dryer.
That is not determined yet where that might be. So, we added some not to exceed number that allows us to go back and add that later on.
>> Okay, that's helpful. And $27 a square foot seems about market rate.
>> It's the same rate that we received last year when we put counselors Avalos and Duny in that space. So, we one year later, we got the same rate.
>> I got Roger that. Um, it is high, but I'll I'll leave it there. Um given the glut of of space that we have, although this is probably a specialized use, this is not like other space, right?
>> So when we got the programming requirements from the client, it included lots of details about size, the amount, what kind of space, and where it would be located. And so in this eastern area, there's not very much opportunity to lease space of this quality. Um, and so we did look at some other properties uh that but this one just it rose to the top of the list because of many attributes, public transit being accessible and the the really the quality of the landlord and their ability to self-perform all the tenant improvements which they're doing at no cost to the city. A lot of things came into that that just the client really like this spaces for all those reasons. I appreciate that and I think it's important to note for the public that that the landlord is going to do those TI and on behalf of the city. Is that what I'm hearing?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> The city will be performing some we do our own the BTS group does our own uh low voltage and data lines. Um but the bulk of the request from the from from the client to make the space suitable for them is all being provided at no cost.
>> All right. Thank you. Those are my questions.
>> Thank you councelor Green. Councelor Zimmerman.
>> Uh, thanks. Being on the committee and and as the sole no vote against this, I I thought I'd just take an opportunity to um explain why and I'll vote no again today. Um, I I think that leases in the public or excuse me, the private sector for municipal government have times when they're appropriate. I think it should be used few and far between. Right. when we talk about the janitorial services and what that building is like, we start to relinquish some of our control for the values that we put on what goes on in our own buildings. So, that's one aspect. The other is I haven't heard anybody in the city government tell me that they're scrunched for space in our own used buildings, our own our owned buildings, if you will, where we planned in the prework from home era. And that's very different 7 plus years later. Uh and so I I'm not seeing that we're busting at the seams anywhere in the city's portfolio. And the other part and and I appreciate if you had to go to East Portland, this building seems fine, right? I got I got no issues there. The other part is that this idea that there's excitement around collocation for certain services. I'm also excited about a future thing I could have at my home, but the budget doesn't dictate it right now. I'd love a swimming pool. I'd love to remodel the kitchen.
You know, I think that in a year of budget constraints, excited to do a thing is maybe not the reason to do something this year. So, for me, I don't see the need. I don't see the timing. I don't see the our Portland owned real estate as a reason to not uh require that this organization stays within our own portfolio. And so for those reasons, no, $400,000 is not an astronomical amount of money in the city's overall budget. I'm not sure it's a necessary amount at this point. So that's why I'll vote no today. I I would encourage you to consider the same um and ask that we at some point you don't cut a budget and then never actually tighten the belt >> and uh >> council could I speak to that?
>> Absolutely. I just I I you should take some comfort I think from the fact that when we get the intake request from the client to includes all their programming requirements. We are required by admin rule 1301 to go to seek maximization in city-owned property as the first pass.
So the first thing we do is reach out to all the bureaus. We ask them does anybody have space available that would suit this particular requirement? And when that comes back negative only then do we go out and actually search for other space. Now, that doesn't speak to the utilization of the existing space we have, but that's a whole separate issue we could address. But when we get a no, we can't accommodate this and we're forced to go to market.
>> I don't disagree with you. What I where I think that the pinch point is is from a leadership perspective about who's really examining their own space, what are they really using, and is the collocation and I get it. The program has put a requirement out to be in East Portland. I understand that the in the acquisitions world we use requirements a little different than normal people use requirements right requirements is to meet a spec whereas uh these organizations are not required to be at this street or in this zip code they might be enhanced by it I I recognize that um so I don't disagree with you Mr. I I I really don't um I think that there are other places and having been somebody who worked for the county in in East Portland and in East Multma County, I I do know that it can be a little hard to find a place to kind of call refuge to come into. Um and and that can be challenging. I am not denying those challenges. I am citing that maybe this isn't the year for it, but I do appreciate that.
>> And I think Stephanie's on the line and can maybe add to that, but I would say that I think I think her requirement for that particular side of the city was where she felt she could be most effective with those programs.
>> Right. Thank you.
>> Director Howard, if you want to go ahead and uh if you have something to respond to that as well.
>> Thank you so much. And I I I completely appreciate um Councelor Zimmerman's comments and and concerns. I did uh I did just want to note that while the timing of this lease expiration is not ideal, we do have a current lease that is expiring and need to relocate at least the office of violence prevention.
And so this effort is to try to maximize that opportunity to serve all of the programs within that portfolio. I'll also note that there is not an increase in cost uh in this lease from the current lease uh to the office of violence prevention nor to the ceasefire uh program. So there is not an an an uh additional cost for those programs.
Portland street response has been um planning for some expansion based on council resolutions from last year uh and also working to expand our districtricting plan. So, the need to be in East Portland for all of these programs is is actually quite significant and and can help uh us to also, you know, bring forward the direction that council has given us under that uh resolution. But I did just want to allay any concerns that this is increasing cost. It is only increasing cost to Portland Street response within a planned uh amount, but not adding cost to the Office of Violence Prevention and Ceasefire Programs.
>> Thank you, Director Howard.
Uh, councelor Ryan.
>> Thank you, President Dumpy. Um, first of all, thank you for stating, uh, Chair Purlein, that it was rushed and, uh, I was a hesitant. Yes, I think I got there because of the location. I've been on a couple ride alongs with Portland Street Response, leaving from lower southwest, and the calls that I experienced were in East Portland, and it took a long time.
And by the time we got there, those that were identified to do outreach with were we couldn't locate them. So, um, so from probably the relocation of Portland Street response alone in the rushed conversation I got to, yes, I do have some more questions. I'm glad we're taking time with this today. Um, you know, I'd like to point out we all know the commercial real estate market requires um, first of all, it's a good market for those that are purchasing and buying. it's u there are some bargains out there and so I think everyone knows that the demand is low um and so I know that I'd like to point out that the commercial real estate market then requires these types of concessions to fill this the space and since the demand is low we can get a bargain in this market and I did see the tenant improvement TI in this contract is included but what's the estimated value of those improvements and that is a question for staff >> Rick the TI improvements. Do you know the answer to them?
>> I'm trying to remember. Um I don't think they put a value on them.
They uh they just agreed to them. So the list was we did construction drawings, submitted those with all the requested improvements, wall movements, adding doors, painting, new carpet, lighting.
They they approved them all and didn't they're they self-perform. It's an internal group that does it within their so they didn't have to go out and contract with a contractor and maybe that would been some of the reason they don't actually cost it when they provided it to us.
>> So there's no you can't give me an estimated value of those TI improvements.
>> I I really we did not the landlord did not provide us a number.
>> Okay.
>> If I might I think I may be a little bit helpful to give you a little bit more on some of the improvements. While I don't know what the dollar figure is, there are some substantial projects including installing a kitchen and uh upgrading a kitchen in on another floor. Um, so there are some fairly substantial infrastructure uh ads that are happening including um some of those types of improvements which um I think you know I'm not an expert on this so I wouldn't want to put a dollar figure but I think if that gives you more of a sense counselor on the types of improvements that they're doing I think they are fairly significant value.
>> Yeah. um perhaps at least 100k but any would be it would be helpful to have that type of um information at this time. Thanks.
>> Thank you councelor Ryan councelor kernel.
>> Thank you. I have uh three questions. Um and I think there's we've known for a while that this uh lease was going to expire. Um, so my question is how did we get to the place where this was an emergency ordinance? I understand that now today we're at a place where if we don't approve it, there's a a time issue. Um, but I I don't understand why this didn't come a couple months earlier so that it wouldn't be an emergency ordinance just in case there was a need for 12 days instead of five at full counsel for the public to weigh in and things like that.
So can can someone speak to that please?
>> I can certainly speak to that counselor.
Uh, so I had been working on a a different location that was could the city was exploring as a potential acquisition for over a year in anticipation of this. Um, and that did that fell through only at the beginning of this year. And that necessitated me really, you know, expediting a short timeline on a normal project with the facilities team that we have today who's just done a tremendous amount of work to bring this forward. And the timeline has been extremely compressed. But it's because that previous uh plan fell through at the very beginning of this year. Uh but it has been something we've been working on for for a year.
>> Okay. And I can add to that that when we actually got the ISA executed by Stephanie's group, that was in May. That ISA says this is an 18 to 24month process from when we get your programming requirements to when we actually execute a lease when the construction's finished and you're actually moved in. May we're probably going to be signing a lease this yet this week. If the council approves this, they're going to be in in September 1st.
I mean, that is an extremely protracted process. It's like unbelievable. So, we've just had a lot of things fall into place very nicely to make this accommodate her uh her need.
>> Thank you. I I appreciate both those answers. I think maybe one thing that might be helpful is just kind of a heads up on on that if that's happening so that um we're aware. Um and and you know, again, public notice is my concern primarily around emergency ordinance.
Um, after August 31st, do we no longer have any presence at that lower Mississippi building?
>> Is that?
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> And by we, I mean the city, not it's it's every program is moving out, right?
>> Correct.
>> Um, and then a process question. Why did this go to city life and not public safety?
>> Council president, do you want me to take first stab? Do you want to send that to councelor Novik or >> I don't remember the answer to that so please.
