Recorded votes · Reviewed September 18, 2026
How District 4’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 Eric Zimmerman, Mitch Green and Olivia Clark. 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.
Police accountabilitySplit on 4 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.
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.
Council powers, offices & oversightSplit on 2 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.
Housing & developmentSplit on 2 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 2 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.
Zenith & climate oversightSplit on 2 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 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.
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.
Sanctuary & officer identificationSplit on 1 of 3 votes
All six councilors: All six supported the sanctuary measures. Novick joined Koyama Lane, Morillo and Green on the identification ordinance; Clark and Zimmerman opposed it.
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.
Climate fund & general servicesSplit on 1 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 1 of 2 votes
All six councilors: Different coalitions on the arena negotiating framework and the PSU/Keller planning strategy.
Unarmed crisis responseSplit on 1 of 2 votes
All six councilors: Clark opposed the expansion framework, while the other five supported the final resolution. All six later backed committee appointments.
Animal welfare & business rulesSplit on its one vote
All six councilors: Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick and Green voted yes. Clark and Zimmerman voted no.
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.
Agreed on every vote
- Campaign finance & elections2 decisions
- Campesinos Boulevard & public recognition1 decision
- Firearms in public buildings1 decision
- Homelessness & removals3 decisions
- ICE & local authority1 decision
- Infrastructure & maintenance1 decision
- Labor contracts & City workers5 decisions
- Natural psychedelics1 decision
- Parks, trees & public land5 decisions
- Permitting & development costs2 decisions
- Privacy, surveillance & AI3 decisions
- Traffic safety & 82nd Avenue2 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 police and fire services, using expected police-oversight savings
In 2025, opposed moving proposed new police funding to park maintenance.
In June 2026, proposed $7.68 million for police support, training and fire rescue. Her plan would use reserves first, then repay them with expected unspent money from the office overseeing police misconduct. Those savings were a forecast, not money already available.
Opposed both June alternatives using climate-fund interest to restore parks, public-safety support and other services. In July, supported the smaller plan to restore services using reserves and other one-time money.
Favored restoring more services, then accepted a smaller plan
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, supported the larger plan to restore services. After it failed, supported the smaller plan funded with reserves and other one-time money.
Kept the proposed police increase; opposed the overall annual budget
In 2025, opposed moving proposed new police funding to park maintenance.
In June 2026, supported using money expected to go unspent by the police-accountability office for police and fire services. Opposed both June alternatives using climate-fund interest to restore parks, public-safety support and other services, and voted against the overall 2026–27 budget.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Keep the proposed police increase
Voted against transferring the proposed police allocation to parks.
Their stated case. Said the transfer would send the wrong signal to Portlanders.
May 21 budget · clerk’s amendment roll calls (external)Willamette Week · parks and police debate (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Put the proposed increase into parks
Voted to redirect the proposed new police allocation to parks maintenance.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Keep the proposed police increase
Voted against transferring the proposed police allocation to parks.
Their stated case. Prioritized police staffing and argued that parks could be funded through other proposals.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Restore a broad set of services
Co-proposed and moved Services First, then voted for it.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Proposed using oversight underspending
Supported the $7.68 million plan for police support, training and fire rescue, backed by expected underspending in the oversight office.
Their stated case. Her amendment argued that projected unspent oversight funding could restore police and fire services while meeting the adopted-budget charter requirement.
Clerk’s amendment roll call · PDF page 59 (external)Clark 2 · amendment text, PDF page 9 (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: No
Keep the oversight funding in place
Rejected using expected police-accountability office underspending to reimburse the public-safety restoration package.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Rejected this climate-interest alternative
Voted no on Pirtle-Guiney–Novick 4 after backing the oversight-funding proposal.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: No
Rejected this smaller package
Voted no on Pirtle-Guiney–Novick 4 after supporting Services First.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Rejected this climate-interest alternative
Voted no on Pirtle-Guiney–Novick 4 after backing the oversight-funding proposal.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Rejected the overall budget
Voted no on the final annual budget; later supported the July service-restoration package.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Smaller package only
Co-sponsored the smaller service-restoration package. Voted against the larger alternative, then for the smaller package.
Why she backed the smaller plan. Said it restored critical positions identified with labor unions and was the more fiscally responsible option.
Ordinance 192207 · amended budget and final roll call (external)Both budget proposals · roll calls (external)Portland Mercury · Clark on the two budget plans (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Larger plan, then smaller fallback
Co-sponsored and backed the larger plan using climate-fund interest. After it failed, voted for the smaller package.
Ordinance 192207 · amended budget and final roll call (external)Both budget proposals · roll calls (external)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Smaller package only
Voted against the larger restoration plan and for the smaller package funded from contingency reserves and other funds.
