Recorded votes · Reviewed September 18, 2026
How District 3’s councilors voted
Challengers have no Council votes; only sitting councilors appear here. That is not a judgment.
Where they split
16 issues where they split
A split means at least one Yes and one No among Angelita Morillo, Steve Novick and Tiffany Koyama Lane. Absences and committee seats never count as a split. Most divided first.
Budget prioritiesSplit on 4 of 6 votes
All six councilors: They differed over which services to protect, how many jobs to restore and whether to use climate-fund interest, police-oversight funds or reserves.
Council powers, offices & oversightSplit on 3 of 4 votes
All six councilors: Novick opposed the initial office-budget increase and the annual priority process. Zimmerman opposed the committee reorganization. The housing-funds inquiry split Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green from Novick, Clark and Zimmerman.
Water bills & Bull RunSplit on 3 of 3 votes
All six councilors: Green opposed the bonds but backed the water-rate increase. Koyama Lane and Zimmerman backed the bonds but opposed the rate increase.
Zenith & climate oversightSplit on 3 of 3 votes
All six councilors: Three distinct choices: investigate the old agreement, add public enforcement, and approve a transfer to the new owner.
Police accountabilitySplit on 2 of 6 votes
All six councilors: All six supported the initial board. Novick joined Clark and Zimmerman on the unsuccessful eligibility removal, but joined Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green on removing the alternate.
Climate fund & general servicesSplit on 2 of 2 votes
All six councilors: Morillo and Green opposed the amended investment plan. Morillo alone among these six opposed the May interest transfer; their later budget-restoration positions differed again.
Moda & arts venuesSplit on 2 of 2 votes
All six councilors: Different coalitions on the arena negotiating framework and the PSU/Keller planning strategy.
Police staffing & property enforcementSplit on 2 of 2 votes
All six councilors: Novick, Clark and Zimmerman supported both measures. Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green opposed both.
Parks, trees & public landSplit on 1 of 5 votes
All six councilors: There was broad agreement on the final parks and forest decisions, but Koyama Lane and Morillo opposed adding conditional wording to the tree-responsibility plan.
Business support & City investmentsSplit on 1 of 4 votes
All six councilors: All six backed the business-tax exemption. Morillo opposed accepting the storefront plan; Zimmerman opposed the amended investment-policy resolution.
Homelessness & removalsSplit on 1 of 3 votes
All six councilors: A proposed $4.3 million shift from camp removals to personnel and social-service support.
Housing & developmentSplit on 1 of 3 votes
All six councilors: A split over rent-setting regulation, alongside broad support for lowering upfront housing-development costs.
Street funding & sidewalksSplit on 1 of 3 votes
All six councilors: Five of these six supported the new monthly fee; Zimmerman opposed it. Novick was the exception on the earlier sidewalk-program vote.
Children’s Levy & grant choicesSplit on 1 of 2 votes
All six councilors: Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green backed reconsideration. Novick, Clark and Zimmerman opposed the remand. All six ultimately approved the grants.
Arts tax & household costsSplit on its one vote
All six councilors: Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green backed the reform. Novick, Clark and Zimmerman voted no.
ICE & local authoritySplit on its one vote
All six councilors: Clark joined Morillo, Green and Koyama Lane; Novick objected to the precedent; Zimmerman was absent.
Agreed on every vote
- Animal welfare & business rules1 decision
- Campaign finance & elections2 decisions
- Campesinos Boulevard & public recognition1 decision
- Firearms in public buildings1 decision
- Infrastructure & maintenance1 decision
- Labor contracts & City workers5 decisions
- Natural psychedelics1 decision
- Permitting & development costs2 decisions
- Privacy, surveillance & AI3 decisions
- Sanctuary & officer identification3 decisions
- Traffic safety & 82nd Avenue2 decisions
- Unarmed crisis response2 decisions
- Where they agreed2 decisions
The full record
Every issue, with reasons
All 29 Council topics since January 2025. Open one for the question, our reading of each councilor’s record, and every matched vote with its stated reason and the City record.
Budget prioritiesWhat did they protect when money ran short? · 6 decisions
The councilors disagreed about which services to restore and which money should pay for them. Their votes also changed between the larger and smaller proposals.
In May 2025, Council moved about $1.9 million in proposed new police funding to park maintenance. In June and July 2026, the debates concerned restoring jobs and services facing cuts. Funding could come from interest earned by the climate fund, expected unspent police-oversight money, or reserves set aside for unexpected costs. July’s smaller plan used about $12.2 million in one-time money to preserve 30 positions and restore services.
Our reading of the record
Favored restoring more services; rejected July’s smaller plan
In 2025, supported moving about $1.9 million in proposed new police funding to park maintenance.
In 2026, backed using climate-fund interest to restore parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and other city jobs. Opposed using money expected to go unspent by the police-accountability office, which oversees police misconduct.
In July, supported the larger plan to restore services. When it failed, voted against the smaller plan funded with reserves and other one-time money.
Favored restoring more services while keeping police-oversight money
In 2025, supported moving proposed new police funding to park maintenance.
In June 2026, helped propose Services First: a plan using about $16 million in climate-fund interest, plus other money, to restore parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and other city jobs. Opposed using money budgeted for investigating police misconduct that the accountability office was expected not to spend.
In July, backed the larger plan, then the smaller plan using reserves and other one-time money. Warned against later paying for it with police-oversight money.
Supported several ways to pay for a smaller set of services
In 2025, supported moving proposed new police funding to park maintenance.
In June 2026, opposed the larger plan to restore parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and other city jobs. Proposed using $8.42 million in climate-fund interest for a smaller mix of services and a business-tax reserve. Also supported using money expected to go unspent by the police-accountability office for police and fire services.
In July, supported the smaller plan to restore services using reserves and other one-time money.
The 6 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
May 21, 2025
Move proposed new police funding to parks
Avalos 1 redirected about $1.9 million of proposed new police funding to parks maintenance. Passed 7–5 in the May 2025 preliminary budget process.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Put the proposed increase into parks
Voted to redirect the proposed new police allocation to parks maintenance.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Put the proposed increase into parks
Seconded and supported Avalos’ parks amendment.
Their stated case. Distinguished redirecting an increase from laying off officers and pointed to funded police vacancies.
May 21 budget · clerk’s amendment roll calls (external)Willamette Week · parks and police debate (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Put the proposed increase into parks
Supported the parks amendment despite wanting a larger police budget.
Their stated case. Said he could not accept increasing police funding while parks maintenance faced deep cuts.
May 21 budget · clerk’s amendment roll calls (external)Willamette Week · parks and police debate (external)
This was a choice about a proposed increase, not a vote to lay off existing officers. The police chief warned it would affect recruitment and services; supporters disputed the staffing impact.
June 10, 2026
Use climate-fund interest for broad service restoration
The Services First amendment used about $16 million in climate-fund interest, plus other funds, for parks, unarmed police support, fire rescue and core city staff. Failed 6–6.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Restore a broad set of services
Backed Services First: climate-fund interest and other funds for parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and core city staff.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Restore a broad set of services
Co-proposed Services First with Green and Avalos, then voted for it.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Rejected the larger climate-interest package
Voted no on Services First. Compare the separate funding proposals below to see which alternatives this councilor supported.
The final amendment used $16,034,349 in PCEF interest. Early promotional material described a $16.5 million version. This package included public-safety services as well as other jobs.
June 10, 2026
Use expected police-oversight underspending for public safety
Clark 2 proposed $7.68 million for police support, training and fire rescue: draw contingency now, then replenish it with expected police-accountability office underspending in spring 2027. Failed 5–6, with one absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Keep the oversight funding in place
Rejected using expected police-accountability office underspending to reimburse the public-safety restoration package.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Keep the oversight funding in place
Rejected using expected police-accountability office underspending to reimburse the public-safety restoration package.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Use expected oversight underspending
Supported the $7.68 million plan for police support, training and fire rescue, backed by expected underspending in the oversight office.
The tradeoff concerned using money allocated to the new oversight office. The proposal did not abolish that office, and expected underspending was a forecast.
June 10, 2026
Use a smaller amount of climate interest for selected restorations
Pirtle-Guiney–Novick 4 proposed $8.42 million in climate-fund interest for selected restorations and a business-tax reserve, alongside other funding. Failed 3–8, with one absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Rejected this smaller package
Voted no on Pirtle-Guiney–Novick 4 after supporting Services First.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Rejected this smaller package
Voted no on Pirtle-Guiney–Novick 4 after supporting Services First.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Proposed the smaller climate-interest plan
Co-proposed and moved the $8.42 million climate-interest package after voting against Services First.
This was a separate package from Services First and Clark 2. It included police training, 12 unarmed support positions, fire rescue, gardens, worker benefits and selected core staff.
June 17, 2026
Adopt the 2026–27 annual budget
After the competing restoration amendments failed, the annual budget passed 9–2, with one abstention. Zimmerman was the only no among these six incumbents.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Adopted the overall budget
Voted yes on the final annual budget after the competing restoration amendments failed.
Ordinance 192195 · annual budget and final roll call (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Adopted the overall budget
Voted yes on the final annual budget after the competing restoration amendments failed.
Ordinance 192195 · annual budget and final roll call (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Adopted the overall budget
Voted yes on the final annual budget after the competing restoration amendments failed.
Ordinance 192195 · annual budget and final roll call (external)
Adopting the overall budget did not mean endorsing every cut. Council returned to service restorations in July.
July 22, 2026
Restore services using one-time funds
Ordinance 192207 used about $12.2 million, including contingency reserves, to preserve 30 positions and restore services. Passed 10–2.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Larger plan only
Co-sponsored and backed the larger restoration plan using climate-fund interest. After it failed, voted no on the smaller package.
Ordinance 192207 · amended budget and final roll call (external)Both budget proposals · roll calls (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Larger plan, then smaller fallback
Co-sponsored and backed the larger plan. After it failed, voted for the smaller package.
Her stated condition. Warned that she would fight any subsequent move to pay for it from the police-accountability office’s budget.
Ordinance 192207 · amended budget and final roll call (external)Both budget proposals · roll calls (external)OPB · budget debate (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Smaller package only
Co-sponsored the smaller service-restoration package. Voted against the larger alternative, then for the smaller package.
Why he opposed the larger plan. Said Services First spent money the city should be counting on to balance next year’s already tough budget, and that restoring cuts to police training, such as de-escalation and emergency driving, was essential.
Ordinance 192207 · amended budget and final roll call (external)Both budget proposals · roll calls (external)Novick · emailed response to the Lab’s questions (external)
One-time funding did not resolve the recurring budget gap. The final package differed from amendments; a no vote does not prove opposition to every funded service.
Both budget proposals · roll calls (external)OPB · budget debate (external)
Compare both the services and the funding source. Supporting park maintenance, police services or climate spending did not put a councilor on the same side of every budget vote.
Zenith & climate oversightWho should enforce Zenith’s obligations? · 3 decisions
Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green supported giving residents a right to enforce the pipeline agreement in court. Novick, Clark and Zimmerman opposed that condition and supported the ownership transfer.
Zenith operates a fuel terminal in Northwest Portland. Its agreement with the City allows fuel pipelines in public streets and sets conditions on that use. Council considered investigating how the agreement was granted, allowing residents to sue over violations, and transferring the agreement to a new owner. These were three separate decisions.
Our reading of the record
Supported an investigation and a right for residents to sue
Supported investigating Zenith’s pipeline agreement in 2025. In 2026, supported allowing residents to sue to enforce its conditions. After that condition failed, opposed transferring the agreement to the new owner.
Helped propose a right for residents to enforce the agreement
Supported investigating Zenith’s pipeline agreement. With Green, proposed allowing residents to sue over violations of its conditions. After Council rejected that condition, opposed transferring the agreement to the new owner.
Opposed the investigation; supported the transfer
In 2025, sought to remove disputed introductory language and attachments, then opposed investigating Zenith’s pipeline agreement. In 2026, opposed giving residents an added right to sue over its conditions and supported transferring the agreement to the new owner.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
March 19, 2025
Demand an investigation of Zenith’s franchise
Resolution 37702 sought investigation of potential franchise violations and City permitting, with administrative pauses where legally available. Passed 11–1; Novick voted no.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Backed the investigation
Voted to request investigation of the franchise and City permitting process.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Backed the investigation
Voted to request investigation of the franchise and City permitting process.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Rejected the investigation resolution
Supported removing disputed preamble language and attachments, then cast the sole no on the amended resolution.
In February 2026, the City’s investigation, reviewed by outside counsel, reported no basis for franchise revocation. The 2025 allegations are not findings of wrongdoing.