>> So councelor there was a conversation about where leasing goes if I remember correctly and whether that comes to uh to you at committee of the whole or to uh the committee that has the relevant policy or to city life looking kind of broadly at some of these things.
and city life had just taken on a different lease conversation. So, we were in the groove on that and public safety didn't have time to schedule this and we ended up having a lot more public testimony than we thought we would, but thought we had a spot that it would slip into easily. So, I had offered to take it on to be helpful and make sure that we could move it to council as quickly as possible given the needs for the lease term.
>> Thanks. I I appreciate that. Um so in terms of broadly I I um I do think I'd like to um first say I want to follow up on something councelor Zimmerman brought up and and do ask for us to have a better understanding given to council about our existing space. Um I think uh you know fire stations don't often have the capacity but uh for for something this large but I know that there are fire stations all over the city and there's public safety uh collaboration there for example. Um, so there are things like that that make sense. Having said that, I do think that the idea of having a standalone space in East Portland makes sense for these things together. Um, I think it's a it's a natural next step from council's resolution last June that established PSR as a co-equal first responder and a precursor to the conversation around what constitutes a a bureau level um conversation around community safety or portions thereof. I I will say that cities around the country have established similar independent offices.
Albuquerque has community safety together in its own space as well. Um and I'm personally excited about the impact that this will have for uh response times for PSR. Um in addition to obviously additional scheduling because I have a similar experience to councelor Ryan about many of the calls being in um East Portland. Um, I'll obviously be asking and making sure that um we don't have a decline in um attention to district 2. Um but obviously PSR that's not where it's coming from. So, um I I appreciate that as well. And so I'll be voting yes on this. But I I do think as we move forward it will be helpful to have a better understanding of um the capacity that we have in city buildings. I know that there's a conversation that's been on the back burner for a while about restacking the Portland building about some of the other spaces and I I definitely think that's something worth um worth exploring. I don't know that it always applies to each and every part of the city because having um ready access to parking lots is a really important thing. I was in Minneapolis last year and just talking about the move of their equivalent programs, Canopy Routts there, um to a space where they had ready access to their vehicles quickly when a call came in was that was the primary reason they moved um or among the primary reasons I should say. So, it was helpful to learn that and I imagine that that that's all been done here um because it was done last year for the two council offices. Thank you. I I should add to that, excuse me, to that topic that we did, there were actually two opportunities within the BFF portfolio that the client considered.
One was uh as you probably know, Parks has recently vacated the St. John's building. Uh we showed that to the client. It was too small. Uh it's kind of awkward space and uh it was in the wrong location. The second one was uh water bureau was vacating a portion of their space in the ECC building on the east side, but again uh that was way too small. So those, you know, we did explore what we thought might be potentially uh suitable and were rejected.
>> Thank you for that. I would love to follow up with you about that St. John's.
>> However, that's another topic.
>> Thank you, Councelor Canel. Councelor Smith.
>> Thank you, Council President. Uh just a quick question. Um Director Howard, are these funds coming out of the materials and services budget?
No, these are uh part of OBP's existing overhead budget as I mentioned that ex that cost is almost identical. So there's no uh additional cost to OBP or ceasefire uh with this lease.
>> So that the overhead budget is the money that was saved in your previous office budget.
Is that correct?
>> Uh it's just the same lease overhead costs that we have every year.
And is it >> is that cate how is that categorized?
>> I I think because of the way the current lease is structured, it's not a full service lease. So there are some internal materials and service costs that have gone towards overhead and some external materials and costs. So now under the new uh portion of the lease would be a full service and they would just be I think uh coming through the the Bureau of uh facilities. So, I think it would all fall under uh our internal materials and services, I believe.
>> Okay. So, it's the external. I'm I'm just trying to figure out how it's how it's being paid for. It's So, that's how we pay for our our our rent in our um offices here at city council and our district offices. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councelor Smith. Councelor Coy.
>> Thank you, Council President. So, looking at the notes, I can see that no current city building fits the the needs, the requirements. Um, for example, the enough parking for city vehicles. I'm wondering if someone could just talk briefly about what those requirements are and which city buildings were investigated and considered.
They included uh the programming requirements of how many hard wall offices, how many open cubicles, how many conference rooms, how many uh kitchenetses, um how many parking spaces, um location requirements, including access to public transit.
Those are the highlights come top of my mind. Stephanie, anything you can add?
>> Yeah, I think for for Portland Street Response in particular, because of the nature of their work, they also require decontamination uh access. So we have to uh be sure that they have the ability to um you know uh shower address any kind of u contaminants that they may encounter out in the field which is a unique a unique feature and the washer and dryer uh which Rick mentioned is also part of those requirements and we're working to to problem solve on that. Um but you know specifically combining those unique needs with the needs of the office of violence prevention and ceasefire programs which also require adequate community space so that we can host our regular meetings, our community peace collaborative so that we can uh service our uh Rose City self-defense courses.
Um that there are some very challenging needs in trying to bring these together.
And so the space that we have um in this proposed lease would meet all of those requirements.
>> And one thing that I would add too is that there was um a wish to have after hours HVAC services. The landlord has provided a number for those services should we elect to use them. So Stephanie knows that she has the ability to add that if she wants to be operational until midnight or 2 a.m.
still have the conditions of the building heated and cooled. She has that ability.
>> Thank you. That's helpful. and especially um having an east side location making sure that it has the capacity for regular community events is really important. Thank you. I plan to support this.
>> Thank you. Councelor Coalain, Council Ryan.
>> I I am again we rushed this through so this is a good conversation. I I I'm still a slightly leaning to yes. I do think in the future we need to have better information on the details of the financials. Um, and I know that that it's a good market. Um, but I think Stephanie Howard, your your comments both in the committee meeting when you presented and today make the case for a leader who's looking at the system and how to improve services. So, I'd like to see um with this capital investment and this change, what what are what does success look like as you integrate these teams? What are some of what's some of your hopes in terms of how the different departments integrate and work with one another? Um how do we bring in more community partners? When I go to the peace collaborative meetings, it's not lost at me that there's no one from the schools there. And increasingly the behavioral issues that go down much lower than they used to. Um and the incidents that we're seeing this summer on the streets with the age the age range dipping lower and lower. I need to hear the case of how this space is going to improve our integration of services and working with the community that helps um do what we want which is to have u more restorative justice and less violence on our streets. So Stephanie, um, is there anything else you'd like to add to that? Because you have been consistent with some of the this type of thinking and that's that's what the council I think wants to see in general is more vision about where we're going.
So it's one thing to make a change, but we need to really be sold on why this is an improvement. What is the vision? How will this have impact on services? I want to get away from the nuts and bolts of the of the lease deal right now. I want to hear about the impact of the services.
>> Absolutely. Uh, councelor Ryan. Yeah.
So, I I think for so long um the Office of Violence Prevention has been sort of the the place where the city could funnel dollars to help support community uh community based organizations and violence prevention without a consistent strategy and without the the capacity to do more holistic work. And what I see here in bringing these teams together in the ceasefire program uh and the OBP program for instance is a great a great way to make sure that everyone is operating from the same you know sheet of music that we all have the same information and that we can specialize.
And what I mean by that is having the ceasefire program, which is our intervention, our gun violence intervention strategy, being able to be very well integrated with our violence prevention strategy at the OBP team and creating a more holistic approach that is not just tasking an organization to do, you know, 20 things, uh, but instead allowing them the the growth and the the opportunity to to specialize and to get, you know, continue getting some of those really strong results that we've we've seen. Um the same is true for Portland Street Response. What we've seen since these group these programs have been grouped together uh are you know a great sort of natural um collaboration happening whether it is you know building up our uh our internal safety committees and helping bring some of that specialized sort of OSHA view that our PSR teams have to the view that we have for our uh our you know office of violence prevention and ceasefire teams. It's also there's a huge throughine between all three of these programs and that is the the use and the leveraging of people with lived experience peers to help connect with community members in moments where they are in desperate need of help whether that's in a behavioral health crisis or in a a you know a crisis that's leading them to pick up a gun. um the use of these these sort of principles is very uniform through these programs and it's lending to really strong um ideas. It's lending to really strong uh you know um sort of approaches. We've got PSR coming to community peace collaborives now, but it's helping highlight the areas where we can do more uh to support one another and and you know, frankly identifying additional funding opportunities like grants which we've been applying for in this last year as well that help tie these pieces together. Um but but being in the same space is a huge part of the cohesion that's needed in order for that organic thinking and that sort of coalescence around a shared mission whether it's a little bit of a different specialty that's essential to to bringing these uh ideas into fruition.
>> I I appreciate that. I I want to say a couple things. Um I as you know I'm a big fan of the peace collaborative meetings and I attend them. I'll I'll have to figure out how to be as loyal when they move out to the east side. Um, and I'll do that because that's where I've been able to see the system that we're building. I will say that having the officer, police officer Jagger I believe who attends frequently when he comes and he presents data that's when the peace collaborative room lights up and there's more engagement and there's more authentic dialogue about the about the why and what we need to do. So in the new location, if that's where the peace collaborative is held, you have to make sure that it won't be as convenient, of course, because the North Precinct is where they're held now to continue to include the police. And that's even why the whole in the whole budget uh response u deliberations, it became so clear to me how we're all needed and and you can't hollow it out in the middle with police, but they're all interconnected.
and I see them working together like an integrated team in ways that I think was the vision years ago when we were trying to do reforms to public safety. So again, I just want to hear how you as a leader are seeing this relocation as an opportunity to go deeper with what that vision is and how this integration works and keep including data at those meetings and also what um the collective uh success looks like for all of them in the rooms because that's what I'm seeing. I'm seeing people having shared accountability and responsibility and that's the beauty of integrated systems.
So, I'm trying to really see this as an as that opportunity to make that case go even further with this relocation.
So, thank you. And if there's anything you'd like to respond to, I'd appreciate it.