Ordinance 192207 · amended budget and final roll call (external)Both budget proposals · roll calls (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 investigating the agreement, but opposed the right to sue
Sought changes to the 2025 proposal to investigate Zenith’s pipeline agreement, then supported the investigation. In 2026, opposed giving residents an added right to sue over its conditions and supported transferring the agreement to the new owner.
Helped propose a right for residents to enforce the agreement
Supported investigating Zenith’s pipeline agreement. With Morillo, proposed allowing residents to sue over violations of its conditions. After Council rejected that condition, opposed transferring the agreement to the new owner.
Supported investigating the agreement, but opposed the right to sue
Sought changes to the 2025 proposal to investigate Zenith’s pipeline agreement, then supported the investigation. 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Requested revisions, then backed investigation
Supported removing disputed preamble language and attachments. Those changes failed; she still voted for the final resolution.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Backed the investigation
Voted to request investigation of the franchise and City permitting process.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Requested revisions, then backed investigation
Moved to remove disputed preamble language and attachments. Those changes failed; he still voted for the final 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Rejected the resident-enforcement amendment
Voted against adding the citizen-suit condition to the franchise transfer.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Add residents’ right to sue
Co-proposed and moved the resident-enforcement amendment with Morillo.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Approve the transfer
Voted to transfer the existing pipeline franchise to ISQ Springer Holdings after the citizen-suit amendment failed.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: No
Reject the transfer as presented
Voted against the transfer after supporting the failed citizen-suit amendment. Reconsideration remained pending.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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
Absent from the camp-removal spending vote
Was absent when Council voted on moving about $4.3 million from camp removals to personnel and social-service support. This roll call records no position for or against that proposal.
Supported moving camp-removal money to other services
Supported moving about $4.3 million from clearing homeless camps into a package supporting personnel, housing, food and immigration services. Argued that removals were ineffective and harmed people living outside. The proposal failed.
Absent from the camp-removal spending vote
Was absent when Council voted on moving about $4.3 million from camp removals to personnel and social-service support. This roll call records no position for or against that proposal.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Absent
Absent on the amendment
Did not cast a yes or no vote on Morillo 1. Earlier discussion and the later overall budget vote are different actions.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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.
Their stated case. Argued that camp removals were ineffective and inflicted further harm on people living outside.
Fall budget · Morillo 1 amendment roll call (external)OPB · camp-removal funding debate (external)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Absent
Absent on the amendment
Did not cast a yes or no vote on Morillo 1. Earlier discussion and the later overall budget vote are different actions.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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
Opposed the rent-software restriction; supported the income-rule change
Opposed restricting landlords’ rent-setting software, citing housing-investment and lawsuit concerns. Was absent from the final construction-fee waiver vote. Supported removing the buyer-income limit for certain homes already receiving an affordable-housing fee exemption.
Supported restricting rent-setting software and the income-rule change
Co-sponsored and supported the restriction on software that lets landlords coordinate rents. Also supported the construction-fee waiver and removing the buyer-income limit for certain homes already receiving an affordable-housing fee exemption.
Missed the rent-software vote; opposed removing the buyer-income limit
Was absent from the final vote on restricting landlords’ rent-setting software. Supported the temporary construction-fee waiver, but opposed 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed the ban
Voted against the ordinance; it passed 8–2.
Her stated concern · November 12. Said another restriction would discourage needed housing investment and raised the risk of a lawsuit.
Ordinance 192122 · final roll call (external)OPB · Clark’s objections (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Absent
Absent on the final ordinance
Did not cast a vote on the adopted housing fee waiver.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Backed the temporary housing fee waiver
Voted to lower upfront development costs for qualifying new housing through a temporary waiver of infrastructure charges.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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)
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
Supported the arena terms while opposing the higher proposed rent
Opposed increasing the arena tenant’s proposed annual rent from $2 million to $3.17 million, then supported the revised Moda Center terms. Emphasized the opportunity for state matching investment. Also supported the separate Portland State University and Keller Auditorium performing-arts planning proposal.
Rejected the arena cost; supported performing-arts planning
Tried to remove the proposed $275 million commitment for future Moda Center building needs. After that change failed, opposed the arena terms. Supported the separate planning proposal for a new Portland State University performing-arts venue and a smaller Keller Auditorium.
Supported the arena terms while opposing the higher proposed rent
Opposed increasing the arena tenant’s proposed annual rent from $2 million to $3.17 million, then supported the revised Moda Center terms. Previously argued that the state investment could support jobs and events. Also supported the separate Portland State University and Keller Auditorium performing-arts planning proposal.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Approved; opposed the rent increase
Opposed Novick’s increase in proposed annual rent from $2 million to $3.17 million, then voted for the amended framework.
Why she said yes. Emphasized the state’s matching investment and said she did not want the city to lose that opportunity.