September 9, 2026
Give residents a right to enforce Zenith’s franchise in court
Green–Morillo 1 would condition the transfer on allowing residents to sue to enforce the franchise. Failed 6–6.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Add residents’ right to sue
Supported making residents able to enforce the franchise in court as a condition of transfer.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Add residents’ right to sue
Co-proposed and seconded the resident-enforcement amendment with Green.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Rejected the resident-enforcement amendment
Voted against adding the citizen-suit condition to the franchise transfer.
A proposed additional enforcement mechanism for the pipeline franchise—not a vote on the state air permit or a citywide fossil-fuel ban.
September 9–16, 2026; reviewed September 18
Transfer Zenith’s pipeline franchise to the new owner
The transfer to ISQ Springer Holdings failed 5–6, with one absent. A motion to reconsider remained pending as of September 18, with the next discussion scheduled for September 23.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Reject the transfer as presented
Voted against the transfer after supporting the failed citizen-suit amendment. Reconsideration remained pending.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Reject the transfer as presented
Voted against the transfer after supporting the failed citizen-suit amendment. Reconsideration remained pending.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approve the transfer
Voted to transfer the existing pipeline franchise to ISQ Springer Holdings after the citizen-suit amendment failed.
This is an unresolved decision. The proposal transfers the existing franchise obligations; it does not itself grant a new air permit or stop terminal operations.
City investigation and outside legal review · findings (external)
The City’s February 2026 investigation and outside legal review found no basis to revoke the agreement. The transfer vote failed on September 16; reconsideration was scheduled for September 23 as of this guide’s September 18 review. None of these votes closed the terminal.
Homelessness & removalsShift spending away from clearing camps? · 3 decisions
Morillo proposed the change; Koyama Lane and Green supported it. Novick opposed it. Clark and Zimmerman were absent.
In November 2025, Council considered moving about $4.3 million from the program that clears homeless camps into a package supporting city personnel, housing, food and immigration services. The proposal failed. It would have changed spending, not repealed the criminal camping ban.
Our reading of the record
Supported moving camp-removal money to other services
Supported Morillo’s proposal to move about $4.3 million from clearing homeless camps into a package supporting personnel, housing, food and immigration services. The proposal failed.
Proposed moving camp-removal money to other services
Proposed moving about $4.3 million from clearing homeless camps into a package supporting personnel, housing, food and immigration services. Argued that repeated removals and overnight shelter were not enough. The proposal failed.
Opposed moving the camp-removal money in this proposal
Opposed moving about $4.3 million from camp removals to personnel and social-service support. Said five days was too little time to consider a major policy change and wanted a fuller debate before cutting the program.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
November 12, 2025
Shift funding away from homeless-camp removals
Morillo 1 proposed reducing the Impact Reduction Program by about $4.3 million within a package supporting personnel, housing, food and immigration services. Failed with five yes, three no and four absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Move money from removals to other services
Backed Morillo’s spending shift away from the camp-removal program toward personnel and social-service support.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Proposed the shift away from removals
Backed Morillo’s spending shift away from the camp-removal program toward personnel and social-service support.
Their stated case. Argued that repeated removals and overnight shelter were insufficient and that the city should change its approach.
Fall budget · Morillo 1 amendment roll call (external)OPB · camp-removal funding debate (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Rejected the spending shift
Voted against Morillo’s proposed $4.3 million shift from camp-removal operations to personnel and social-service support.
Their stated case. Objected to making a major policy change with five days to review it; wanted a detailed policy discussion before cutting the program.
Fall budget · Morillo 1 amendment roll call (external)OPB · camp-removal funding debate (external)
This was a spending amendment, not a vote to repeal the criminal camping ban. Green’s related Ground Score amendment did not take effect because the parent proposal failed.
August 6, 2025
Require a unified housing strategy
Council voted 11–1 to direct a unified housing strategy aligning existing City plans and agreements, including housing production, affordability and homelessness prevention.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported coordinating the City’s housing plans
Voted to require a unified strategy connecting housing production, affordability and homelessness prevention across existing plans.
Require a unified housing strategy · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported coordinating the City’s housing plans
Voted to require a unified strategy connecting housing production, affordability and homelessness prevention across existing plans.
Require a unified housing strategy · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported coordinating the City’s housing plans
Voted to require a unified strategy connecting housing production, affordability and homelessness prevention across existing plans.
Require a unified housing strategy · official record (external)
A direction to develop a strategy is not evidence that housing targets were achieved or that every later housing proposal received the same support.
December 17, 2025
Adopt the updated homelessness action plan and measures
Council adopted the updated City–County Homelessness Response System action plan and performance measures 9–3. All six incumbents in these races voted yes.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the shared action plan and performance measures
Voted to update the coordinated City–County homelessness plan and the measures used to track its progress.
Adopt the updated homelessness action plan and measures · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the shared action plan and performance measures
Voted to update the coordinated City–County homelessness plan and the measures used to track its progress.
Adopt the updated homelessness action plan and measures · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the shared action plan and performance measures
Voted to update the coordinated City–County homelessness plan and the measures used to track its progress.
Adopt the updated homelessness action plan and measures · official record (external)
The plan and performance measures did not by themselves appropriate all resources for implementation. Support also does not settle a member’s position on individual camp-removal policies.
All six also supported the broader housing strategy and City–County homelessness plan. Their agreement on those goals did not resolve how much to spend on clearing camps.
Housing & developmentWhich rules help housing—and which discourage it? · 3 decisions
Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green supported the rent-software restriction; Clark opposed it. On the separate buyer-income rule, Morillo, Novick, Green and Clark supported removing the limit; Koyama Lane and Zimmerman opposed removing it.
Council voted on restricting software that helps landlords coordinate rents, temporarily waiving some fees builders pay for public infrastructure, and removing the buyer-income limit for certain homes that already qualified for an affordable-housing fee exemption. The last change applied to homes permitted before 2026; buyers still had to live in them and meet the sale-price rules.
Our reading of the record
Supported restricting rent-setting software
Co-sponsored and supported the restriction on software that lets landlords coordinate rents. Also supported the temporary housing-construction fee waiver, but opposed removing the buyer-income limit for certain homes already receiving an affordable-housing fee exemption.
Introduced the rent-software restriction; supported the income-rule change
Introduced the restriction on software that lets landlords coordinate rents, revising it to exempt affordable housing and landlords with fewer than six units. Also supported the construction-fee waiver and removing the buyer-income limit for certain previously approved, fee-exempt homes.
Missed the rent-software vote; supported the two fee-related changes
Was absent from the final vote on restricting landlords’ rent-setting software. Supported temporarily waiving housing-construction fees and removing the buyer-income limit for certain homes already receiving an affordable-housing fee exemption.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
November 19, 2025
Restrict algorithmic rent coordination
Ordinance 192122 restricted certain rental-pricing coordination software. Passed 8–2, with two absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Co-sponsored and voted for the ban
Co-sponsored the restriction on software that coordinates rental prices between landlords, then voted to enact it.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Co-sponsored and voted for the ban
Introduced the ban and revised it after legal objections. The final ordinance exempted affordable housing and landlords with fewer than six units.
Her stated case. Argued that protecting tenants from coordinated price-setting and building more housing should happen together.
Ordinance 192122 · final roll call (external)OPB · development of the ordinance (external)Morillo’s office · November 19 remarks reported by the Mercury (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Absent
Absent from the final vote
Absent on November 19. No yes or no vote on the final ordinance.
An enacted regulation, not evidence that rents subsequently fell. Absence is not a vote against the ordinance.
July 16, 2025
Temporarily waive infrastructure charges on new housing
Ordinance 192082 created a temporary waiver of infrastructure charges for qualifying housing, aimed at encouraging 5,000 new homes. Passed 10–0; Clark and Smith were absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Backed the temporary housing fee waiver
Voted to lower upfront development costs for qualifying new housing through a temporary waiver of infrastructure charges.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Backed the temporary housing fee waiver
Voted to lower upfront development costs for qualifying new housing through a temporary waiver of infrastructure charges.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Backed the temporary housing fee waiver
Voted to lower upfront development costs for qualifying new housing through a temporary waiver of infrastructure charges.
A shared vote among the five incumbents present. Reducing development costs trades potential infrastructure revenue for an incentive to build; the vote does not establish how many homes it produced.
July 29, 2026
Remove an income test for certain fee-exempt homes
Council passed a temporary change 8–3, with one absent, removing the buyer-income test for a defined group of previously permitted homes in the affordable-housing development-charge exemption program. The program’s owner-occupancy and sale-price conditions remained distinct from the waived income test.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Opposed removing the buyer-income test
Voted against the temporary removal of the income qualification for this group of homes receiving development-charge exemptions.
Remove an income test for certain fee-exempt homes · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported widening the eligible buyer pool
Voted to remove the income qualification temporarily for the specified already-permitted homes, making it possible to sell them to a wider group of buyers.
Remove an income test for certain fee-exempt homes · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported widening the eligible buyer pool
Voted to remove the income qualification temporarily for the specified already-permitted homes, making it possible to sell them to a wider group of buyers.
Remove an income test for certain fee-exempt homes · official record (external)
This was narrower than the 2025 general housing-fee waiver. It addressed homes permitted before January 1, 2026 under the affordable-housing program and was tied to the September 2028 sunset.
These policies affect different parts of housing costs. Support for reducing construction fees does not predict a councilor’s position on rent-setting software or who should qualify for an affordable-housing benefit.
Moda & arts venuesWhich big projects—and on what terms? · 2 decisions
Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green opposed the arena terms; Novick, Clark and Zimmerman supported them. Green joined the latter three in supporting the separate performing-arts planning proposal.
Council approved proposed negotiating terms for the Moda Center arena: $120 million for renovation and $275 million for future building needs over 20 years. These were non-binding terms, not a final construction contract. A separate vote advanced plans for a new performing-arts venue at Portland State University and a smaller Keller Auditorium.
Our reading of the record
Rejected the arena terms after seeking stronger financial conditions
Supported charging the arena tenant more rent and requiring a report on what other public spending might be displaced by the deal. Then opposed the proposed Moda Center terms. Also opposed the separate plan for a new Portland State University performing-arts venue and a smaller Keller Auditorium.
Sought more financial safeguards before an arena commitment
Helped propose a report on what other public spending might be displaced by the Moda Center deal. That requirement failed; she opposed the arena terms, saying the City needed to know the funding source and public return. Also opposed the separate Portland State University and Keller Auditorium planning proposal.
Raised the proposed arena rent, then supported the terms
Won a change raising the arena tenant’s proposed annual rent from $2 million to $3.17 million, then supported the Moda Center negotiating terms. Also supported planning a new Portland State University performing-arts venue and a smaller Keller Auditorium.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
August 12, 2026
Approve the Moda negotiating framework
Resolution 37750 approved the amended, non-binding Moda Center term sheet. Passed 8–4.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Rejected the framework
Backed higher rent and a required opportunity-cost report, then voted no on the amended term sheet.
Her earlier stated concern · July 13. Said she needed to know whether and how the deal would use the voter-approved climate fund before approving a term sheet.
Resolution 37750 · final roll call and amendments (external)OPB · Koyama Lane on the funding question (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Required more financial safeguards
Co-proposed an opportunity-cost report before a financial vote. That amendment failed 6–6; she voted no on the framework.
Why she said no. Wanted the Blazers to stay, but said Council needed to know the funding source, what services would lose out and the public’s return before committing.
Resolution 37750 · final roll call and amendments (external)Green and Morillo · explanations after the vote (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Raised the rent, then approved
Won an amendment raising proposed annual rent from $2 million to $3.17 million, then voted for the framework.
Why he said yes. Called it a strong opening offer for negotiations and said he could accept a less demanding final deal.
Resolution 37750 · final roll call and amendments (external)Willamette Week · Novick’s explanation (external)
A negotiating framework, not a final construction contract. Support or opposition to this package is not a complete position on retaining the Trail Blazers.
September 9, 2026
Advance PSU and Keller performing-arts planning
Resolution 37752 advanced a new Broadway-capable venue at PSU and planning for a smaller Keller Auditorium. Passed 8–4; Green joined Clark, Novick and Zimmerman in support.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Rejected this planning direction
Voted against the resolution advancing the PSU venue and smaller-Keller planning strategy.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Rejected this planning direction
Voted against the resolution advancing the PSU venue and smaller-Keller planning strategy.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Advance the PSU/Keller plan
Voted to advance PSU venue development work and planning for a smaller Keller Auditorium.
This authorizes further planning and staff work, not the full construction budget or a final financing deal.
Compare what each vote actually committed the City to. The arena vote set negotiating terms; the performing-arts vote authorized planning rather than a full construction budget.