>> Oh, I'll just add that this we will continue to have one we're having two community peace collaborative meetings a month. One will stay in North Precinct and a second will be in East because we're trying to again have a broader reach with the variety of community um members and community organizations that we work with.
>> Well, that that impressed me. I didn't Was this new? There's only been one a month.
>> We've we've started that. No, we've started that probably in the last 10 months or so.
>> Oh, that's why I keep missing meetings.
I thought there was just once one a month still. Okay, great. Humbled as always up here on the DIS. Thanks. Thank you, councelor Ryan. Councelor Smith, verifi. Is that a legacy hand?
>> Thank you very much. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this is an emergency ordinance requires nine votes to pass.
>> Rebecca, can we please call the role?
>> Calling the role on document number 2026-236.
Coyama, >> I.
>> Mario, >> I.
>> Novik, >> I.
>> Clark, >> I >> Green, >> I >> Zimmerman, >> no.
Avalos >> I >> Smith >> I >> Canel >> I >> Hurdle Guini >> I Ryan >> I >> Duny >> I >> The ordinance passes with 11 I and one nay vote.
>> Thank you very much. Could we please call item number six?
Item six, amend the FY202627 budget to appropriate 13,76,892 in Portland clean energy fund interest income, $5,491,02 other fund resources and $335,000 in county revenues to restore frontline positions and services reduced in the approved budget and to provide transition support for affected employees. Uh document number 2026-222.
>> Thank you very much. Colleagues, this is the second reading of our ordinance. Uh as I mentioned last week, under state budget law, only one supplemental budget can be prepared at a time. As such, we've considered both of the ordinances on today's agenda, but only one of them can become law. To keep the procedure simple today, we will open and vote on the items separately in the order they were filed. Let's begin with remarks from the actually I I'm going to turn to the lead lead sponsor councelor Mario on this but also city administrator Lee has asked to uh also provide uh provide remarks. So councelor Mario and then city administrator.
>> Um thank you so much council president um and thank you colleagues for being here for this uh extended conversation and for all of the folks who are on this ordinance as well who have helped to pave the way for this. Um, I feel like it has been a difficult process, but last year we experienced what may only be described as a small glimmer of hope that maybe this council is able to compromise and is prepared to do some of that work. Um, you know, after a lot of discussions and hearing a lot of the feedback that we heard from you, what your priorities were, what's important to you, there were things that I didn't necessarily agree with, but I brought an amendment to bring those things to the table because I think that this is still a more stable funding source. it will still protect the police accountability board that is just getting um you know it's just getting started and I think that it sends the right message to Portlanders if we can choose to come together on this that we chose to compromise and that police accountability still matters in this city. hearing from elders in our community like Reverend Leroy Haynes who talked about how important it is to protect the OCPA and who talked about um making sure that we're saving the critical parks positions uh that we told voters we would do if we passed another levy. I think shows our continuous commitment to Portlanders. This ordinance does save um more positions and I have heard behind the scenes that a few of you wanted to go bigger than maybe you were given the option to in the other ordinance. So, I hope that we can sort of set aside all of the the rest of the politics of this and that we can have this be a shared council win, that we can tell the public that we came together to do this. Um, and I'm just very grateful for the folks who expressed uh interest, you know, even interest in this last week. Councelor Smith, I think you were interested in some of the amendments that came forward and the possibility of working together on that. That meant a lot to me. Um, Councelor Zimmerman, I know you and I had some discussions on this and uh I I hope that we can uh move forward with this today. I also know the city administrator has some things to say about not just our ordinance but both ordinances as some city employees have already left the city and we're trying to um you know address some of these positions. But it's something that's happening with both ordinances because of how complicated this process is. And my team is working with CBO to reconcile some of that as we speak. And with that, I will pass it over to you, city administrator.
>> Thank you, councelor. And I will ask our interim HR director, Ronto, to come and speak on this uh item as well. What I do want to do is provide some clarity to council versus uh just assuming that this ordinance or both ordinance may do certain things as it relates to bringing back certain employees. I know there's intent behind both ordinances and what they intend to do. But I actually I actually want to talk about the reality of where we are right now from a staffing perspective of the remaining employees that we have left in the organization but also talk about bumping as well. Uh some of these conversations have been around I know certain actual people uh within the organization but when we look at this holistically we're looking at positions. So what that means is you may have the intent of saving a person but that person may not be saved due to our bumping due to our labor agreements. We may be able to save the position but not actually that individual. So I'll turn it over to Ron to give some more clarity to that as well. Then council president will turn it back over to you or to any questions that counselors may have with this information we're providing today.
Ron, take it away.
>> Thank you, Administrator Lee. Uh, good morning, counselors. Uh, for the record, Ron Zto, interimm director of the Bureau of Human Resources. I think actually Council Millo and Administrator Lee said it best, so I'll just try to reiterate what they shared, which is um, due to the timing of these ordinances, I wanted to ensure there was awareness in terms of the administration and impact of the outcomes if either were voted and approved today. So, for instance, um across both ordinances, we see we've got about 10 vacancies of the positions being restored. And so, I want to make sure there was awareness of that. And then, as it relates to bumping, um we've got a number of outcomes that we still need to analyze.
So, if either of these ordinances were approved, we're going to need to go back and draft resin notices for people, restore those vacant positions, and then evaluate what those restorations mean in terms of uh positions still being cut.
And so, for example, my staff brought to me a few different scenarios where some of the positions we're assuming that are being presented in this ordinance, if they were restored, we would still see that person who occupies that position still losing their job because of the bump flows that have taken place. Um, you also have scenarios where positions would be restored to teams that have already been dism disbanded because of the core services realignment. So, they might be returning to a team with no manager. Uh we have had staff who've moved on because of the the length of this process to new new roles, accepted new positions, sometimes inside the city and sometimes outside the city. So maybe I just want to reiterate that there's awareness of the impacts of either of these these ordinances. You take a vote today and you have a full understanding of that and we'll be unpacking what that means for the individuals impacted in the days ahead. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much, Ron.
Um, colleagues, now to the queue, our councelor or council discussion, rather, councelor Green.
>> Thank you so much, Council President, and and thank you, City Administrator Lee, for kind of level setting us on that piece. Um, and uh, Director Cedto, um, you know, it's not lost on me that that, you know, we this this work started in the budget process and now here we are. So there there are of course some complications here, but I think I want to stay focused on what this ordinance authorizes in terms of capabilities. It sort of says we want to preserve the capabilities that that these jobs have. So if our folks have moved on or if we have to do some work to get them back, that's work that we always are going to be faced with in an organization. And again, I have I have a lot of confidence in the city administrator uh uh to do the work that that is spoken to in the ordinance to kind of um do that position analysis and and and make sure we're preserving that flexibility. I want to turn to for a moment just to appeal to my colleagues to to for your support on this ordinance because you know the first I think the first public comment we received today was from a a gentleman who lives in East Portland district 1 and he's frustrated.
Uh Jacob Schnore I believe is his name.
He's frustrated that this this governing body has failed his community by failing to make the investments and the resources that we need to keep him safe.
And you know, it's public safety is not always the lens that I start my work in, but it is but it does matter to me. Um I think we're hearing loudly from Portlanders uh that um hey, before you ask us for new money for new things, we we really want you to take care of what we have. We want we want to make sure that you are, you know, filling those potholes, uh, keeping our fire capacity up to snuff, making sure that we are not losing ground on the investments we were built we've built in this holistic public safety system. And so I think that if we fail to act today to make those investments, then we're sending a signal to a person like Mr. Schnore that you've got every right to be frustrated with this city council. And so we have an opportunity right now to to take a decision to make a decision to say we're standing together to say while this wasn't the most perfect process, we do have an opportunity to to recommmit to investing in those public safety resources that we deserve in our community. And that's on the floor right now. And so, however we felt about this process all along the way, I think we're we're right to have feelings about that and right to learn from the process and, you know, we'll do better next time in the budget process, but today we have a chance to make the investment we need to make. Um, and it it comes from a pot of money that we have right now to make that work happen. And so I really hope that we can use this moment uh to get this across the line, make these investments, and then we'll do the hard work we have to do uh to come together with our labor partners, with the city administration and say, how do we set ourselves up for success for the the next budget and the next years to come.
Um I think Portlanders are watching. So, uh really appreciate the dialogue. Uh appreciate the willingness to compromise and um and again, thanks again, uh Mr. Lee for for kind of making your rounds this morning and and being and being ready to kind of speak to us today. So, I think it's really important. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Councelor Green. Council Mario.
>> Uh, thank you, Council President. Um, I just wanted to reiterate that I think that with either of these ordinances, we're going to run into these issues and re-emphasize that because of the timing that this is coming forward after the budget process. So, this is although our ordinance is being heard first, this is not unique to our ordinance. And I still believe that our ordinance provides the greatest amount of compromise amongst this council body. And I believe that we have a duty as the legislative body to try to work together in every way that we can when we can. And I want to outline for perhaps the media that's catching up on this today the compromises that happened since June.
Back in June, our services first amendment saved 103 jobs. That was around $22 million and the counter offer was around 7.8 8 million that died 6 to6 in July 2nd. Um we introduced other positions. Um and there were other ordinances that were brought forward to fund with OCPA funding. For many of us that was a hard line because that police accountability ballot measure passed with 82% of the vote. That was a very difficult discussion for many of us where I think we wanted to save similar positions but we had different ideas around the funding source. And then on July 16th, I brought forward Marillo 1, which funded 55 positions. Um, and all of that dollars, every single dollar that was added was priorities from from your ordinance. Um, it was priorities in police training and other positions that we didn't necessarily agree were a priority, especially while we're trying to save uh certain job positions because of the functions that they play. But we understood that that was important. And the trajectory over time is that we are really trying to come to the table with you and be good partners in this. And I think that what we have today is something that accomplishes everything that you guys wanted to save along with things that we cared about um with a stable funding source that already exists. The other ordinance with the underspending relies on funding that does not yet exist. And I think that's a really important difference to remember when we're talking about what's stable right now because we can always backfill the PF interest later with underspend.
But if there isn't under spend later, we can't actually that's imaginary money.
And given the financial state of the city, I'm not sure that there will be the underspend that people are expecting there to be, especially with a lot of the police accountability work that has to be established, a lot of the cases that they are going to have to pursue.
So, uh, colleagues, I would just really implore you one last time if we could come together on this as a council, uh, and make this work because we are ready to be strong partners with you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councelor Maria. Counselor Cleam.
>> Thanks. The first thing that I want to acknowledge is that this process has been hard on all of us, but that it's been especially hard on our city staff.
The staff that holds everything together or the glue that holds everything together. Um staff that are real people who have dedicated years and years of their lives um to building expertise and experience um to serving and to serving our public.
I know that there are folks that are here in the audience and who are watching right now who are holding their breath, watching this protracted budget process unfold.
Um, and that is not lost on me. I saw Chief Johnson at the Pride parade and she pointed out someone who um is at one of the stations that is having the rescue cut and said, you know, they're watching every single meeting. they're tuning in. So, thank you to the staff who have been through this excruciating process alongside us and to every Portlander who's spoken up for the programs and services that matter to them and to my colleagues. Um, you know, we've worked together for a year and a half now during really intense times.
And I I can confidently say that I know that all of us deeply care about this city and fellow Portlanders and we have some of the exact same values that we all share. I think we all want a city where our parks program is one where people of all ages can thrive, where we have staff ready to respond to emergencies, where we have a real person on the line with real answers when someone calls 311. And I think that all 12 of us believe in transparency and accountability. And I don't think anyone up here takes cuts to staff and to programs likely. Um, you know, most Portlanders elected us to handle the details so they don't have to. our constituents of many of them are working multiple jobs, raising families, caregiving, just trying to get through the week um or just trying to enjoy our wonderful city and don't have the time to follow every line of a budget or who proposed what and why. But they do really feel it when we get it wrong. And they feel it when we're gridlocked 66.
And they'll feel it when services slip.
And they see it in their districts and their life gets harder. And our this new council structure proposed something better. And there are people that aren't quite feeling that yet. and they're not asking us to agree on everything, but they are asking us to make the city work and figure out how to get as close as we can because I do think we agree on a lot. So, I do hope that all of us up here can agree to pass this supplemental budget that gives, in my opinion, gives staff and our city administrators some time to deliberate, to make informed decision decisions, to give us the opportunity to um consult with our staff who do the work and engage all of the people. I hope that we can agree to pass this um and do this right. I think that this in some way buys us time as we're doing realignment and um hope that folks will vote yes for this ordinance in particular with the amendment. Um we are very close. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Councelor Cleal, Councelor Aalos, >> thank you. Just to close the loop based on the conversation we had earlier, I'm hearing that folks from CBO might have some more information for us on how implementable the ordinances are. So, can Brian Connell please come up and confirm?
>> Good morning, counselors. Uh, for the record, Brian Connell, deputy director, CBO. Um I would just refer back to CA Le's uh previous comments that most of these issues can be characterized as operational where the impact may uh differ from the intended uh effect. Um however from a technical perspective the bud the ordinances um both of them as amended are implementable um and perhaps some of those issues can be uh addressed via technical uh corrections and the volatile or uh operational realities. Um uh there could be further information sharing uh as those um more details of those are uh addressed.
or available. Sorry.
>> Thank you. Thank you for confirming that. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I understood that from the technical perspective that we can move forward with this that all of those issues can be worked out um and are operational in nature. So, um I think what we are seeing here in front of us is that every priority from the other ordinance is now in this package. Seems pretty straightforward. I think this is a great opportunity to show Portlanders that we did come together and make a compromise to uh ultimately fund the services that they care about. Uh so, you know, I think everybody has already said it uh in many different ways, but just to put that final point that um I believe Portlanders are watching and I hope we don't disappoint them with this vote.
Thanks.
>> Thank you, Councelor Avalos. Councelor Maria.
>> Um thank you, Council President.
Actually, Brian, could you stay up here?
Sorry. I just have one question for you.
Um, so to clarify, when we're talking about the impacts, um, I I believe there was an impression that specific individuals were supposed to be saved.
And I want to clarify that the positions that we chose were based on um, the services that are being carried out for Portlanders. So, this doesn't impact that. Correct. When when you're talking about impacts, it's not going to change those core services.
Correct. Yes. So, uh, from a technical perspective, there's no issues with those, uh, positions being restored because the funding is a new one-time funding source. Um, uh, so there isn't an issue. It's more the, uh, operational realities. And, um, if there was an intended outcome for a particular position or employee, there may be a disconnect there. Um uh but from a technical perspective it is um implementable.
>> Okay. Thank you so much for all those clarifications. I appreciate you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Thank you, Council Mario. Councelor Canel.
>> Thank you, Council President. I just wanted to draw attention to one piece of the ordinance that is I think particularly meaningful in helping me differentiate between the two. It's paragraph 11 and it it's reiterated down below in in the uh part C. Um but the idea of taking the time to assess and um pause and get deep into the conversation around what's happening to positions are why are they being moved, why are they being eliminated, those sorts of things between now and the fall um position by position service impact analyses uh and the cost of redistributing the work which I think is something that ideally would have happened before. I think everybody's acknowledged that and I think the the the key piece here is that this one requires it. this ordinance requires that. Um, what I' I'd ask is we've been hearing a lot of the um we've been hearing a lot of the good on this.
Obviously, that's why my remarks are short. A lot of it's been said by my colleagues. I would love to hear if someone is intending to vote no. I'd love to hear why. Um, because I am concerned for you that if we don't hear why at this point, um, a vote might be the public might take away from this that it's, uh, more about tribalism than about policy. So, I'd love to hear that.
Thanks.
>> Thank you, councelor Kel. Vice President Clark, >> I'm happy to try to address your question, councelor. Um, and you're right, there are lots of similarities between these two um ordinances.
I also want to share council win. Uh I also believe that we have compromised on the creation of the risk reduction ordinance. But I would say for me, bottom line, uh that one of these is the more fiscally responsible amendment. Uh while it still addresses critical needs in the city, um I think I'm concerned about the bottom line and what that means for uh the next budget.
>> Thank you, Vice President Clark.
>> Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Rebecca, can we please call the role?
Calling the role on the ordinance document number 2026-222.
Coalain >> I.
>> Mario.
>> I.
>> Novik.
>> Nay.
>> Clark.
>> No.
>> Green.
>> I.
>> Zimmerman.
>> No.
>> Avalos.
>> Hi.
>> Smith.
>> No.
>> Canal.
>> Hi.
>> Purdle. Guiny.
>> No.
>> Ryan.
>> No. Duny.
>> Hi.
Um, >> the mayor is here. Mr. Mayor, the final >> Oh, please go ahead.
>> We don't know the final.
>> Hold on a second. I I have a little script to read.
>> Yes, I have it.
>> Go ahead. Um, Mr. Mayor, the final council vote on a non-emergency ordinance has resulted in a tie. Under the rules of this chamber, it is your prerogative to cast the deciding vote. Under charter section 2-102, quote, the mayor is not a member of council. However, under charter section 2-42 401, it is among your responsibilities to vote on matters before the council in the case of a tie when the mayor casts the deciding vote. Debate has concluded on these items and we are in the process of voting. The body does not accept continuous debate to during the roll call. However, in this case, I will extend a courtesy to you. Speak to your vote if so desired. Up to 2 minutes.
>> Council President, thank you for that courtesy. At this point, my vote is a no.
>> Okay.
Okay. And >> so, >> would you please formally call the mayor?
>> Mayor Wilson, your vote is Can you repeat your vote, Mayor Wilson?
>> No.
>> And so, with seven nay and six I votes, the ordinance fails to pass.
Thank you very much. Can we please call item number seven?
>> Item seven, adopt a supplemental budget for FY202627 to reduce potential risks to city services document number 2026-223.
>> Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. We are now in consideration of the sole remaining budget ordinance before us. Let's begin with remarks from our lead sponsor, Vice President Clark. Thank you, Council President. Uh, I also want to thank uh, City Administrative Lee for the clarification that you offered and the complexities that you offered of both of these uh, ordinances. I really appreciate that. Um, colleagues, we have another opportunity to uh, demonstrate unity um, because I also want a shared council win. Um and I would say that uh the risk reduction ordinance is also a compromise ordinance between a variety of uh colleagues that are sitting up here. We did compromise on this between our uh colleagues and we also work with labor unions to identify and restore the positions that are critical to the operation of the city.
Also, uh our uh ordinance allows for a smooth transition during a time of necessary cuts to balance our budget and it also will extend pay and benefits to all laid-off employees through September the 30th.
So, as I mentioned earlier, this uh amendment, this budget ordinance is the one that is the more fiscally responsible amendment while still addressing the city's critical needs. So I'd ask for a positive vote.
>> Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Colleagues, we are now in council discussion. Is there any further comment?
Councelor Canel.
>> Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, I am disheartened we couldn't get to a place of majority support for the Save Our Services ordinance. Um, but I did want to uh take some time to comment on this because there are some things that got brought up last week. As you know, I was remote for it that I didn't really get a chance to respond to. Um, I'm really grateful for the amendment that was brought forward uh last week and on Wednesday.