ICE & local authorityCharge detention-facility owners for local impacts? · 1 decision
Koyama Lane, Morillo, Green and Clark supported the fees and rules. Novick opposed them. Zimmerman was absent from the final vote.
Council considered charging owners of qualifying private detention facilities for local impacts and setting rules to address harms such as chemical contamination. The lease-related fee would apply when a lease was renewed. The ordinance did not close the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, commonly called ICE.
Our reading of the record
Supported fees for detention facilities’ local impacts
Supported charging qualifying private detention facilities for local impacts and adopting rules to address harms such as chemical contamination. The ordinance did not close the ICE facility.
Introduced fees and rules for detention facilities’ local impacts
Introduced and supported the fees and rules for qualifying private detention facilities. Argued that Portland should use the local tools available to respond to detention-related harms. The ordinance did not close the ICE facility.
Opposed charging detention-facility landlords for these impacts
Opposed the detention-facility fees and rules. Questioned the precedent of charging landlords for protest-related costs, including whether the same approach would be acceptable outside an abortion clinic.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
December 3, 2025
Create impact fees and nuisance rules for detention facilities
The detention-facility ordinance passed 9–2, with Zimmerman absent. Clark joined Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green in support; Novick opposed it.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Backed detention-facility fees
Voted for the impact-fee and nuisance ordinance applying to qualifying private detention facilities.
Detention-facility ordinance · adopted text and roll call (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Introduced the fees and nuisance rules
Voted for the impact-fee and nuisance ordinance applying to qualifying private detention facilities.
Their stated case. Argued that Portland should use the limited tools available to local government to respond to detention facilities.
Detention-facility ordinance · adopted text and roll call (external)OPB · detention facility debate (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed the fee precedent
Voted against the detention-facility fee and nuisance ordinance.
Their stated case. Questioned penalizing landlords for protest-related costs and whether the same rule would be acceptable outside an abortion clinic.
Detention-facility ordinance · adopted text and roll call (external)OPB · detention facility debate (external)
The ordinance did not close ICE’s facility. The lease-related fee would apply on renewal; nuisance rules and fee implementation have separate requirements.
Novick’s stated concern was the precedent for charging landlords for protest-related impacts. This vote concerned a specific local response to detention facilities, not whether a councilor supported federal immigration enforcement.
Water bills & Bull RunWho accepted the borrowing—and who accepted higher bills? · 3 decisions
Green opposed borrowing for the water project but supported higher water charges. Koyama Lane and Zimmerman supported the borrowing but opposed the higher charges.
Portland is building a filtration system for its Bull Run drinking-water supply. Council voted separately on borrowing money for construction and increasing annual water charges. A third vote set sewer and stormwater charges. A vote for borrowing does not tell you how someone voted on customer bills.
Our reading of the record
Supported construction borrowing; opposed higher utility charges
Approved borrowing through bonds for the Bull Run water-filtration project. Opposed the annual water-rate increase and the separate sewer and stormwater charges.
Opposed the water borrowing and higher water charges
Opposed borrowing through bonds for the Bull Run water-filtration project and the annual water-rate increase. Supported the separate sewer and stormwater charges.
Supported water-project borrowing and the annual utility charges
Approved borrowing through bonds for the Bull Run water-filtration project. Also supported the annual water-rate increase and the separate sewer and stormwater charges.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
May 20, 2026
Borrow for Bull Run water treatment
Council authorized water-system revenue bonds with up to $525 million in net proceeds, principally for the Bull Run filtration project. The measure passed 9–3. Repayment comes from water-system revenues, making future customer bills part of the financing choice.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Approved the water borrowing
Voted to authorize the bond financing for Bull Run water treatment and related water-system needs, accepting repayment obligations supported by water revenues.
Borrow for Bull Run water treatment · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed this borrowing package
Voted against authorizing this water-system bond package. The vote rejected this financing decision; it did not establish a position against providing safe drinking water.
Borrow for Bull Run water treatment · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approved the water borrowing
Voted to authorize the bond financing for Bull Run water treatment and related water-system needs, accepting repayment obligations supported by water revenues.
Borrow for Bull Run water treatment · official record (external)
This was a borrowing authorization, separate from the annual ordinance setting water rates. The project’s revised $2.5 billion budget was larger than this individual bond authorization.
May 27, 2026
Raise annual water rates
The 2026–27 water-rate ordinance passed 8–4. It increased average effective retail water rates by 8.1%; the bureau estimated a typical residential water charge would rise from $65.57 to $70.89 per month, before sewer and stormwater charges.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Opposed the water-rate increase
Voted against the annual water-rate schedule and its increase in customer charges.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed the water-rate increase
Voted against the annual water-rate schedule and its increase in customer charges.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approved the water-rate increase
Voted for the annual water-rate schedule supporting treatment, operations, maintenance and debt payments, including the 8.1% average effective retail increase.
The typical-bill estimate assumes five hundred cubic feet of monthly water use. Actual bills depend on use, billing period and applicable assistance; this is not the total combined utility bill.
May 27, 2026
Set sewer and stormwater rates
Council approved the 2026–27 sewer and stormwater rate schedule 9–3 to fund wastewater and stormwater services. Morillo supported this schedule after opposing the separate water-rate ordinance.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Opposed sewer and stormwater rates
Voted against the annual sewer and stormwater rate schedule.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Approved sewer and stormwater rates
Voted for the annual rates and charges funding sewer and stormwater operations and infrastructure.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approved sewer and stormwater rates
Voted for the annual rates and charges funding sewer and stormwater operations and infrastructure.
Water supply, wastewater and stormwater are separate services with separate rate decisions, even when their charges appear on the same bill.
Read the construction and customer-bill votes together. Morillo opposed both water measures but supported the separate sewer and stormwater charges.
Street funding & sidewalksHow should Portland pay for streets it already has? · 3 decisions
Five of the six supported the new monthly street fee; Zimmerman opposed it. Novick opposed the earlier sidewalk-planning proposal but supported the fee.
Council considered a new monthly transportation fee to help pay for street maintenance and safety. Separate votes concerned a plan for sidewalks and annual parking and permit charges. The debate involved both raising money and deciding how that money would be spent.
Our reading of the record
Supported the street fee and set priorities for spending it
Supported the sidewalk plan, annual parking and permit charges, and the new monthly transportation fee. With Zimmerman, secured a requirement directing the new fee’s money toward maintenance and safety.
Supported new street funding and the sidewalk plan
Supported the sidewalk plan, annual parking and permit charges, and the new monthly transportation fee. The fee adds a recurring charge to help pay for road repairs and safety work.
Supported the street fee; opposed the earlier sidewalk plan
Opposed the 2025 proposal to organize a sidewalk program. Supported the 2026 monthly transportation fee and annual parking and permit charges. His vote against that sidewalk proposal was not a vote against all street spending.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
April 29, 2026
Create a monthly transportation utility fee
Council passed the new fee 9–3, with collection beginning in January 2027. The initial monthly charge is $12 for a typical single-family home and $8.40 per apartment unit; commercial charges use a percentage of the utility bill. The adopted allocation sends 75% to maintenance and 25% to safety work.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Approved a new source of street funding
Co-authored the allocation amendment with Zimmerman, then voted for the fee. It reserves 75% of revenue for maintenance and divides the remaining 25% between Vision Zero safety work and the sidewalk program.
Koyama Lane · case for the allocation. She connected the spending requirements to constituent priorities for road repair, walking and cycling infrastructure, and fewer traffic deaths.
Create a monthly transportation utility fee · official record (external)Koyama Lane · case for the allocation (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Approved a new source of street funding
Voted to add the transportation fee to utility bills, with dedicated maintenance and safety spending, financial assistance and public reporting.
Create a monthly transportation utility fee · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approved a new source of street funding
Voted to add the transportation fee to utility bills, with dedicated maintenance and safety spending, financial assistance and public reporting.
Create a monthly transportation utility fee · official record (external)
Approving a revenue source does not show that every promised repair has happened. The ordinance includes review of business charges and assistance for residents.
May 7, 2025
Develop a sidewalk and paving program
Council adopted the Sidewalk Improvement and Paving Program framework 11–1. It directed development of projects and funding options for neglected streets and missing sidewalks, highlighting gaps in Districts 1 and 4.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the sidewalk program framework
Voted to develop the sidewalk and paving program, including a project and funding plan for historically underserved areas.
Develop a sidewalk and paving program · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the sidewalk program framework
Voted to develop the sidewalk and paving program, including a project and funding plan for historically underserved areas.
Develop a sidewalk and paving program · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed this program framework
Cast the sole vote against the final sidewalk-program resolution. He later supported the citywide transportation utility fee; this vote therefore does not establish opposition to all street funding.
Develop a sidewalk and paving program · official record (external)
The resolution began planning; it did not appropriate the full cost of a construction program.
May 27, 2026
Update parking and transportation fees
Council approved the annual transportation fee schedule 10–2. The package updated parking, permits and other transportation charges, generally using a 6.18% cost escalation, and incorporated the separately approved transportation utility fee.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Approved the annual transportation charges
Voted for the updated parking, permit and transportation fee schedule supporting the transportation budget.
Update parking and transportation fees · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Approved the annual transportation charges
Voted for the updated parking, permit and transportation fee schedule supporting the transportation budget.
Update parking and transportation fees · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approved the annual transportation charges
Voted for the updated parking, permit and transportation fee schedule supporting the transportation budget.
Update parking and transportation fees · official record (external)
This vote set a fee schedule; it did not independently authorize new staffing or additional spending.
A councilor could oppose a new charge while still helping decide how its revenue should be used. These votes concern different proposals, not a single yes-or-no choice about repairing streets.
Arts tax & household costsPreserve arts funding by charging fewer people more? · 1 decision
Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green supported charging a higher amount while exempting more people. Novick, Clark and Zimmerman opposed that combination.
The arts tax helps pay for school arts teachers and arts organizations. The proposal increased the individual tax from $35 to $50 while exempting more lower-income residents. New filing thresholds used Oregon taxable income: $20,000 for a single filer and $40,000 for joint filers. It also allowed inflation adjustments.
Our reading of the record
Supported a $50 arts tax with more low-income exemptions
Co-sponsored the change from $35 to $50 and helped advance the revised income thresholds. Supported the final combination of a higher individual tax and exemptions for more lower-income residents.
Supported a $50 arts tax with more low-income exemptions
Supported raising the arts tax from $35 to $50 while exempting more lower-income residents. The package was intended to maintain funding for school arts teachers and arts organizations.
Opposed the revised arts tax
Opposed the package raising the arts tax from $35 to $50 and expanding low-income exemptions. Earlier criticized the tax’s structure and separate filing burden, saying the changes did not solve those problems.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
May 27, 2026
Raise the arts tax and expand exemptions
Council passed the arts-tax reform 7–5. It raised the individual assessment from $35 to $50 while replacing the old low-income rules with filing thresholds of $20,000 for single filers and $40,000 for joint filers, measured using Oregon taxable income. It also provided for inflation indexing.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported a higher tax with broader exemptions
Co-sponsored the reform and helped advance its revised income thresholds, then supported the final package of a higher assessment and broader exemptions.
Raise the arts tax and expand exemptions · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported a higher tax with broader exemptions
Voted for the package intended to preserve arts-education and arts funding while removing the filing or payment obligation for many lower-income residents.
Raise the arts tax and expand exemptions · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed the final arts-tax package
Voted against the package increasing the assessment and changing its exemptions and administration.
Novick · earlier objection reported by OPB. During the May 13 debate, he criticized the structure and inconvenience of the tax, arguing that the proposed changes did not fix its underlying problems.
Raise the arts tax and expand exemptions · official record (external)Novick · earlier objection reported by OPB (external)
The reform changed who files and pays as well as the assessment. Calling it only a tax increase or only tax relief leaves out part of the decision.
Both parts matter: a higher charge for those who pay, and broader exemptions for lower-income residents. The record does not give a separate stated explanation for Clark’s no vote.
Unarmed crisis responseWhat role should unarmed responders have in emergencies? · 2 decisions
Clark opposed the final June 2025 plan to expand the service; the other five supported it. All six later supported appointing the community committee.
Portland Street Response sends unarmed mental-health and medical responders to certain emergencies. Council considered expanding its role and creating a community committee to help guide it. Voting for that direction and later choosing committee members were separate decisions.
Our reading of the record
Supported expanding unarmed response and appointing its advisers
Supported the June 2025 plan to expand Portland Street Response, which sends unarmed mental-health and medical responders to certain crises. In December, supported appointing its community advisory committee.