Uh, and I want to start by saying that if this conversation shows anything, it's that the Office of Community Based Police Accountability is off limits. I have colleagues who are staunch defenders of PAF in this chamber and outside of uh supportive housing services, of preschool for all, of all the different ballot measures that have been done in this city. And the reason ballot measures happen in the city and not just the city government, but the this community so often is because people go through that effort because they don't feel like they're being heard. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose at the ballot, but there's a lot of attempts at that. And these ones pass and we're obligated to respond to them. We're obligated to uh uphold them.
And I don't believe that our election is any more legitimate than that that created a ballot measure um and a requirement there. So that's why it's important that we state for the record that that's an important change and whether this passes or fails in a moment here that that's off limits. I also want to take the opportunity to correct the record on three things that were brought up last uh last week now that the outcome is all but locked in. Um last week I was uh accused of lying and saying that the administration did not request the restoration of a ceasefire position during one of the amendments. I think this one has been mostly resolved due to city administrator Lee confirming that in fact the administration did request that position, but I wanted to ask if city administrator Lee if there's anything more you wanted to to add about that position at this time.
>> Not at this time.
>> Okay. Um I'm hopeful that we're able to work on that one um going forward. I'm also hopeful that we're able to work on the um the office of government relations position related to international relations and that that particular program. Secondly, there was a accusation about lying during the budget about the driving towards democracy amendment which moved $450,000 from the golf fund to the small donor election program as a way of saying we should now look at the funding source of small donor elections. Uh the accusation was that I didn't say the money would be used for this year's election at the time of the amendment. You can check the transcript. It's at 22330 on the timestamp for the May 20th, 2026 morning meeting. Um, and the quote is, uh, just to be very specific about it, it removes it from 603, the golf fund at Portland Parks and Recreation, 450,000 transferred to special appropriations, the public election fund there, and it's $450,000, which is sufficient to inclure ensure the the full amounts that are needed for this year's election. Um, so just wanted to get that. Mr. >> President, point of order, what are we talking about right now? I'm not I'm not clear.
>> I'm talking about the OCPA part and the amendments. We are in discussion of this amendment and councelor canal is recognized and he's uh responding to discussion last week.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> And you can read the rest of the transcript I gave the time stamp. And third, there was a conversation in the newsletter about the uh that I wrote about the impact of this program or the sorry proposal on the office of community based accountability.
>> President I'm not sure what we're talking >> councelor canal is recognized. He's responding to comments from last week.
He's >> okay. He should have been here.
>> Well, he I am and I councel relevant to the the vote.
Um, and if you'd like it to have my vote, I think it's important that you we actually have the conversation. Um, if we were having a deep conversation, colleagues, about TRA, I'd give a little extra credence to whatever councelor Clark said because of her experience. If we were talking about the county, I give a little extra credence to councelor Smith and Zimmerman. I can say that about all 11 of of my colleagues on different topics. I think it's really important that we recognize some of us have a lot of experience in the space of the OCPA. I've had people respond without actually addressing the concern that I'm raising. The concern has not been other than the original Clark 1 amendment in the budget about violating Charter 2-10004, which relates to the 5% rule on the OCPA. All of these have to do with a different concern, Charter 2-10006.
I've read that in the past. I won't bother to read it again here, uh, except for a little piece later. When you write a check and back that check off of the OCPA bank account, you're committing them to underspend or putting pressure on them to do so. And while you should believe me saying that because it's obvious, if you don't, it's okay because we got this a week ago from the city administrator and budget director. When I asked Director Lavine about under spending, we were told that there's been quote, "There's been specific guidance, significant guidance, I apologize, from the administration in one form of another relating to sort of reducing expenditures in order to generate under spending." So particularly in 25 and 26, we were aware pretty early on that that was going to be necessary and even in 2425 there was some guidance. I so I would I would as a director probably defer to the city administrator's guidance and I asked do you think that that affected any of the bureau director's decisions? Do you think that that advice was that guidance sorry was heated? And city administrator Lee added, "I can't speak councelor Canel as it relates to if that guidance was heated, but it does impact decision-making when those constraints are being put on the organization and it continues on." Put another way, end quote. Put another way, our bureau director noted that there has been historically guidance to underspend, which was noted as necessary. Our city administrator then said that the guidance does impact decision-making. In other words, being told to underspend changes decisions, puts influence on decisions, affects decisions. And the relevant part of charter-2-10006 is the city council, mayor, city administrator, auditor, and city departments, bureaus, and other administrative agencies shall not interfere in the exercise of the board's independent judgment. And this was also end quote. This was also confirmed by much of the testimony we heard, including from Reverend Leroy Haynes, who knows more than any of us about the history of police accountability in the city because he helped write much of that history as well as from the testimony of the board members themselves. The issue has always been the independent judgment and taking that away is sabotage in my view by undermining the ballot measure. And as for defunding, I think giving some someone money they can't spend isn't giving them money, it's performance. And if they can't spend it, it's not really theirs. Um, I'll go a step further at the risk of being too focused on labels and ideologies and less on the primary questions here and say that those who oppose police accountability are fundamentally disinterested in holding power accountable, allow the passive association of might and right, and accept that level of hierarchy without question, and that is fundamentally a conservative worldview. Two last things about the newsletter. First, the idea that I somehow misled people in it is somewhat laughable to me because the people that came and testified are independently informed and grounded in their values and positions and were not led here by me because I am not their leader. But I am very proud to be part of your representation and I'm glad that you came and testified last week and appreciate that immensely. And finally, for those who don't really know what we're talking about and wondering what did I miss out on, you can sign up for any of our counselors newsletters at portland.gov/lastname.
Um, and it's worth doing because you can get a good idea of where everyone's at.
Now, moving forward, I do anticipate that there will be under spending in several bureaus this year, and that might include the OCPA. And if there is under spending, even significant underspending, that won't moot this point. My point was never that they must spend all this money or that we can't use under spending. It was that this ordinance cannot pressure them to. And I'm grateful that with the amendment, it doesn't. So if in the spring tow we end up with money left over or if it gets rolled over into next year that's okay because what we're sending we're all going to say different messages about what this vote means in a little bit.
But what the legal thing that you can take away from this is independent judgment remains. And so to the board do what you need to do exercise your independent judgment without feeling coerced here and understand that if there's under spending in any bureau we can use it or not with that amendment.
Now, we can say that that's what this ordinance says. The as proposed, it didn't. But I do want to just make sure that we're we're I'm level setting that here because if I'm going to vote yes on this, I want to be clear that it tells a very clear story that the OCPA is off limits.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you, Councelor Canel. Councelor Mario.
>> Thanks, Councelor Canal.
I think it's really wild that we as a council couldn't close the deal over 500ths of a percent of our total budget and that we have to call uh I don't know the daddy of the city of Portland to come help break a tiebreaker for us because for some reason the city council can't get together to get it done.
>> Point of order. Mr. President, >> I'm not done. Point of order. Why are we impuging folks?
>> Who are you calling daddy? Well, he's your daddy, not mine. Because >> I got a daddy.
>> Colleagues, colleagues, colleagues, >> I think I think that councelor >> Mario has continued to be recognized.
Thank you.
>> I think that if we have to call on a higher authority because this legislative body >> charter given charter given council, please >> point of order. Please call order here.
Stop talking when another council turn your mic off.
>> Thank you.
>> Our ordinance is recognized. Our ordinance was the only one that was financially responsible.
Again, we didn't close a deal over 500ths of a percent of our total budget with roughly $2 million in PF interest that just arrived a few days ago before the forecast unbudgeted at a net cost of ending this fight. And that's about $4 million one time, 500ths of a percent of the over$8 billion budget this council adopted.
I think we would rather manage that $4 million gap during the next budget than spend next year explaining why the pool didn't open on Saturday.
But why nobody was able why nobody came when they called about a stolen car. Why the senior center closed on 21 adults with disabilities and why we fired 25 people with decades of experience to save these core services. That's 5 h00s of a percent.
It is very clear what's going to happen today. Obviously, the mayor is here to do the tiebreaker vote. I've heard likely that he is going to be supporting this ordinance. And it's very devastating to me that we had a completely responsible financial source that did not have to harm the police accountability board that is just being established.
We are now putting any of the new people that are coming in, the new executive director, any of the people serving in a position to underspend. They are being pressured to underspend in order to give money later.
We are unnecessarily pitting police accountability against workers there. This is a a fight that actually did not have to happen. Everyone could have won. There was no reason for this.
I am still kind of mulling this over as I'm going to hear other people because I'm very sure that this is going to pass with you, mayor, um, from what I've heard in the halls.
And there is a part of me that would like to honor the 82% of voters that voted for the OCPA to be established and vote against this because I know that the workers in this ordinance are going to be saved. If I thought that was in any way a risk, I would probably vote differently. So, I'm going to mle it over just hearing what other people are saying. But this is a financially irresponsible decision. And Portlanders want our government to handle tax funds responsibly.
Oversight is important to them. We just got polling from Metro that shows that one of the top things that people say is that they are willing to pay more, but they want to make sure that those dollars are being used appropriately.
that they want real fiscal oversight.
That's what they're asking of us. That is why we have this new government in place. Change is very difficult and it takes time and the old form of government is continuing to rear its head in instances like this. Regardless, we can't let our government just collapse and we need to continue to do the work to transition this into the future.
We do not have to do the arbitrary spending lines.
We can actually look into all of this technically and do it well and we could use a funding source that already exists. So I I am sorry that people feel sad about being called conservatives and getting called different labels. Um I'm proud to be a leftist. I'm proud to stand up for police accountability and not pit workers against police accountability.
And if you want to be labeled a progressive, you have to move with the times. Maybe you were a progressive in the 80s. Not anymore.
Not anymore. Because people are asking for us to fight for both of those things. Workers and police accountability today. It is not fiscal stewardship to refuse to spend more than an arbitrary dollar figure where neither the figure nor the spending is tied to an impact analysis. by the way.
So, we're just saying, "Oh, we have to spend 12 million. Why not 11 million?
Why not 12.5 million?" And if we do spend that, what spending can get us the most bang for our buck? That's definitely not the BLT reserve, but we added some of that in in our compromise for you.
So, to me, this is completely financially irresponsible. Uh, but it appears that this is perhaps the only path forward. Um, and again, I don't see that this is likely to fail. So, I may end up just standing with the 82% of voters. And you can explain to people why you decided to cut off the OCPA as they were just getting started.
>> Thank you, Council Mario. Council Green.
>> Thank you, Council President.
I'm disappointed we didn't pass the previous item. Um, but I want to speak to why I think this ordinance um cannot accurately call itself the fiscally fiscally responsible ordinance.
>> Fiscal responsibility is not about arbitrary numbers on a balance sheet.
It's about what the money buys for the capabilities of the organization.
So, if you're going to talk to Portlanders and you're going to ask them if they want to open up their wallets to issue another housing bond, the thing they will tell you is maybe, but I want to know that you're using the dollars that we currently have wisely to deliver the highest priority needs for the city.
And so, when we've got a balance of funds here that has not yet been budgeted, it is there. It is funible. it can be used for broad uses. And we're saying also, I know we just asked you to pass a parks levy, but we're going to immediately cut a bunch of parks bureau capability uh because we want to keep some dollars arbitrarily in a balance that we may or may not have uh put to a use that the mayor would propose in his budget that's aligned with Portlanders values. That's a really hard sell and I think a lot of Portlanders can see right through it.
And so fiscal, I don't use fiscal responsibility. I use fiscal stewardship because it's about using the the financial balances you have to steward and transform that into capabilities for the city of Portland. And our ordinance had more capability that it preserved for the city of Portland. Um, and I think it's a huge slap in the face to Portlanders when they're going to see those capabilities in their parks bureau, which public safety, parks, boom, those are the top two priorities when you pull Portlanders. And some Portlanders will prioritize one or the other over, you know, depending upon their politics and where they are in the district. But those are the two things.
And so what this ordinance is going to do is it's going to validate deep cuts in the parks bureau. Full stop.
and it's going to do so by saying we're not comfortable using some money that we could have used that we want to maybe hold for for um for a rainy day later.
Um it's a choice, but I needed to name that. Simply not accurate to say this was the more fiscally responsible package because it's not just about this one budget act supplemental budget item and it's not just about the next budget that we pass. It's about what is the volume of funds that will flow through our city as a result of voters choices over the next five years. And colleagues, I am deeply concerned that when we ask Portlanders to say yes to a parks levy again, they're going to say no because of this action. I am deeply concerned that when we ask Portlanders or regional uh metro voters to say yes to renewal of the SHS, they're going to say no. And I'm deeply concerned that when we asked them to issue another bond for housing bonds, they're going to say no because I remember this moment when you guys uh got wrapped around the axle of a matter of $4 million.
And that resulted in fewer hours at a rec center. That resulted in the lawn growing a little too high at a park. And that resulted to uh slower uh response times in our public safety system.
Voters do remember. Um, I'll also note that uh legislative intent matters and a lot of the work that happened last week was about breaking a line of continuity from Clark 1 in the budget process that didn't even talk about loaning. It was just a straight let's go after the OCP funds that evolved into a loan concept to draw down contingency reserves today to backfill by the OCPA. But the legislative intent was still we don't need all that money. So that is a signal that's being sent to that incoming director. And when we talk about the OCPA's capabilities, as councelor Canal articulated, it was very very important to break that legislative intent. And we did that by amending the budget uh amending this ordinance last week. We struck the reliance on the OCPA. We instead replaced it upon with a broad um underspend concept across all of our bureaus. So, uh, we when we when we tell voters and when we finally hire that director, I don't want that director to face any pressure at all from our mayor and our city administrator to underspend to validate this because that's not what voters wanted. And so, we now have in the legislative record that there is no expectation for that because all bureaus are up for the same uh backfill concept.
Um, PF interest is going to is going to be there as well. So, it's unfortunate that we frankly took the fiscally irresponsible position uh to not spend PF money today and so we're going to gamble a little bit on some unspend. We did that in the fall towel last last year, by the way. There was sort of a line item that said quote e economic efficiency or efficiency savings. It was never grounded in anything except for hopes and dreams. And what happened? We ended up spending up short. And so, you'll have to excuse me if I have a little lack of confidence in the fiscal responsibility lens that sometimes comes before this council. And so I'm reclaiming that here and articulating what it really means. Um, so I don't know how I'm going to vote on this. I've got to think about it. But I need to make it very crystal clear that the amended version is a significant improvement on what was filed because we did strike the reliance on the OCPA.
However subtle it was, it's still traced back to a legislative intent that was there from the very beginning. Um, so we broke that. So I thank my colleagues for voting for that. Um, so now we have a hedge here today. Um unfortunately what however this decision goes today and whatever the resolution this final action is will restore fewer capabilities of Portlanders even though we could have afforded to do more and so uh Mr. Schnore if you're still watching I apologize on behalf of this body that we didn't do more and so you have every right to be upset with this body. That's it for now.
>> Thank you councelor Green. Councelor Kel.
>> Yeah. Um, I want to take the chance to thank four of my colleagues. Um, actually five. Uh, I'll start with you, Council President, um, for putting up the amendment last week because, as I mentioned, this this to me really did address my primary concern. Um, the thing that was a red line that could not be crossed. Now, it's a question of do I think this is good or bad, not a question of do I think it's legal or not. And I really want to just uh, appreciate the work that you did on that. I also want to thank councilors Zimmerman and Ryan for not joining the as co-sponsors on this. I don't know what happened there. I don't know why and I don't need to know. Um but I appreciate it. Um it was noticed. Uh and I also want to thank my my district 2 colleague uh councelor Ple Guiney as well as one of my favorite people on the council as well, councelor Novik, uh for um voting for the amendment last time.
Um, I I appreciate that that was engaged with in good faith and um and eventually we're able to but by all of my colleagues, by the way, and we're able to um get to a place where two of you were able to to vote for it and support it. I, as I said, I no longer have the legal concern. I no longer have the sort of existential concern that was raised around it personally. And I I think the same thing I said earlier about, you know, I I would ask that some of my colleagues who may be disappointed if I vote yes on this understand that I also have the same message about my opinion as to when it's um crossing the line or not. Um the other way in in the same uh on the same topic of whether 2-10006 is um violated by this. I no longer think it is. So, with that, I'm, you know, I don't think we're we're sitting here letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think what we're doing here is deciding um whether or not it's worth taking a chance on some fiscal responsibility um to save jobs. Um I think it is. I thought it was in the last one. I think it is on this one as well. So, I wanted to to get that on the record as well before we get into this vote. Thanks.
Thank you, councelor Canelo. Councelor Smith.
>> Thank you, Council President. First, I want to thank Council Marillo for the amendment that she put forward and I truly do believe that she put a good faith amendment forward and I appreciate that.
But I too stand with the 82% of voters to allow the mayor to break all ties on all matters before council.
>> That's 58%.
Today we face a decision decision that isn't just about line items or faceless numbers on sophisticated accounting ledgers. Our decision today is about the men and women who wake up every single morning to keep Portland moving safe and clean.
I am talking specifically about the janitors, our public safety workers, and our street sweepers.
Over the past few weeks, my office, we've heard the anxious voices of our city employees, people who work tirelessly in our parks and across our public safety and community programs.
These voices are our neighbors. These voices are our parents trying to pay rent, feed their families, and keep health care coverage for their kids. The thought of handing layoff notices to hundreds of dedic dedicated public servants when we have a viable, compassionate path forward is something I simply cannot support.
supporting the allocation of 9.96 million in general fund under spend as a close the gap remedy is both practical and fiscally responsible and it's a solution and a moral imperative.
Let me be clear. This funding source allows us to protect our core workforce and stripping a single dollar away from our primary climate grant commitments or vital community investments is egregious.
We cannot deliver on our promise to this city if we dismantle the very workforce required to execute our mission in pursuit of illusion of a perfect future savings.
Stripping away frontline staff, emergency support specialists, and essential workers would leave our neighborhoods underserved when they need us the most.
So, I will join my colleague, Councelor Clark, in favor of voting for this remedy for our workers, for our families, and for our strength of the entire city. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, Councelor Smith. Councelor Zimmerman.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um before I do comments to the ordinance, um I just want to direct some concerns to the city administrator that hearing about I I'll just say controversy or unclear guidelines within the bumping world is something that's concerning.