Supported expansion while protecting the service’s unarmed role
Supported the plan to expand Portland Street Response and later appoint its community advisers. In an earlier joint statement, warned that police involvement could weaken trust in this unarmed crisis-response service.
Supported the expansion plan and community advisers
Supported advancing the Portland Street Response proposal from committee, adopting the final plan to expand unarmed crisis response, and later appointing its community advisory committee.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
June 25, 2025
Expand Portland Street Response’s role
Council voted 10–2 to support expanding Portland Street Response as an unarmed, co-equal branch of the emergency-response system and to establish a community committee. Clark and Ryan voted no.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported expanding the unarmed response
Voted for a framework to expand the role of Portland Street Response and establish community participation in its development.
Expand Portland Street Response’s role · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported expanding the unarmed response
Voted for a framework to expand the role of Portland Street Response and establish community participation in its development.
Earlier joint statement on Street Response. In a joint statement before the vote, supported broader unarmed response and voluntary transport, while warning that routine police involvement could undermine trust in Street Response.
Expand Portland Street Response’s role · official record (external)Earlier joint statement on Street Response (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported expanding the unarmed response
Voted for a framework to expand the role of Portland Street Response and establish community participation in its development.
Expand Portland Street Response’s role · official record (external)
The resolution set Council’s direction and petitioned the mayor; it did not itself deliver round-the-clock service or fund every expansion.
December 18, 2025
Appoint the Street Response community committee
All 12 councilors approved the membership of the Portland Street Response Committee: 14 community members and one staff representative. This implemented the community-oversight part of the earlier resolution.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the committee appointments
Voted to seat the community committee that would advise the development of Portland Street Response.
Appoint the Street Response community committee · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the committee appointments
Voted to seat the community committee that would advise the development of Portland Street Response.
Appoint the Street Response community committee · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the committee appointments
Voted to seat the community committee that would advise the development of Portland Street Response.
Appoint the Street Response community committee · official record (external)
Clark supported these appointments after opposing the June framework. An appointment vote and a vote on service design answer different questions.
Zimmerman opposed advancing an earlier version from committee, then supported the revised plan. Clark opposed the plan but later supported filling the committee’s seats.
Police accountabilityWhere did they agree on oversight—and where did they split? · 6 decisions
All six supported the first board appointments. They split over removing members and using the oversight office’s expected unspent money for other services.
Portland’s police-accountability board is part of its system for investigating police misconduct. Council voted on its members and on whether money budgeted for oversight, but expected to go unspent, should pay for police and fire services instead. Two separate removal votes concerned member Schuyler (Hugh) Halsey’s eligibility and alternate Bob Weinstein’s conduct.
Our reading of the record
Supported the board and keeping its budgeted money for oversight
Supported the first board appointments and later replacements. Opposed removing Halsey over eligibility, but supported removing alternate member Bob Weinstein over his conduct. Opposed using money the police-accountability office was expected not to spend for police and fire services instead.
Supported the board and keeping its budgeted money for oversight
Supported the first board appointments and later replacements. Opposed removing Halsey over eligibility, but supported removing alternate member Bob Weinstein over his conduct. Opposed using money the police-accountability office was expected not to spend for police and fire services instead.
Supported both removals and using expected savings for services
Supported board appointments and both proposed removals: Halsey over eligibility and alternate member Bob Weinstein over his conduct. Also supported Clark’s plan to use money expected to go unspent by the police-accountability office for police and fire services.
The 6 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
June 18, 2025
Appoint the first police-accountability board
Council appointed 21 members and six alternates to the Community Board for Police Accountability, 11–1. All six incumbents in these races supported the appointments.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported launching the board through appointments
Voted to appoint the first members and alternates of the new community police-accountability board.
Appoint the first police-accountability board · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported launching the board through appointments
Voted to appoint the first members and alternates of the new community police-accountability board.
Appoint the first police-accountability board · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported launching the board through appointments
Voted to appoint the first members and alternates of the new community police-accountability board.
Appoint the first police-accountability board · official record (external)
Voters authorized the system in 2020 and the previous Council adopted its code. These councilors were voting on appointments, not creating the entire system from scratch.
February 11, 2026
Consider removing an accountability-board member as ineligible
Council rejected, 5–7, the portion of the administration’s report that would have declared board member Schuyler (Hugh) Halsey ineligible. The separate vote left him on the board.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Rejected the proposed eligibility removal
Voted against the administration’s proposed ineligibility finding for Halsey, helping defeat that part of the report.
Consider removing an accountability-board member as ineligible · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Rejected the proposed eligibility removal
Voted against the administration’s proposed ineligibility finding for Halsey, helping defeat that part of the report.
Consider removing an accountability-board member as ineligible · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the proposed eligibility removal
Voted to approve the administration’s proposed ineligibility finding for Halsey. The motion failed.
Consider removing an accountability-board member as ineligible · official record (external)
This was a contested appointment-eligibility decision, not an independent finding by this guide about the member’s conduct or views.
February 11, 2026
Remove an accountability-board alternate for cause
In a separate 7–5 vote on the same report, Council approved removing alternate Bob Weinstein for cause, based on the administration’s account of incomplete required onboarding. Novick joined Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green on this vote.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported removing the alternate
Voted to approve the portion of the report removing Weinstein for cause under the board’s requirements.
Remove an accountability-board alternate for cause · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported removing the alternate
Voted to approve the portion of the report removing Weinstein for cause under the board’s requirements.
Remove an accountability-board alternate for cause · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported removing the alternate
Voted to approve the portion of the report removing Weinstein for cause under the board’s requirements.
Remove an accountability-board alternate for cause · official record (external)
The two contested removals received separate votes. The later unanimous vote on the remainder of the report must not be presented as unanimous support for either removal.
February 12, 2026
Fill vacancies and restart accountability-board terms
Council approved the replacement and term-setting resolution 10–2. It moved two alternates into member positions, reset terms to the first meeting date, requested quarterly reporting and directed further recruitment. Clark and Zimmerman opposed it.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the board’s replacement and term plan
Voted for the replacement appointments, revised term dates and reporting arrangements to help the police-accountability board begin work.
Fill vacancies and restart accountability-board terms · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the board’s replacement and term plan
Voted for the replacement appointments, revised term dates and reporting arrangements to help the police-accountability board begin work.
Fill vacancies and restart accountability-board terms · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the board’s replacement and term plan
Voted for the replacement appointments, revised term dates and reporting arrangements to help the police-accountability board begin work.
Fill vacancies and restart accountability-board terms · official record (external)
This was a particular appointment package. It was not a referendum on every power of the accountability system or on the separate question of its budget.
April 16, 2026
Preserve a community-policing advisory body in code
Council voted 11–0, with Koyama Lane absent, to put the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing into City Code. The action preserved a public advisory channel as federal settlement requirements changed.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on preserve a community-policing advisory body in code. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Preserve a community-policing advisory body in code · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported a continuing community advisory role
Voted to preserve the community-policing committee’s formal role advising the mayor and police chief.
Preserve a community-policing advisory body in code · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported a continuing community advisory role
Voted to preserve the community-policing committee’s formal role advising the mayor and police chief.
Preserve a community-policing advisory body in code · official record (external)
This advisory committee is distinct from the Community Board for Police Accountability and its misconduct-review system.
June 10, 2026
Use expected police-oversight underspending for public safety
Clark 2 proposed $7.68 million for police support, training and fire rescue: draw contingency now, then replenish it with expected police-accountability office underspending in spring 2027. Failed 5–6, with one absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Keep the oversight funding in place
Rejected using expected police-accountability office underspending to reimburse the public-safety restoration package.
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Keep the oversight funding in place
Rejected using expected police-accountability office underspending to reimburse the public-safety restoration package.
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Use expected oversight underspending
Supported the $7.68 million plan for police support, training and fire rescue, backed by expected underspending in the oversight office.
The tradeoff concerned using money allocated to the new oversight office. The proposal did not abolish that office, and expected underspending was a forecast.
Council rejected the proposed eligibility-based removal of Halsey but approved removing Weinstein. Those are separate decisions from establishing the board or funding its work.
Police staffing & property enforcementHow much emphasis should the City put on police capacity and enforcement? · 2 decisions
Novick, Clark and Zimmerman supported both measures. Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green opposed both.
One proposal asked staff to assess police staffing needs and costs. Another changed enforcement rules for properties linked to repeated criminal activity, including trafficking. The staffing vote commissioned an assessment; it did not fund the hiring of 400 officers.
Our reading of the record
Opposed the staffing assessment and property-enforcement changes
Opposed requesting a police staffing-and-cost assessment and opposed expanding enforcement rules for properties linked to repeated criminal activity. The assessment proposal was a planning step, not an immediate decision to hire more officers.
Opposed the staffing assessment and property-enforcement changes
Opposed requesting a police staffing-and-cost assessment and opposed expanding enforcement rules for properties linked to repeated criminal activity. The assessment proposal was a planning step, not an immediate decision to hire more officers.
Supported the staffing assessment and property-enforcement changes
Supported assessing police staffing needs and costs, and expanding enforcement rules for properties linked to repeated crime. His case for the property rules emphasized trafficking survivors, students near McDaniel High School and the difficulty of documenting repeated incidents.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
February 12, 2026
Request a police staffing and cost assessment
Council approved a police organizational and staffing assessment 7–5. The final resolution requested staffing levels, recruitment and retention plans, training and ongoing costs, and the effect of other services such as Street Response on police workload.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Opposed this staffing-assessment resolution
Voted against this resolution directing a police organizational and staffing report.
Request a police staffing and cost assessment · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed this staffing-assessment resolution
Voted against this resolution directing a police organizational and staffing report.
Request a police staffing and cost assessment · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the police staffing assessment
Voted to request the organizational, recruitment and cost report to inform future police staffing decisions.
Request a police staffing and cost assessment · official record (external)
The adopted text requested an assessment; it did not appropriate money to hire 400 officers. The original impact statement’s reference to 400 should not be mistaken for an enacted hiring commitment.
May 6, 2026
Expand chronic-nuisance property enforcement
Council passed the amended property-enforcement ordinance 7–5. It expanded the activities covered by chronic-nuisance rules and gave the City a longer period to document repeated incidents, with the final threshold of three incidents in 90 days rather than 30.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Opposed the expanded enforcement rules
Voted against expanding the chronic-nuisance ordinance and its enforcement framework.
Expand chronic-nuisance property enforcement · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed the expanded enforcement rules
Voted against expanding the chronic-nuisance ordinance and its enforcement framework.
Expand chronic-nuisance property enforcement · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Led the revised enforcement proposal
Led the proposal and amendments before voting for passage. The final rules extended the documentation window while retaining a three-incident threshold.
Novick · explanation after passage. He argued that the old 30-day window made enforcement too difficult for a stretched police force. He cited trafficking near McDaniel High School and urged holding property owners responsible for taking preventive steps.
Expand chronic-nuisance property enforcement · official record (external)Novick · explanation after passage (external)
The initial proposal used two incidents in 90 days; Council amended it to three. The final vote should be described using that adopted threshold.
These votes concern a particular staffing assessment and property-enforcement rules. They do not establish a position on every police budget or public-safety proposal.
Firearms in public buildingsProceed with building-specific gun restrictions, or put the proposal on hold? · 1 decision
Zimmerman voted to put the proposal on hold. Morillo and Novick voted against pausing it. Koyama Lane, Green and Clark were not members of that committee.
The proposal would restrict carrying concealed firearms, even with a license, in specified City buildings used for official meetings. A committee voted to put the proposal on hold. This was not a final Council vote on adopting gun restrictions across Portland.
Our reading of the record
Not a member of the committee that voted
Did not have a vote on whether to pause the proposal restricting licensed concealed carry in specified City buildings. This committee record does not establish a position for or against the gun restrictions.
Voted against putting the gun proposal on hold
Voted against pausing the proposal to restrict licensed concealed carry in specified City buildings. This was a committee vote about whether work should proceed, not final adoption of the restrictions.
Voted against putting the gun proposal on hold
Voted against pausing the proposal to restrict licensed concealed carry in specified City buildings. This was a committee vote about whether work should proceed, not final adoption of the restrictions.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
September 15, 2026
Pause the firearms-in-public-buildings proposal
The five-member Community and Public Safety Committee voted 3–2 to table the proposal restricting firearms, including licensed concealed carry, in specified City buildings used for official meetings. Zimmerman supported the pause; Morillo and Novick opposed it.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Not on committee
Not a member of this committee
Did not have a vote in this five-member committee. This is not an absence from Council or a position against the proposal.