Bumping between different unions, not bumping within a union. I would ask for your attention on that matter to make sure that we are upholding all of the correct laws and rights and responsibilities. Um, as a as a young worker and asked me a long time ago, I thought that was going to be my reality at one point. That really makes it a lot worse when it's confusing. So, I think we need your attention on that. Uh, because it it is something to be told by the by the leadership of a bunch of work groups that they have concerns on it because generally they're able to help navigate that for their members and to not have that part is a concern. I would love your attention there. But um so thank you and and moving toward the sponsors of of this um ordinance, those that were on it. Uh, you know, I looked at your exhibit, you know, city operations, Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland Fire and Rescue, Human Resources, Finance Office, the Office of Equity, Parks and Recreation, Portland Police Bureau, Bureau of Transportation, and the Water Bureau. And that's 30 FTE that this ordinance is restoring. And I appreciate your uh doggedness uh to those sponsors who stayed on some of these corrections that you noticed during the budget cycle. And I believe you worked with the administration on a number of these items where um some you know oversightes or mistakes or whatever the right word would be occurred in the original grouping and and it sounds like you put together that. So, I I recognize that this ordinance isn't as large of a restore as the other the previous one, but I I guess I'm not losing the thread that I think this is a really a positive move.
I was very concerned during the budget on those um police training uh opportunities, the the the support staff that keeps our public safety fabric uh woven. and uh councelor Clark and Smith and Novik and Pearl Guini, I appreciate you you having a focus on that. I think you've rounded it out. So, I I am approaching this as in a positive manner. I'm approaching this as a restore. I'm approaching this as something that Portlanders should have faith in. I wish that some of the media over the last couple of days would note that um there were public safety improvements in both ordinances, and I'm not sure why that's not being the case.
I I recognize also um I appreciate your comments, councelor Canal. You are recognizing that an amendment occurred and changed this one and I I hold that because there has been a little bit in some of the comments a little bit of both sidedness in terms of what this means. Either this is or it isn't taking money from one fund or another. And I think you made that clear. Um and and your comments aren't lost on me. And Uh we've all been on the losing end of something we wanted to pass. I certainly have been. It is emotional. Um but I don't want that emotion or that fervor. I mean, I noticed there are certain certain members in the in the in the body here who who who walked out um after one of the amendments passed. But there are there excuse me, one of the ordinance, excuse me, failed. But there is another ordinance that is going to pass and keep some of their members here. And I I'm disappointed by that because it seems like maybe it was there's this strange idea that only one of these was doing some restore. So, um I'll be supportive of this. It's been challenging. I I do appreciate the restoration list that's come forward. I think it's hard to figure out uh 7,28 positions in terms of what is the right thing. I get it. That's a that is a heavy lift in a lot of different bureaus. So to those sponsors, appreciate that. For those of you who are recognizing the change and where this is coming from and where it's not coming from, I appreciate your comments and uh I'll be supportive. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council Zimmerman. Councelor Ryan.
>> Uh thank you, Council President.
A lot has been said. This is the fourth time this has been discussed, and it's evolved.
I've agreed with both sides at times and disagreed with both sides and you know good people can agree and disagree. My hope going forward in the next phase of realignment is that we are inspired by a vision.
We're inspired by a vision on where we're going as an organization and who's who is charged to improve our services. That's what Portlanders want.
and thanks for allowing me to stare at you. Cab you've um you're getting your sea legs under you. You still haven't been here that long. So this will be your first year to really be fully involved in a budget process and I trust you.
So how does this work match a focused strategic plan?
So it can get less personal but more focused on a strategy on where we're going.
We all want more certainty. I think both sides would agree with that on this issue.
So after a lot of compromise myself, yes, there was a lot of compromise. I can thank in particular counselors Purto Guinea. We got to smile right now. Um Novik, uh Clark and specifically um it wasn't easy for us to get on the same page. So, I think it's important for people listening to know that there's compromise within the ordinance that I'm supporting. So, compromise is not as simple as sometimes it's um portrayed up here.
Anyway, I remain a supporter of the much evolved Clark ordinance which is now before us as 223. Thanks.
>> Thank you, councelor Ryan, councelor Pleini.
>> Thank you, Council President. And thank you to every single co of my colleagues on this dis who has worked at some point over this very long process to try to find a way to restore some of these positions.
And to our city employees who have uh sat with us over a long period of instability for them as we debate their livelihoods.
We heard during the discussion of the last agenda item that at this point there is little difference in terms of implementability and funding between ordinances 222 and 223. In fact, come spring, much of the many different dollar sources we have talked about are somewhat funible because these are funding sources that we use to address shortfalls that arise by the spring and projected budget shortfalls as we enter into next year's budget. So, when we peel back all the rhetoric, what we truly have before us is a question of scale.
City workers and their unions, city management and much of this council agree that there are jobs that never should have been on the cuts list this year. We have been trying to restore those positions. I have been trying to restore those positions and the services that the individuals, the people in these positions provide for months now.
There are life safety cuts that were not restored during the budget process. the life safety concerns in my district were addressed and I feel some obligation to support my colleagues who are trying to do the same for Portlanders who live in the parts of town that they represent.
I will say, as I've said in our discussions before, that I very simply wish we could restore all of the amazing work that our city employees do, all of the services that Portlanders rely on that were cut in June.
I also don't want to be faced making double those cuts next year. And as I stated the last time we were up here, it would lead to double the cuts because we're using money that would otherwise be available next year.
I'm hopeful that we will finally have the opportunity to restore some of these positions today to provide certainty to our city employees who have been dealing with this whiplash to ensure that city employees who are laid off have health care for long enough after their layoff that they can keep appointments that are on the books, hopefully find new employment and not have a lapse in healthcare at all. These are real tangible impacts we're talking about to people's lives.
I'll note that I think we should bake that into our work whenever we have layoffs related to budget cuts or changes in program priorities.
There are really critical positions that many people have been trying to restore for months. I hope we have the opportunity to do that today. I'll be voting yes. Thank you colleagues.
>> Thank you councelor Purleini. Councelor Coy, >> thank you. I would like to acknowledge and thank those who worked hard on amending this ordinance. Um, so it no longer names specific funds and now will present options across general fund bureau under spending. Um, thank you council president for leading that amendment and bringing it and having your name on it. And I also want to uh thank councelor Canal for the work that you did to get that to where it was even even if your name wasn't on that. I saw you being collaborative and working hard. And um also want to thank councelor Pleine for your work in those conversations. They weren't always easy, but thank you for having them. Um, I was clear that I needed to see a few more programs added to the restoration list to be able to vote yes for this. Spoiler alert, this is going to pass without my vote. If that wasn't the case, I might reconsider. Um, but wanted to explain that while I plan to vote no, I still have appreciation for the work that was done along the way and the amending that happened.
>> Thank you, Councelor Coalain. Councelor Smith, last word.
Oh, never mind. Councelor Zimmerman, >> not the last word at all. Councelor Smith, all yours.
>> Were you up? Councelor Zimmerman before me. Okay. Thank you, Council President.
I just want to say that um I think we all worked really, really hard to try to come to a conclusion that we all could be very proud of. And I literally decided my position in less than 24 hours.
And I think that councelor Zimmerman said it best. We couldn't save all the jobs. And when I also learned that the 30 additional jobs from the other ordinance, from the other amendment, uh 10 were actually vacant.
That kind of helped me to um to know where I was going to support.
But council president, I really would like you to address there were a couple of people who kind of impuged our city administrator and they said that the departments were being pressured by him and to underspend to be able to afford this.
And I know you're used to telling me that I'm impuging folks and I accept it.
But this is a little different. When we start saying that our administration and our executives and accusing them of pressuring our employees, I don't think it's right. You know, we can say what we want to say about us, but let's try not to impugn the people who are responsible for helping to run this city.
um adding those 30 additional employees back to work and restoring those. That was important to me and I feel good about it and I feel good about uh being able to say to some of those folks that now they can they can breathe a little bit. They will be able to have those surgeries that they needed to get for their family and they'll be able to send their kids to college. So, thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Councelor Smith. Councelor, sorry, my queue moved around. Councelor Mario.
>> Uh, thank you, Council President. I just want to state and reiterate part of what councelor Green said earlier that I think we have made the legislative intent abundantly clear so that if this passes today, um, because legally I don't think that the amendment actually fully protects the OCPA. Um, I think that if you're talking about underspend, that's going to apply to a lot of things. But I hope that administration, you are listening to us loud and clear and know that we will come for you in ways we have never come for you before >> if you touch the OCPA because that was the legislative intent of this.
>> Council President, is that a threat? Is that a threat when say you're going to come for somebody? Say what you mean, ma'am. Say what you mean because that is not appropriate. That is not appropriate. I'm sorry that you don't understand metaphors, counselor Smith, but some of us do.
>> I think that it is really >> Please take the tone like the temperature down just in general, everybody. This is not what I signed up for. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council President. I would appreciate that. But also, you need to stop people when they interrupt others.
That is what's going to take the temperature down.
>> Avalos, thank you.
>> The OCPA again was voted through with 82% of the vote. So, we put an amendment to remove that language out. I expect that the legislative intent is very clear and that should this pass, we are going to defend it the way that Portlanders are expecting us to. Also, I don't really know why any counselors up here are talking about people who have to leave the room, including some of the city employees who are frankly very heartbroken who had to get up and leave because they know that a bunch of their friends are about to be laid off. I think they get to leave the room. I also think I get to leave the room because I brought forward an amendment that I did not enjoy bringing at all. And this council body constantly says that they want compromise and then we work with you and we bring things forward that are absolutely tough pills for us to swallow and you do not move at all. So I never want to hear about who is unable to move or unable to compromise ever again because I brought forward something I hated to work with you. Thank you.
>> But I will be voting for this because I am worried about the city employees and I think that we should save some of the core services that we have left. But moving forward, if this touches the OCPA, I will make I will do everything in my power legislatively to protect it moving forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council Mario. We're going to go councelor Green, Councelor Clark, and then we're moving to a vote. I'm limiting debate to those who are currently in the queue, including councelor Avalos.
There we go. Thank you, Council Green.
Go. Thank Thank you, Council President.