Pause the firearms-in-public-buildings proposal · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed putting the proposal on hold
Voted against the committee motion to table the firearms proposal, keeping a distinction between delaying consideration and voting on the final law.
Pause the firearms-in-public-buildings proposal · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed putting the proposal on hold
Voted against the committee motion to table the firearms proposal, keeping a distinction between delaying consideration and voting on the final law.
Pause the firearms-in-public-buildings proposal · official record (external)
This was a committee motion to table, not a full-Council vote to enact or reject a citywide gun ban. Koyama Lane, Green and Clark were not on this committee.
Here a yes vote means support for pausing the proposal. As of the September 18 review, the full Council had not taken a final vote on adopting it.
Natural psychedelicsShould personal use receive lower police priority? · 1 decision
Morillo, Novick and Zimmerman supported sending the revised proposal from committee to Council. The other three had no vote in that committee.
The proposal would make non-commercial personal use of naturally occurring psychedelic plants and fungi a lower police-enforcement priority and create an advisory commission. Sales, impaired driving and unsafe conduct would remain enforcement concerns. Changing local priorities would not repeal state or federal drug laws.
Our reading of the record
Not a member of the committee that voted
Had no committee vote on advancing the proposal to make personal use of natural psychedelics a lower police priority. This record supplies no final position on the proposal.
Supported advancing the lower-enforcement-priority proposal
Supported sending the revised proposal from committee to Council. It would make non-commercial personal use of natural psychedelics a lower police priority, without repealing state or federal drug laws.
Supported advancing the lower-enforcement-priority proposal
Supported sending the revised proposal from committee to Council. It would make non-commercial personal use of natural psychedelics a lower police priority, without repealing state or federal drug laws.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
August 4, 2026
Advance a natural-psychedelics enforcement proposal
The public-safety committee recommended passage 4–1 of a proposal making non-commercial personal use of natural psychedelics a low enforcement priority and creating an advisory commission. Morillo, Novick and Zimmerman supported referral.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Not on committee
Not a member of this committee
Did not have a vote in this five-member committee. This is not an absence from Council or a position against the proposal.
Advance a natural-psychedelics enforcement proposal · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported advancing the amended proposal
Voted to send the amended natural-psychedelics proposal to full Council with a recommendation for passage.
Advance a natural-psychedelics enforcement proposal · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported advancing the amended proposal
Voted to send the amended natural-psychedelics proposal to full Council with a recommendation for passage.
Advance a natural-psychedelics enforcement proposal · official record (external)
This committee recommendation did not enact the proposal. Full Council consideration was scheduled for September 23, after this guide’s September 18 review.
This was still a pending proposal at the September 18 review. Advancing it from committee did not legalize psychedelics or establish a final Council position.
Climate fund & general servicesWhich climate investments—and when should interest pay for other services? · 2 decisions
Morillo and Green opposed the final investment-plan changes. Morillo was the only one of these six to oppose the May interest transfer. Their votes on later uses of interest differed again.
The Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund pays for climate-related projects. Council voted on changes to its investment plan and, separately, on moving interest earned by the fund into the City’s general budget. Later budget votes proposed additional uses of that interest to restore jobs and services.
Our reading of the record
Supported the climate plan and transferring interest to city services
Approved changes to the climate fund’s investment plan and the May transfer of audited interest earnings into the City’s general budget. Later supported using additional climate-fund interest to restore jobs and services facing cuts.
Opposed these two measures; later supported a different use of interest
Opposed the final climate-investment changes and the May transfer of interest to the general budget. Later helped propose using climate-fund interest specifically to restore parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and other city jobs.
Supported the plan and using interest for selected services
Approved the climate-investment changes and the May interest transfer to the general budget. Later proposed a smaller plan using climate-fund interest for selected services and a business-tax reserve, while opposing the larger proposal for parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and other city jobs.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
March 11, 2026
Amend the five-year climate investment plan
Council approved amendments to the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund’s five-year investment plan 9–3. The amended plan allocated approximately $1.59 billion through June 2029, with budget changes subject to subsequent authorization.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Approved the amended climate-investment package
Voted for the final package of revisions to the climate fund’s multi-year investment plan.
Amend the five-year climate investment plan · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed the final investment-plan package
Voted against the final package of climate-investment amendments, after participating in changes to the proposal.
Amend the five-year climate investment plan · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Approved the amended climate-investment package
Voted for the final package of revisions to the climate fund’s multi-year investment plan.
Amend the five-year climate investment plan · official record (external)
This was a vote on the particular allocation package, not on whether Portland should have a climate fund. The final resolution and amendment roll calls are available in the linked record.
May 27, 2026
Transfer climate-fund interest into the general budget
Council voted 10–2 to transfer $26,890,729 in audited climate-fund interest earnings into the General Fund for the 2026–27 budget. Morillo and Avalos opposed it.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported this interest transfer
Voted to transfer the specified climate-fund interest into the general budget to support City expenses.
Transfer climate-fund interest into the general budget · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed this particular interest transfer
Voted against the May interest-transfer ordinance. Morillo later proposed using climate-fund interest for specified service restorations, so this vote does not establish opposition to every such use.
Transfer climate-fund interest into the general budget · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported this interest transfer
Voted to transfer the specified climate-fund interest into the general budget to support City expenses.
Transfer climate-fund interest into the general budget · official record (external)
This transfer concerned interest earnings, rather than the fund’s principal. It was separate from the June and July fights over additional service restorations.
Using interest for one purpose does not establish support for every use of the fund. The budget comparison names the services and funding sources in the later proposals.
Permitting & development costsReduce construction barriers—and who covers the public improvements? · 2 decisions
All five present supported the temporary pause; Zimmerman had supported advancing it from committee but missed the final vote. All six supported the next phase of permit reform.
Some building projects must also provide public improvements, such as sidewalk ramps and street trees. Council temporarily paused selected requirements to reduce development costs. It separately directed more work to make building rules consistent and improve the permit process.
Our reading of the record
Supported pausing some developer-paid improvements
Supported temporarily pausing selected requirements for improvements such as sidewalk ramps and street trees associated with development. Also supported further work to make building rules consistent and improve permitting. The pause could shift some improvement costs to the City.
Supported pausing some developer-paid improvements
Supported temporarily pausing selected requirements for improvements such as sidewalk ramps and street trees associated with development. Also supported further work to make building rules consistent and improve permitting. The pause could shift some improvement costs to the City.
Supported pausing some developer-paid improvements
Supported temporarily pausing selected requirements for improvements such as sidewalk ramps and street trees associated with development. Also supported further work to make building rules consistent and improve permitting. The pause could shift some improvement costs to the City.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
September 24, 2025
Temporarily suspend selected development upgrade requirements
Council approved a temporary pause in four development-related upgrade requirements 11–0, with Zimmerman absent. The measure sought to reduce project costs, while the budget analysis warned that some sidewalk-ramp and tree responsibilities could shift to the City.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the temporary development-cost relief
Voted for the pause in selected infrastructure and site-upgrade requirements associated with development, accepting the tradeoff between lower project costs and improvements otherwise delivered by applicants.
Temporarily suspend selected development upgrade requirements · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the temporary development-cost relief
Voted for the pause in selected infrastructure and site-upgrade requirements associated with development, accepting the tradeoff between lower project costs and improvements otherwise delivered by applicants.
Temporarily suspend selected development upgrade requirements · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the temporary development-cost relief
Voted for the pause in selected infrastructure and site-upgrade requirements associated with development, accepting the tradeoff between lower project costs and improvements otherwise delivered by applicants.
Temporarily suspend selected development upgrade requirements · official record (external)
The pause runs through January 1, 2029. It was not a repeal of all permitting standards; the City’s analysis identified possible costs and infrastructure gaps.
July 16, 2026
Develop a second phase of permitting reform
Council directed a second phase of code alignment and permitting reform, 11–0 with one absent. The resolution called for coordinated code writing, practical expertise and measures of permitting performance.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported further permitting reform
Voted to pursue simpler, better-coordinated development rules and a process for measuring whether permitting service improves.
Develop a second phase of permitting reform · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported further permitting reform
Voted to pursue simpler, better-coordinated development rules and a process for measuring whether permitting service improves.
Develop a second phase of permitting reform · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported further permitting reform
Voted to pursue simpler, better-coordinated development rules and a process for measuring whether permitting service improves.
Develop a second phase of permitting reform · official record (external)
This resolution directed further work. It did not itself enact every future code change or establish that permit processing had already become faster.
The pause can lower a developer’s costs while leaving improvements undone or shifting costs to the City. A vote to improve permitting does not prove that permits are already faster or that more homes have been built.
Parks, trees & public landWho should pay for and care for Portland’s parks and trees? · 5 decisions
Koyama Lane and Morillo opposed weakening the commitment to plan for City responsibility for street trees. The other four supported that wording change. All six supported the final forest plan.
Council voted on asking voters to renew and increase a parks property tax, planning for tree care, rejecting a power-line proposal in Forest Park, and selling Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator. A disputed change to the tree plan made clear that the City taking on more tree-care responsibility depended on a future decision to carry it out.
Our reading of the record
Supported a parks-tax vote and a firmer commitment on tree care
Supported putting a five-year parks property tax before voters and adopting the forest plan. Opposed wording that made future City responsibility for street trees more conditional. Supported overturning approval of the Forest Park power-line proposal. Was absent from the Sellwood Community House sale vote.
Supported a parks-tax vote and a firmer commitment on tree care
Supported putting a five-year parks property tax before voters and adopting the forest plan. Opposed wording that made future City responsibility for street trees more conditional. Supported overturning the Forest Park power-line approval and selling Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator, with a public-benefit requirement.
Supported the parks-tax vote and leaving tree-care changes conditional
Supported putting a five-year parks property tax before voters. Backed the forest plan and wording that left expanded City responsibility for street trees dependent on future implementation. Supported overturning the Forest Park power-line approval and selling Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator, with a public-benefit requirement.
The 5 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
July 16, 2025
Refer the five-year parks levy to voters
Council voted 11–0, with Clark absent, to send a five-year parks levy to the November 2025 ballot at $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed property value, up from the expiring levy’s $0.80. The proposal sought to sustain park services and provide some maintenance funding.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported asking voters for the higher parks levy
Voted to place the proposed parks funding measure before voters, with the higher levy rate and its service commitments.
Refer the five-year parks levy to voters · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported asking voters for the higher parks levy
Voted to place the proposed parks funding measure before voters, with the higher levy rate and its service commitments.
Refer the five-year parks levy to voters · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported asking voters for the higher parks levy
Voted to place the proposed parks funding measure before voters, with the higher levy rate and its service commitments.
Refer the five-year parks levy to voters · official record (external)
This roll call records the Council’s ballot referral, not the subsequent public election. Assessed property value is not the same as market value.
October 22, 2025
Adopt the updated Urban Forest Plan
Council adopted the updated Urban Forest Plan 11–0, with one absent, after debating how the City should approach street-tree care and sidewalk damage. All six supported the final plan.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the amended urban-forest plan
Voted for the final plan guiding tree-canopy protection, growth and management across Portland.
Adopt the updated Urban Forest Plan · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the amended urban-forest plan
Voted for the final plan guiding tree-canopy protection, growth and management across Portland.
Adopt the updated Urban Forest Plan · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the amended urban-forest plan
Voted for the final plan guiding tree-canopy protection, growth and management across Portland.
Adopt the updated Urban Forest Plan · official record (external)
The resolution is non-binding City policy. Adoption did not immediately transfer every property owner’s street-tree or sidewalk responsibility to the City.
October 22, 2025
Make the street-tree responsibility plan explicitly conditional
Before adopting the forest plan, Council voted 7–4, with one absent, to make an action item explicitly describe a plan that would allow the proposed change if implemented. This qualified the language about a future City role in street-tree maintenance.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: No
Opposed weakening the commitment’s wording
Voted against replacing the more direct planning instruction with expressly conditional language. Both still supported the final forest plan.
Make the street-tree responsibility plan explicitly conditional · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed weakening the commitment’s wording
Voted against replacing the more direct planning instruction with expressly conditional language. Both still supported the final forest plan.
Make the street-tree responsibility plan explicitly conditional · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the conditional wording
Voted to make clear that developing the plan was a step toward a possible future change, rather than the immediate implementation of that change.
Make the street-tree responsibility plan explicitly conditional · official record (external)
The underlying amendment changed the strength of a planning commitment, not an immediate service or liability transfer.
May 7, 2025
Overturn approval of the Forest Park power-line proposal
All 12 councilors granted the appeal and overturned the hearings officer’s approval of the proposed utility work affecting Forest Park. The decision denied the environmental review while approving the other specified reviews.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the appeal and environmental-review denial
Voted to overturn approval of this Forest Park utility proposal on the findings adopted by Council.
Overturn approval of the Forest Park power-line proposal · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the appeal and environmental-review denial
Voted to overturn approval of this Forest Park utility proposal on the findings adopted by Council.
Overturn approval of the Forest Park power-line proposal · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the appeal and environmental-review denial
Voted to overturn approval of this Forest Park utility proposal on the findings adopted by Council.
Overturn approval of the Forest Park power-line proposal · official record (external)
This was a land-use decision on a particular application and its approval criteria. It was not a general vote against electricity infrastructure.
December 3, 2025
Transfer Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator
Council approved selling the Sellwood Community Center property to Friends of Sellwood Community House for $1, with a deed restriction requiring public benefit in perpetuity. The measure passed 10–1, with Koyama Lane absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on transfer Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Transfer Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the nonprofit transfer with public-benefit conditions
Voted to transfer the property to the nonprofit operator while retaining a permanent public-benefit restriction.
Transfer Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the nonprofit transfer with public-benefit conditions
Voted to transfer the property to the nonprofit operator while retaining a permanent public-benefit restriction.
Transfer Sellwood Community House to its nonprofit operator · official record (external)
The symbolic sale price came with a continuing use restriction. The City’s analysis also identified a reduction in potential future capital-maintenance exposure.
The parks vote put a tax proposal on the ballot; it did not itself approve the tax. The tree plan did not immediately shift residents’ maintenance duties to the City. The Sellwood sale required the property to keep serving a public benefit.
Traffic safety & 82nd AvenueWhere did they agree on safer streets and better transit? · 2 decisions
All six supported both proposals. Koyama Lane sponsored the traffic-safety resolution; Zimmerman added a requirement to examine traffic deaths among people experiencing homelessness.
Vision Zero is Portland’s effort to prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries. Council renewed that effort and, in a separate vote, approved a route, general station locations and transit type for the 82nd Avenue project. The transit vote allowed further design and funding work.
Our reading of the record
Sponsored traffic-safety work; supported the 82nd Avenue plan
Sponsored the Vision Zero resolution to prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries, and supported adding community participation. Also supported the route, general station locations and transit type chosen for further 82nd Avenue project planning.
Supported traffic-safety work and the 82nd Avenue transit plan
Supported renewing Portland’s effort to prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries, including community participation and attention to deaths among homeless residents. Also supported the route, general station locations and transit type chosen for further 82nd Avenue project planning.
Supported traffic-safety work and the 82nd Avenue transit plan
Supported renewing Portland’s effort to prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries, including community participation and attention to deaths among homeless residents. Also supported the route, general station locations and transit type chosen for further 82nd Avenue project planning.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
September 17, 2025
Renew the traffic-death prevention effort
All 12 councilors reaffirmed the goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries, called for a renewed cross-bureau task force and added attention to deaths involving people experiencing homelessness.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the traffic-safety framework
Sponsored the Vision Zero resolution, supported adding community engagement and voted for the final traffic-safety framework.
Renew the traffic-death prevention effort · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the traffic-safety framework
Voted for the renewed Vision Zero effort, community participation and analysis of disproportionate traffic deaths among people experiencing homelessness.
Renew the traffic-death prevention effort · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the traffic-safety framework
Voted for the renewed Vision Zero effort, community participation and analysis of disproportionate traffic deaths among people experiencing homelessness.
Renew the traffic-death prevention effort · official record (external)
The resolution renewed direction and coordination. It did not prove that traffic deaths had fallen or fund every future safety project.
May 21, 2025
Approve the preferred 82nd Avenue transit alternative
Council unanimously approved the locally preferred alternative for the 82nd Avenue transit project, establishing its route, general station locations and transit mode as a basis for further design and funding work.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the 82nd Avenue transit framework
Voted to advance the preferred transit alternative aimed at improving speed and reliability on 82nd Avenue.
Approve the preferred 82nd Avenue transit alternative · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the 82nd Avenue transit framework
Voted to advance the preferred transit alternative aimed at improving speed and reliability on 82nd Avenue.
Approve the preferred 82nd Avenue transit alternative · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the 82nd Avenue transit framework
Voted to advance the preferred transit alternative aimed at improving speed and reliability on 82nd Avenue.
Approve the preferred 82nd Avenue transit alternative · official record (external)
Approval of the preferred alternative was a project-development decision, not authorization of the entire construction budget or proof of completed service improvements.
These were planning and coordination votes. They did not fund every safety project or the full transit construction budget, and they do not show whether traffic deaths have since fallen.
Privacy, surveillance & AIHow should City data and new technology be governed? · 3 decisions
All six supported the final privacy measures and the data-center resolution. Zimmerman had opposed advancing an earlier version of the privacy rules from committee, then supported the revised final version.
City records can contain sensitive information about residents. Council created a central privacy office and adopted rules for managing data sharing, surveillance risks and reuse of information, including by artificial intelligence. A separate proposal concerned public disclosure and possible restrictions on data centers, which house large amounts of computing equipment.
Our reading of the record
Supported a central privacy office and rules for City-held information
Supported creating a privacy office and adopting rules to manage how City departments share and reuse residents’ information, including surveillance and artificial-intelligence risks. Also supported disclosing data-center inquiries and pursuing future restrictions on those facilities.
Supported a central privacy office and rules for City-held information
Supported creating a privacy office and adopting rules to manage how City departments share and reuse residents’ information, including surveillance and artificial-intelligence risks. Also supported disclosing data-center inquiries and pursuing future restrictions on those facilities.
Supported a central privacy office and rules for City-held information
Supported creating a privacy office and adopting rules to manage how City departments share and reuse residents’ information, including surveillance and artificial-intelligence risks. Also supported disclosing data-center inquiries and pursuing future restrictions on those facilities.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
February 5, 2026
Create a City Data and Privacy Office
Council unanimously created a City Data and Privacy Office and a chief data officer role to coordinate protection and stewardship of City-held information.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported a central data-and-privacy office
Voted to establish a City authority for data governance and privacy rather than leaving those responsibilities scattered across bureaus.
Create a City Data and Privacy Office · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported a central data-and-privacy office
Voted to establish a City authority for data governance and privacy rather than leaving those responsibilities scattered across bureaus.
Create a City Data and Privacy Office · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported a central data-and-privacy office
Voted to establish a City authority for data governance and privacy rather than leaving those responsibilities scattered across bureaus.
Create a City Data and Privacy Office · official record (external)
The ordinance established responsibilities and a transition process. It did not demonstrate that every City dataset or outside data-sharing risk had already been secured.
February 5, 2026
Adopt the City’s data-governance and privacy framework
Council unanimously adopted the amended framework accompanying the privacy office, addressing data sharing, surveillance risks and secondary uses of information, including artificial intelligence.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the final privacy framework
Voted for the amended framework directing how the City should manage privacy and data-use risks.
Adopt the City’s data-governance and privacy framework · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the final privacy framework
Voted for the amended framework directing how the City should manage privacy and data-use risks.
Adopt the City’s data-governance and privacy framework · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the final privacy framework
Voted for the amended framework directing how the City should manage privacy and data-use risks.
Adopt the City’s data-governance and privacy framework · official record (external)
Zimmerman opposed the December committee referral of this resolution but supported the amended final measure in February.
September 16, 2026
Seek transparency and future data-center restrictions
Resolution 37753 sought disclosure of major data-center inquiries and expressed intent to pursue restrictions. Passed 11–0, with one absent.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Backed disclosure and future restrictions
Voted to disclose major data-center inquiries and pursue restrictions. The resolution did not itself enact a moratorium.
Resolution 37753 · adopted text and final roll call (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Backed disclosure and future restrictions
Voted to disclose major data-center inquiries and pursue restrictions. The resolution did not itself enact a moratorium.
Resolution 37753 · adopted text and final roll call (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Backed disclosure and future restrictions
Voted to disclose major data-center inquiries and pursue restrictions. The resolution did not itself enact a moratorium.
Resolution 37753 · adopted text and final roll call (external)
This resolution did not itself enact a moratorium. All six incumbents in these races voted yes on the final text, despite differences over an amendment.
Protecting information held by the City is different from regulating private data-center facilities. The data-center vote called for further action; it did not itself ban new facilities.
Infrastructure & maintenanceHow should Portland prioritize its aging public assets? · 1 decision
All six supported developing this citywide repair and investment plan.
Portland maintains roads, water systems, buildings and other public property. Different departments track their needs separately. Council requested a citywide plan to compare those needs, identify funding gaps and decide what should be repaired first.
Our reading of the record
Supported a citywide plan for repairs and investment
Supported comparing repair needs across roads, water systems, buildings and other City property, and examining how to pay for them. This was a planning vote; it did not itself authorize new borrowing or fund every repair.
Supported a citywide plan for repairs and investment
Supported comparing repair needs across roads, water systems, buildings and other City property, and examining how to pay for them. This was a planning vote; it did not itself authorize new borrowing or fund every repair.
Supported a citywide plan for repairs and investment
Supported comparing repair needs across roads, water systems, buildings and other City property, and examining how to pay for them. This was a planning vote; it did not itself authorize new borrowing or fund every repair.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
August 6, 2025
Develop a citywide infrastructure and asset strategy
Council unanimously directed development of a citywide strategy for managing roughly $80 billion in public assets, including roads, water systems, buildings and other infrastructure.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported coordinated infrastructure planning
Voted to assess infrastructure needs, align investment priorities across bureaus and examine long-term financing options.
Develop a citywide infrastructure and asset strategy · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported coordinated infrastructure planning
Voted to assess infrastructure needs, align investment priorities across bureaus and examine long-term financing options.
Develop a citywide infrastructure and asset strategy · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported coordinated infrastructure planning
Voted to assess infrastructure needs, align investment priorities across bureaus and examine long-term financing options.
Develop a citywide infrastructure and asset strategy · official record (external)
This directed planning and analysis, including possible bond options. It did not itself approve a new general-obligation bond or fund the full maintenance backlog.
This vote requested planning, including possible ways to borrow money. It did not approve a new bond or pay for the full repair backlog. Specific borrowing and fee votes appear in the water and street-funding topics.
Council powers, offices & oversightHow much capacity should Council build, and how should it exercise oversight? · 4 decisions
Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green supported the public housing-funds inquiry. Novick, Clark and Zimmerman opposed it; Novick and Clark had supported a different investigation or audit approach.
Portland’s new Council voted on money for its offices, how to organize policy committees, and a yearly process for setting priorities. It also considered a public inquiry into unspent money from the rental-registration program and how city administrators had told Council about that money during budget discussions.
Our reading of the record
Supported more office resources and a public housing-funds inquiry
Supported increasing Council office budgets, replacing eight policy committees with five, and creating an annual priority-setting process. Also supported a public inquiry into unspent rental-registration money and how administrators informed Council about it.
Supported more office resources and a public housing-funds inquiry
Supported increasing Council office budgets, setting annual priorities, and a public inquiry into unspent rental-registration money and how administrators informed Council about it. Was absent from the vote to replace eight policy committees with five.
Opposed higher office spending and preferred a different inquiry
Opposed increasing Council office budgets and the annual priority-setting process, but supported replacing eight policy committees with five. Supported an alternative investigation by administrators or the Auditor into the rental-registration money, then opposed the final public-inquiry proposal.
The 4 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
January 15, 2025
Increase Council and mayoral office budgets
Council approved a $4,588,234 midyear transfer from General Fund contingency to Council and mayoral offices, 10–2. The package increased staffing and office resources as the new government began work.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported additional resources for elected offices
Voted to use contingency funds to increase Council and mayoral office budgets and staffing during the transition to the new government.
Increase Council and mayoral office budgets · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported additional resources for elected offices
Voted to use contingency funds to increase Council and mayoral office budgets and staffing during the transition to the new government.
Increase Council and mayoral office budgets · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed the elected-office budget increase
Voted against the package increasing Council and mayoral office resources from contingency.
Novick · later statement of budget priorities. In a later budget explanation, he argued that Council office spending was too high compared with other cities and should be reduced to restore frontline services.
Increase Council and mayoral office budgets · official record (external)Novick · later statement of budget priorities (external)
The measure addressed the remaining 2024–25 fiscal year. Annualized office figures should not be confused with this midyear appropriation.
February 19, 2026
Replace eight policy committees with five
Council adopted a new committee structure 8–3, with Morillo absent. It replaced eight policy committees with five, including a Finance and Governance Committee of the Whole, effective March 30.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the revised committee structure
Voted for the five-committee structure and full-Council finance and governance committee.