Um, Council Me, thank you for uh anticipating what I want went back into the queue to speak to, which was just really making sure uh that we have clarified the legislative intent of the history of this um item, the Dumpy One amendment amended out the specific particular emphasis on the OCPA. And so that is the legislative intent on what finally passes. And because of that, I am I'm willing to vote yes on this. I also don't think it's good to seed the responsibility and obligation of this body to come to a final conclusion on its actions to a mayor tiebreak. I know that there are some of my colleagues who think that that's something we should lie upon all the time, but I do not. I think it's wrong and I think it's an abdication of our duty and it's a recognition of the failure of this body to find resolution before matters before it. I will be voting yes. Um on the on the question of oversight, it's not a threat to say based upon the outcome of this councilors will and the city administrator should expect uh oversight action. That is not personal. That is not a threat. That is sort of us declaring that listen, the charter speaks to the body having an oversight obligation. And there's a lot of areas where we have adopted policies like the Zenith franchise agreement uh investigation was insufficient.
We should have probably done some follow-up on that. Maybe more to come.
Um so this is a not a one-off relationship between passing an action and then it just goes into the ether and then it gets executed. There is a there's a reciprocal and ongoing interaction between council to make sure that we're actually doing the things that we say we're going to do in our legislative uh rulemaking or legislative intent when we pass laws. Um that is a normal feature of of a healthy democracy and that is something I will continue to press on and focus on. And again, I'll remind voters or I guess voters, but also remind my colleagues who've all seen the metro polling data that, you know, some 700 odd respondents to a survey said they want to see a lot more oversight on everything. Everything from water filtration plants to motor center conversations to housing uh monies and OCPA. So, expect it. It's coming. Thank you. I will vote yes. Thank you, Councelor Green. Councelor Avalos.
>> Okay, Councelor Clark.
>> Thank you, Council President. Um, I really appreciate the deep feelings, the passions that have been expressed here today and the frustrations. I share some of those, but I recognize that deep passion and I'm concerned that sometimes that deep passion uh has led to impuging the motives of some people uh including myself on Clark 1. And I think I said from the very beginning my motives were pure. So um I would appreciate you believing me. Um but I do think that we have an opportunity right now to show a council win. uh that might even improve our our rating uh in the public. Um I also want to say that um I think the voters do want accountability and transparency. I know that's clear and that's something that we'll all strive for. I also want to echo Councelor Ryan's comments. I really appreciated them that I look forward to a more strategic focus and our decision-m um that we can address our shared priorities in uh in a different way uh all pulling together in the same direction. So with that, um, thank you so much colleagues for an excellent conversation and I would appreciate your eye vote.
>> Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councelor Avalos, last word and then we'll move to a vote.
Thank you.
What a frustrating conversation this has been. And before we take this vote, I just want to reflect what I'm seeing on how this process went.
Over the last several weeks, we've all said that we wanted to save services and protect workers and find a path forward.
That became clear. It became clear that we as a body did not agree with the mayor's proposed budget that he cut several of the services that we believe our constituents deserve.
That is clear that we have agreement on.
But I need to be honest that I do not understand uh how people are defining compromise because to me compromise means that everyone moves. It means that you don't get everything you want and neither do I. It definitely did not in that last bill. And it means that we incorporate one another's priorities because finding common ground matters more than winning every disagreement. And I just am so frustrated to be told that uh people who uh were not willing to work with us to talk to us uh that they were the ones who were compromising and not us. So absolutely reject um the calls of um or the statements um that people have been compromising.
I don't agree. I think what we fought for was pretty simple. I was fighting for parks workers who want to keep our trails and pools and community centers and natural areas open. I was fighting for the unarmed PS3 responders who will allow sworn officers to focus on higher priority emergencies. I was fighting for the analysts and technicians and frontline workers who are keeping the city functioning every day.
But I also was fighting for something that I continued believe is more than just good governance. We before we permanently eliminate people's jobs, we need to actually understand what those jobs do. And that's why I'm frustrated that this is the now the ordinance that's in front of us because the key thing that it misses is any kind of analysis or accountability that the administration is not going to next year put more jobs in front of us without giving us the why, without telling us the impact of those jobs lost and without giving us as the counselors who represent the constituents who are the ones who are telling us about those impacts to have a genuine opportunity to influence and impact that budget before it gets passed. I think that is what we were attempting to do here. The administration itself acknowledged that the process was rushed. They acknowledged that some positions were mistakenly eliminated and they acknowledge that given more time they would have made different recommendations. So I think that it's unacceptable that this current ordinance that we are debating uh doesn't have those protections for the future.
I also want to speak briefly about OCPA and say that uh one I'll echo what my colleagues have said that yeah I'm glad that it doesn't literally say OCPA but this does not protect the OCPA. I think that's foolish to uh to look at voters in the eye and tell them that they can't see what they can't see with their own eyes which is that you are depending on money that we do not know even exists.
that you are um essentially put you are putting pressure on OCPA. So let's just call it that.
That is my concern. That is my continued concern with this. And I'll also say that during our discussion of the settlement for Manny Clark's family, I heard that broad agreement around this dis that we need to do culture change within our public safety system. I agree with that. But culture change doesn't happen just because we say that we want it. It happens when we build and protect independent accountability. And that's exactly what voters were promised when they voted for what became the OCPA.
Community members spent years designing it and they spent time coming to talk to us over the last few weeks about their concerns that these proposals were going to undermine that work. And I believe that we have an obligation to listen to that and that's what we tried to do in offering our our alternative. But yet here we are again with the same thing, which I don't understand how you could possibly say that uh you all compromised on something that you didn't bother to work with us on. I I I don't agree. So I'm really sick of hearing that. Um I think that uh compromise needs to be both ways. Um ultimately the structural challenges uh facing the city are going to remain with this vote no matter what.
Um, there are a lot more workers that we are losing because we chose to do this instead of the other ordinance. And I, you know, I want to reflect back on what I heard councelor Novik say uh last week or whenever that was basically saying, "Yeah, if the police spend, then we'll take that, too." I hope that's the case cuz let me remind you that the police are currently sitting on 70 unfilled positions while we're cutting 200.
And when it comes time for the spring towel and they per their own police staffing report that shows that they're clearly not going to fill those 70 positions by the spring towel, I hope y'all are ready to take that money and protect other workers because we're saving a bunch of money in that budget and cutting a lot of essential services.
And I I don't know how you could possibly say that you're fiscally responsible if that's the case. So, uh I really don't know how to feel about this. Um, I'm frustrated that this also became a game about how we can get the mayor to vote. Uh, I'm not even going to get into that because my blood pressure is already too high about this conversation, but I think that as I've said before, I think it's very weird to abdicate your duties as legislators and expect that the mayor come in to save you. And uh, I hope you know that if you have a Mandani mayor in the future, you ain't going to like that. So, uh, the tables can turn. And if that's the precedent that we're going to set, I I don't believe that uh people understand that that could not go in their favor.
But I guess we'll see. I'm disappointed in where we're landing today. Uh but I will not um I will never regret standing up for the people that we were fighting for in this ordinance, standing up for police accountability. I honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. It seems like the tides are turning in that there this is going to pass without needing a mayor's vote. Um, I I think my issue with voting for this is uh not wanting to reward this kind of behavior. Um, because this has been gross. Uh, but I I do care about these jobs. I care about um these these services that uh are being cut, but I'm disappointed that we lost so many more. And uh I I just I I really feel that we've done Portlanders a disservice by this display. And I'm very frustrated. That's all.
Thank you, Councelor Avalos. Rebecca, can we please call the role?
>> Calling the vote on document number 2026-223.
Coamelain.
>> No.
>> Mario.
I suspect I'm going to be watching very carefully to protect the OCPA later on down the line, but I share the same concerns that councelor Avalos has. I'm also torn because I care about the city employees that this saves. Um so because of that I will be a yes.
>> Novik >> I >> Clark >> I >> Green >> Expect oversight. I >> Zimmerman >> I >> Avalos >> no >> Smith >> I >> Canel >> I >> Purlein >> I >> Ryan >> I >> Duny >> I >> and the ordinance passes as amended with 10 I and two nay votes. colleagues, as the last item on our uh agenda for this afternoon or this morning, uh we are recessed until 2:00 tomorrow afternoon.
Thank you everybody.
Hey.
Related Videos
4:12
Political Science
COP27- Jagan Chapagain, Secretary General of the IFRC
AfDBGroup
104 views•2022-11-10
5:08
Political Science
The ABC spends a day on the campaign trail with WA Opposition leader Shane Love | ABC News
abcnewsaustralia
2K views•2025-02-24
10:10
Political Science
S. Jaishankar Says India Facing Challenges of Terrorism Amid Rising Security Concerns
newsxlive
678 views•2025-05-09
1:00:00
Political Science
Mayor addresses decrease in violent crime in 2024
WMAR2news
237 views•2025-01-07
1:45:09
Political Science
Strengthening Human Rights Through Youth Engagement
NationalEndowmentforDemocracy
306 views•2019-12-10
0:56
Political Science
Jeremy Corbyn speaking at event organised by the independent group of Bradford
Overseastimesnews
286 views•2026-04-22
23:06
Political Science
LIVE: Trump to Non-Citizens, "Register in 30 Days or Get Deported" | Firstpost America | N18G
Firstpost
3K views•2025-04-14
25:16
Political Science
Day 809 - Saudi prince tells ToI Israel needs to start being 'normal'
TimesofIsrael
4K views•2025-12-23
Trending
13:38
Law
WOW! Judge TURNS THE TABLES on Trump in His OWN $10B LAWSUIT!!!
MeidasTouch
197K views•2026-07-23
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23