Replace eight policy committees with five · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on replace eight policy committees with five. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Replace eight policy committees with five · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the revised committee structure
Voted for the five-committee structure and full-Council finance and governance committee.
Replace eight policy committees with five · official record (external)
Committee structure determines where legislation is developed and scrutinized; this was not a change to the voter-approved four electoral districts.
December 18, 2025
Establish an annual Council priority-setting process
Council approved an annual priority-setting process 10–2. It provided for January planning meetings, possible temporary suspension of policy committees and a shared framework, while preserving councilors’ ability to develop their own legislation.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported a shared annual priority-setting process
Voted for the annual Council planning procedure, including a shared framework that identifies agreement, disagreement and unresolved priorities.
Establish an annual Council priority-setting process · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported a shared annual priority-setting process
Voted for the annual Council planning procedure, including a shared framework that identifies agreement, disagreement and unresolved priorities.
Establish an annual Council priority-setting process · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed this annual planning procedure
Voted against the final procedure for annual Council priority-setting.
Establish an annual Council priority-setting process · official record (external)
The resolution set a process rather than deciding a particular policy agenda. It expressly preserved independent legislative work.
February 4, 2026
Require a public inquiry into unspent housing funds
Council approved a public-information and inquiry process 8–4 after questions about unspent rental-registry funds and how the administration communicated them during budget deliberations.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the Council-led public inquiry
Voted for the process to gather and disclose information about the housing funds and the administration’s communication with Council.
Require a public inquiry into unspent housing funds · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the Council-led public inquiry
Voted for the process to gather and disclose information about the housing funds and the administration’s communication with Council.
Require a public inquiry into unspent housing funds · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed this inquiry process
Supported an alternative calling for an administrative investigation or work with the Auditor, then opposed the final Council inquiry resolution.
Require a public inquiry into unspent housing funds · official record (external)
An inquiry is not a finding of wrongdoing. Novick and Clark supported an unsuccessful alternative directing an administrative investigation or work with the Auditor.
The inquiry vote concerned how to obtain and examine information; it was not a finding of wrongdoing. Office budgets, committee structure and the inquiry were separate decisions.
Campaign finance & electionsWhat rules should govern money in City elections? · 2 decisions
All six supported the public campaign-financing changes and the final update to campaign-finance enforcement rules.
Portland’s Small Donor Elections program uses public money to match qualifying campaign donations. Council voted to revise how that program operates after the 2024 election. A separate vote updated enforcement of campaign-finance rules following a court ruling.
Our reading of the record
Supported changes to public campaign funding and enforcement
Supported revising Small Donor Elections, the program that matches qualifying campaign donations with public money. Also supported the final update to enforcement of campaign-finance rules after a court ruling.
Supported changes to public campaign funding and enforcement
Supported revising Small Donor Elections, the program that matches qualifying campaign donations with public money. Also supported the final update to enforcement of campaign-finance rules after a court ruling.
Supported changes to public campaign funding and enforcement
Supported revising Small Donor Elections, the program that matches qualifying campaign donations with public money. Also supported the final update to enforcement of campaign-finance rules after a court ruling.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
September 24, 2025
Revise the Small Donor Elections program
Council voted 11–1 to revise the public campaign-financing program following recommendations from the Independent Portland Elections Commission. All six incumbents supported the ordinance.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the public campaign-finance program revisions
Voted for the Small Donor Elections code changes recommended to improve the program after the 2024 election.
Revise the Small Donor Elections program · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the public campaign-finance program revisions
Voted for the Small Donor Elections code changes recommended to improve the program after the 2024 election.
Revise the Small Donor Elections program · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the public campaign-finance program revisions
Voted for the Small Donor Elections code changes recommended to improve the program after the 2024 election.
Revise the Small Donor Elections program · official record (external)
A vote on the public financing program is separate from a candidate’s own eligibility, participation or compliance record.
March 18, 2026
Update campaign-finance enforcement after a court ruling
Council passed amendments to campaign-finance enforcement code 10–1, with one absent, following a court ruling concerning the City’s voter-approved campaign-finance regulations.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the revised enforcement code
Voted to update the City’s campaign-finance code in response to the court ruling and the amendments considered by Council.
Update campaign-finance enforcement after a court ruling · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the revised enforcement code
Voted to update the City’s campaign-finance code in response to the court ruling and the amendments considered by Council.
Update campaign-finance enforcement after a court ruling · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the revised enforcement code
Voted to update the City’s campaign-finance code in response to the court ruling and the amendments considered by Council.
Update campaign-finance enforcement after a court ruling · official record (external)
This final vote concerned enforcement rules. It should not be treated as an endorsement of every position taken on individual amendments.
These votes concern election rules. They do not establish whether a particular candidate participates in public financing or has complied with every campaign-finance requirement.
Labor contracts & City workersWhere did they agree on worker contracts—and where does the budget record differ? · 5 decisions
All six supported the first Professional Workers contract and withdrawing permission to file the complaint. Koyama Lane was absent from three other contract votes; the other five supported those agreements.
Council approves negotiated contracts covering City workers’ pay, benefits and working conditions. It also voted to withdraw the previous Council’s permission for the City Attorney to file a labor-law complaint against AFSCME, a union representing City workers. Contract votes and decisions about how many jobs to fund are separate.
Our reading of the record
Supported the first Professional Workers contract; missed three later votes
Supported the first Professional Workers contract and withdrawing permission to file the labor-law complaint against AFSCME. Was absent from votes on the AFSCME, trade-union and civilian police-review staff agreements.
Supported the worker agreements and withdrawing complaint authority
Supported the Professional Workers contract and later agreements with AFSCME, trade-union workers and civilian police-review employees. Also supported withdrawing permission for the City Attorney to file the labor-law complaint against AFSCME. These votes were separate from later staffing and layoff decisions.
Supported the worker agreements and withdrawing complaint authority
Supported the Professional Workers contract and later agreements with AFSCME, trade-union workers and civilian police-review employees. Also supported withdrawing permission for the City Attorney to file the labor-law complaint against AFSCME. These votes were separate from later staffing and layoff decisions.
The 5 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
January 15, 2025
Withdraw authority for an unfair-labor-practice complaint
All 12 councilors withdrew the previous Council’s authorization to file an unfair-labor-practice complaint against AFSCME. Green and Zimmerman introduced the resolution.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported withdrawing the complaint authority
Voted to reverse the prior authorization for the City Attorney to file the labor complaint.
Withdraw authority for an unfair-labor-practice complaint · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported withdrawing the complaint authority
Voted to reverse the prior authorization for the City Attorney to file the labor complaint.
Withdraw authority for an unfair-labor-practice complaint · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported withdrawing the complaint authority
Voted to reverse the prior authorization for the City Attorney to file the labor complaint.
Withdraw authority for an unfair-labor-practice complaint · official record (external)
This decision addressed a particular City labor dispute; it did not settle every later disagreement over contracts, staffing or layoffs.
June 18, 2025
Ratify the first Professional Workers union contract
Council unanimously ratified the first agreement with City of Portland Professional Workers. The City estimated $5.9 million in 2025–26 costs, including wage adjustments, a one-time payment, leave and other negotiated terms.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the first Professional Workers contract
Voted to approve the negotiated initial agreement establishing pay, leave and other employment conditions for the bargaining unit.
Ratify the first Professional Workers union contract · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the first Professional Workers contract
Voted to approve the negotiated initial agreement establishing pay, leave and other employment conditions for the bargaining unit.
Ratify the first Professional Workers union contract · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the first Professional Workers contract
Voted to approve the negotiated initial agreement establishing pay, leave and other employment conditions for the bargaining unit.
Ratify the first Professional Workers union contract · official record (external)
Ratification establishes contract terms. It does not guarantee that all funded positions will be retained in later budgets.
March 20, 2025
Ratify the AFSCME Local 189 successor contract
Council approved the successor agreement with AFSCME Local 189, 11–0 with Koyama Lane absent. The agreement included wage and benefit changes; the City estimated $6 million in added 2025–26 costs.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on ratify the AFSCME Local 189 successor contract. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Ratify the AFSCME Local 189 successor contract · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the negotiated AFSCME agreement
Voted to ratify the successor agreement covering wages, benefits and working conditions for represented City employees.
Ratify the AFSCME Local 189 successor contract · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the negotiated AFSCME agreement
Voted to ratify the successor agreement covering wages, benefits and working conditions for represented City employees.
Ratify the AFSCME Local 189 successor contract · official record (external)
The fiscal estimate is for this contract’s changes, not the entire City payroll.
March 20, 2025
Ratify the District Council of Trade Unions contract
Council approved the successor agreement with the District Council of Trade Unions, 11–0 with Koyama Lane absent. The City estimated approximately $1.8 million in added 2025–26 costs for the negotiated changes.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on ratify the District Council of Trade Unions contract. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Ratify the District Council of Trade Unions contract · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the negotiated trade-union agreement
Voted to ratify the contract covering pay and employment terms for the represented trade-union workers.
Ratify the District Council of Trade Unions contract · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the negotiated trade-union agreement
Voted to ratify the contract covering pay and employment terms for the represented trade-union workers.
Ratify the District Council of Trade Unions contract · official record (external)
The approval of negotiated terms was separate from the annual decision about how many positions to fund.
December 10, 2025
Approve retention terms for Independent Police Review staff
Council approved the contract for represented Independent Police Review employees, 10–1 with Koyama Lane absent. It included retention payments, with total new spending capped at $161,500.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on approve retention terms for Independent Police Review staff. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Approve retention terms for Independent Police Review staff · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the staff retention agreement
Voted to approve employment terms and retention payments for represented Independent Police Review staff.
Approve retention terms for Independent Police Review staff · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the staff retention agreement
Voted to approve employment terms and retention payments for represented Independent Police Review staff.
Approve retention terms for Independent Police Review staff · official record (external)
These were civilian review employees. This was not a collective-bargaining agreement with the police officers’ union.
Approving a contract sets employment terms. Later budgets still determine which jobs are funded. The budget topic explains the disagreements over layoffs and restoring positions.
Children’s Levy & grant choicesReconsider the grant awards, or move ahead to fund services? · 2 decisions
Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green supported sending the proposed awards back for reconsideration. Novick, Clark and Zimmerman opposed that delay. All six ultimately supported the grants.
The Children’s Levy uses tax revenue to fund organizations providing children’s services. Council first voted on whether to send proposed grant awards back for more work, then later approved roughly $71 million in grants for three years. A vote to reconsider the awards was not a vote to end children’s services.
Our reading of the record
Supported reconsidering the grant awards, then funding them
Supported sending the proposed Children’s Levy grant awards back for more work before approval. Later supported the roughly $71 million package funding children’s services over three years.
Proposed reconsidering the grant awards, then supported final funding
Moved to send the Children’s Levy grant recommendations back for more work. Later tried to keep waiting for revised recommendations; that change failed. Ultimately supported the roughly $71 million, three-year grant package.
Opposed sending the awards back; supported final funding
Opposed sending the Children’s Levy grant recommendations back for reconsideration. Later supported the roughly $71 million package funding children’s services over three years.
The 2 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
June 4, 2025
Send Children’s Levy funding recommendations back for reconsideration
Council voted 7–5 to remand the Children’s Levy allocation recommendations rather than immediately approve the proposed grants. Morillo moved the remand and Green seconded it.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported reconsidering the proposed grants
Voted to send the allocation recommendations back for further work rather than approve the proposed awards at that meeting.
Send Children’s Levy funding recommendations back for reconsideration · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported reconsidering the proposed grants
Voted to send the allocation recommendations back for further work rather than approve the proposed awards at that meeting.
Send Children’s Levy funding recommendations back for reconsideration · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: No
Opposed sending the recommendations back
Voted against remanding the proposed Children’s Levy allocations for reconsideration.
Send Children’s Levy funding recommendations back for reconsideration · official record (external)
This was a motion to send recommendations back, not a vote to abolish the levy or eliminate all children’s services.
June 25, 2025
Approve the three-year Children’s Levy grants
Council ultimately approved roughly $71 million in three-year Children’s Levy grants unanimously. Earlier in the same meeting, Morillo’s amendment to continue waiting for revised recommendations failed 6–6.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the final grant package
Supported Morillo’s unsuccessful amendment to keep waiting for revised recommendations, then voted for the final three-year grant package.
Approve the three-year Children’s Levy grants · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the final grant package
Supported Morillo’s unsuccessful amendment to keep waiting for revised recommendations, then voted for the final three-year grant package.
Approve the three-year Children’s Levy grants · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the final grant package
Opposed Morillo’s amendment to keep waiting for revised recommendations, then voted for the final three-year grant package.
Approve the three-year Children’s Levy grants · official record (external)
The final unanimous vote followed a divided process. It should be read alongside the remand and the unsuccessful amendment, rather than used to erase them.
The final agreement on funding followed a disagreement about how to choose recipients and when to approve the awards. Both parts belong in the record.
Sanctuary & officer identificationWhere did shared support for sanctuary give way to disagreement? · 3 decisions
Novick joined Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green in supporting the officer-identification rules. Clark and Zimmerman opposed those rules despite supporting the earlier sanctuary measures.
Sanctuary policies limit the City’s role in federal immigration enforcement. All six supported Portland’s October 2025 protections. A later proposal required visible law-enforcement identification, restricted facial coverings and set procedures for checking officers’ claimed authority. Council voted separately on fees for privately owned detention facilities.
Our reading of the record
Supported sanctuary protections and officer-identification rules
Supported the October measures limiting the City’s role in federal immigration enforcement. Later supported rules on visible officer identification, facial coverings and checking claimed law-enforcement authority.
Supported sanctuary protections, identification rules and detention fees
Supported the October sanctuary measures and later rules on visible officer identification, facial coverings and checking claimed authority. Also sponsored the separate proposal to charge qualifying private detention facilities for local impacts.
Supported officer-identification rules; opposed detention-facility fees
Supported sanctuary protections and later rules on officer identification, facial coverings and checking claimed authority. Opposed the separate detention-facility fees because of the precedent for charging landlords for protest-related costs.
The 3 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
October 15, 2025
Strengthen sanctuary protections in City Code
Council unanimously strengthened sanctuary protections in City Code, including limits on using City resources for immigration enforcement and measures for staff training, access to City spaces and immigrant-community liaison work.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the binding sanctuary protections
Voted to put stronger sanctuary requirements and implementation duties into City Code.
Strengthen sanctuary protections in City Code · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the binding sanctuary protections
Voted to put stronger sanctuary requirements and implementation duties into City Code.
Strengthen sanctuary protections in City Code · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the binding sanctuary protections
Voted to put stronger sanctuary requirements and implementation duties into City Code.
Strengthen sanctuary protections in City Code · official record (external)
Local sanctuary rules govern City conduct and resources; they do not give Council control over all federal immigration operations.
October 15, 2025
Adopt the Protect Portland initiative
Council unanimously approved the Protect Portland initiative, calling for preparedness, public information about rights, transparency and local protections against unlawful federal actions.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the preparedness and public-information initiative
Voted for the City’s coordinated response, transparency and rights-information measures alongside the sanctuary ordinance.
Adopt the Protect Portland initiative · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the preparedness and public-information initiative
Voted for the City’s coordinated response, transparency and rights-information measures alongside the sanctuary ordinance.
Adopt the Protect Portland initiative · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the preparedness and public-information initiative
Voted for the City’s coordinated response, transparency and rights-information measures alongside the sanctuary ordinance.
Adopt the Protect Portland initiative · official record (external)
This resolution and the binding sanctuary code were separate measures adopted on the same day.
May 27, 2026
Require law-enforcement identification and restrict masking
Council passed the amended law-enforcement identification ordinance 8–4. It addressed visible identification, facial coverings and procedures for responding to people claiming police authority, with implementation subject to applicable labor-bargaining obligations.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the identification and masking rules
Voted for the amended officer-identification code and the direction to publish the policy and address any required bargaining.
Require law-enforcement identification and restrict masking · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the identification and masking rules
Voted for the amended officer-identification code and the direction to publish the policy and address any required bargaining.
Require law-enforcement identification and restrict masking · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the identification and masking rules
Voted for the amended officer-identification code and the direction to publish the policy and address any required bargaining.
Require law-enforcement identification and restrict masking · official record (external)
Passage is not proof that the City can compel every federal agency to comply. The record includes amendments responding to legal and implementation questions.
These votes distinguish specific local responses to immigration enforcement. Agreement on sanctuary protections did not settle the separate choices about officer identification or detention-facility fees.
Business support & City investmentsWhich tools should support local businesses and guide public investment? · 4 decisions
All six supported the larger business-tax exemption. Morillo opposed accepting the storefront-support report. Zimmerman opposed the investment-policy resolution that called for ethical-investment options.
Council considered exempting more small businesses from the business-license tax, a plan to help struggling storefronts, investment in the Cully neighborhood, and possible ethical standards for investing City money. Cully’s plan uses growth in designated property-tax revenue for local housing, anti-displacement work and other neighborhood priorities.
Our reading of the record
Supported business-tax relief, neighborhood investment and ethical options
Supported exempting more small businesses from the business-license tax, accepting a storefront-support plan, and Cully’s investment plan for housing and neighborhood needs. Also supported developing ethical options for investing City money.
Supported business-tax relief; opposed the storefront-support report
Supported the larger small-business tax exemption, Cully’s housing and neighborhood investment plan, and work on ethical options for investing City money. Opposed accepting the report proposing responses to vacant storefronts and business-support needs.
Supported business-tax relief, neighborhood investment and ethical options
Supported exempting more small businesses from the business-license tax, accepting a storefront-support plan, and Cully’s investment plan for housing and neighborhood needs. Also supported developing ethical options for investing City money.
The 4 decisions, the votes and the stated reasons
March 4, 2026
Accept the Storefront Support Program action plan
Council accepted the storefront-support report 9–3. It outlined responses to commercial vacancies, street-level problems and business-support needs; accepting the report did not itself fund all proposed actions.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported accepting the storefront action plan
Voted to accept the proposed direction for improving storefront conditions and City support for business owners.
Accept the Storefront Support Program action plan · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: No
Opposed accepting this storefront action plan
Voted against accepting this report and action plan. The record does not turn that vote into opposition to every form of small-business assistance.
Accept the Storefront Support Program action plan · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported accepting the storefront action plan
Voted to accept the proposed direction for improving storefront conditions and City support for business owners.
Accept the Storefront Support Program action plan · official record (external)
This was acceptance of a report. Proposed program costs still belonged in subsequent budget decisions.
March 11, 2026
Approve Cully’s five-year investment action plan
Council approved Cully’s tax-increment-financing action plan 10–1, with Zimmerman absent. It set priorities for affordable housing, anti-displacement work, community assets and business opportunities in the district.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the Cully investment priorities
Voted to approve the community-developed framework directing future district investments, including housing stability and small-business support.
Approve Cully’s five-year investment action plan · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the Cully investment priorities
Voted to approve the community-developed framework directing future district investments, including housing stability and small-business support.
Approve Cully’s five-year investment action plan · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the Cully investment priorities
Voted to approve the community-developed framework directing future district investments, including housing stability and small-business support.
Approve Cully’s five-year investment action plan · official record (external)
Tax-increment financing uses growth in designated property-tax revenues for district investment. The action plan guided later budgets rather than appropriating every project’s full cost.
April 8, 2026
Expand the small-business tax exemption
Ordinance 192163 raised the gross-receipts exemption threshold from $50,000 to $75,000 for 2026 and $100,000 for 2027. Passed 11–0, including all six incumbents.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Backed the higher exemption threshold
Voted to exempt more small businesses from the business license tax.
Ordinance 192163 · exemption thresholds and roll call (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Backed the higher exemption threshold
Voted to exempt more small businesses from the business license tax.
Ordinance 192163 · exemption thresholds and roll call (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Backed the higher exemption threshold
Voted to exempt more small businesses from the business license tax.
Ordinance 192163 · exemption thresholds and roll call (external)
The threshold concerns gross receipts, not a tax-free profit allowance. The City forecast reduced revenue; unanimous support does not settle how to replace that revenue.
December 3, 2025
Adopt investment policy and seek ethical-screening options
Council adopted the investment-policy resolution 10–1, with Clark absent. An amendment called for developing ethical investment options considering human rights, labor, environmental and consumer impacts.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the policy with ethical-investment work
Voted for the amended investment-policy resolution, including development of options for screening investments for human-rights and other impacts.
Adopt investment policy and seek ethical-screening options · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the policy with ethical-investment work
Voted for the amended investment-policy resolution, including development of options for screening investments for human-rights and other impacts.
Adopt investment policy and seek ethical-screening options · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the policy with ethical-investment work
Voted for the amended investment-policy resolution, including development of options for screening investments for human-rights and other impacts.
Adopt investment policy and seek ethical-screening options · official record (external)
The resolution called for options and public consideration; it did not itself enact a named-company divestment list.
Accepting a plan does not fund every project in it. The investment vote requested options considering human rights, labor, environmental and consumer impacts; it did not create a list of companies the City must stop investing in.
Campesinos Boulevard & public recognitionWhom should a public street honor? · 1 decision
All six supported the final renaming. Koyama Lane co-sponsored it; Novick and Clark also advanced changes during its consideration.
Council voted to rename César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard, honoring farmworkers as a group. It also decided how to carry out the change, including public notice and new signs. The September 2026 vote came after earlier proposals had been sent back to committee.
Our reading of the record
Helped propose the boulevard’s new name
Co-sponsored renaming César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard to honor farmworkers collectively. Advanced a change accepted unanimously and voted for the final renaming.
Supported renaming the boulevard to honor farmworkers
Supported renaming César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard and authorizing the City to notify the public and carry out the change. The new name honors farmworkers collectively.
Supported the renaming and helped amend the proposal
Advanced a change accepted unanimously, then supported renaming César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard to honor farmworkers collectively.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
September 9, 2026
Rename César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard
Council unanimously approved renaming the boulevard to honor farmworkers collectively, following community concerns about its existing namesake. Koyama Lane co-sponsored the measure; the Council also adopted amendments and an emergency clause.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the Campesinos Boulevard name
Co-sponsored the renaming ordinance, advanced an amendment accepted unanimously and voted for passage.
Rename César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the Campesinos Boulevard name
Voted to rename the street in recognition of farmworkers collectively and authorize the City’s implementation and notification work.
Rename César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the Campesinos Boulevard name
Advanced an amendment accepted unanimously and voted for the final renaming ordinance.
Rename César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard · official record (external)
The adopted ordinance is the latest action. Earlier proposals referred back to committee should not be presented as if Council had never reached a decision.
This was an adopted street-renaming decision, not a proposal still waiting in committee. The final votes show agreement, with different roles in shaping the measure.
Animal welfare & business rulesShould animal-welfare concerns justify a local sales restriction? · 1 decision
Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick and Green supported the sales restriction. Clark and Zimmerman opposed it.
Council considered banning sales of products made from force-fed birds, including foie gras produced that way. The proposal delayed the start of the sales restrictions so affected businesses could adjust. It did not ban all poultry products.
Our reading of the record
Supported banning sales of products from force-fed birds
Supported prohibiting sales of products made from force-fed birds, with a delayed start so affected businesses could adjust.
Supported banning sales of products from force-fed birds
Supported prohibiting sales of products made from force-fed birds, with a delayed start so affected businesses could adjust.
Supported banning sales of products from force-fed birds
Supported prohibiting sales of products made from force-fed birds, with a delayed start so affected businesses could adjust.
The decision, the votes and the stated reasons
June 4, 2026
Prohibit sales of products from force-fed poultry
Council passed the ordinance 7–5 to prohibit sales of products from force-fed poultry, including foie gras made that way. It provided a delayed start for the prohibited-conduct rules to allow affected businesses to adjust.
Tiffany Koyama LaneTiffany Koyama Lane: Yes
Supported the sales prohibition
Voted for the ordinance restricting sales of products from force-fed poultry after the transition period.
Prohibit sales of products from force-fed poultry · official record (external)
Angelita MorilloAngelita Morillo: Yes
Supported the sales prohibition
Voted for the ordinance restricting sales of products from force-fed poultry after the transition period.
Prohibit sales of products from force-fed poultry · official record (external)
Steve NovickSteve Novick: Yes
Supported the sales prohibition
Voted for the ordinance restricting sales of products from force-fed poultry after the transition period.
Prohibit sales of products from force-fed poultry · official record (external)
The ordinance concerns products from force-fed poultry, not every poultry product. A no vote alone does not establish opposition to all animal-welfare protections.
This vote shows a difference over regulating a particular production practice. It does not establish a councilor’s position on every animal-welfare or business regulation.
Reviewed through September 18, 2026. A vote, a stated reason and our interpretation are distinct. “Not on committee” means the member had no vote in that committee; “Absent” means they missed that roll call. How we checked topic coverage