Resolution 37750 · final roll call and amendments (external)Portland Mercury · Clark’s explanation (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: No
Rejected the public cost
Tried to remove the additional $275 million commitment for future capital needs. That amendment failed; he voted no on the framework.
Why he said no. Argued that the city was cutting basic services while offering a costly arena deal whose necessity and promised economic benefits had not been established.
Resolution 37750 · final roll call and amendments (external)Green and Morillo · explanations after the vote (external)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Approved; opposed the rent increase
Opposed Novick’s increase in proposed annual rent from $2 million to $3.17 million, then voted for the amended framework.
His earlier stated case · April 30. Argued that Portland should follow through on the state investment to support arena jobs, events, tourism and union construction work.
Resolution 37750 · final roll call and amendments (external)Zimmerman · April newsletter (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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Advance the PSU/Keller plan
Voted to advance PSU venue development work and planning for a smaller Keller Auditorium.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Advance the PSU/Keller plan
Backed the PSU/Keller planning resolution after voting against the Moda negotiating framework in August.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
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.
Absent from the final detention-facility vote
Was absent from the final vote on fees and rules for qualifying private detention facilities. This roll call records no vote for or against that ordinance.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Absent
Absent on the final ordinance
Did not cast a vote on the adopted ordinance.
Detention-facility ordinance · adopted text and roll call (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 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.
Opposed construction borrowing; supported the annual charges
Opposed borrowing through bonds for the Bull Run water-filtration project. Supported the annual water-rate increase and the separate sewer and stormwater charges.
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, citing the combined burden of rising living costs.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the water-rate increase
Voted against the annual water-rate schedule and its increase in customer charges.
Zimmerman · June explanation. He grouped these increases with new transportation charges and the arts-tax increase, arguing that their combined burden was too much while residents faced rising living costs.
Raise annual water rates · official record (external)Zimmerman · June explanation (external)
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Approved sewer and stormwater rates
Voted for the annual rates and charges funding sewer and stormwater operations and infrastructure.
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Approved sewer and stormwater rates
Voted for the annual rates and charges funding sewer and stormwater operations and infrastructure.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed sewer and stormwater rates
Voted against the annual sewer and stormwater rate schedule.
Zimmerman · June explanation. He grouped these increases with new transportation charges and the arts-tax increase, arguing that their combined burden was too much while residents faced rising living costs.
Set sewer and stormwater rates · official record (external)Zimmerman · June explanation (external)
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 a steady source of money for street repairs
Supported the sidewalk plan, annual parking and permit charges, and the new monthly transportation fee. Helped lead the fee proposal and argued that delaying maintenance would leave future residents with higher repair costs.
Supported the fee and reconsidering how businesses are charged
Supported the sidewalk plan, annual parking and permit charges, and the new monthly transportation fee. With Clark, added a process to review how commercial properties would be charged, because utility use and road use are different.
Opposed the new charges, but helped direct the spending
Supported the sidewalk plan but opposed the new monthly transportation fee and annual parking and permit charges. Before the fee passed, worked with Koyama Lane to direct its money toward maintenance and safety.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Approved a new source of street funding
Helped lead the fee proposal and co-authored a business-rate review amendment with Green, then voted for the new revenue source.
Clark · explanation reported by the Mercury. She argued that postponing repairs would leave future residents with a larger burden, and described stable transportation revenue as the fiscally responsible choice.
Create a monthly transportation utility fee · official record (external)Clark · explanation reported by the Mercury (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Approved a new source of street funding
Co-authored the business-rate review amendment with Clark, then supported the fee and its dedicated maintenance and safety funding.
Create a monthly transportation utility fee · official record (external)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the fee after helping shape it
Voted against creating the fee, after working with Koyama Lane on the amendment allocating revenue to maintenance, traffic safety and missing sidewalks.
Zimmerman · why he voted no. He said residents should have a vote before another monthly charge was added. Because he expected passage, he worked on directing the money toward existing roads and Southwest sidewalks.
Create a monthly transportation utility fee · official record (external)Zimmerman · why he voted no (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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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)
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the annual transportation charges
Voted against the package updating parking and other transportation fees.
Zimmerman · June explanation. He identified street-parking increases as one part of the combined tax and fee burden he opposed because of residents’ rising living costs.
Update parking and transportation fees · official record (external)Zimmerman · June explanation (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
Opposed the revised arts tax
Opposed the package raising the arts tax from $35 to $50 and expanding low-income exemptions. The roll call establishes her vote; the sources here do not establish a separate stated reason.
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 higher charge and wanted voters to decide
Opposed raising the arts tax from $35 to $50 while changing its exemptions. Argued that the higher charge could still burden minimum-wage workers and that voters should decide major changes to the tax.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed the final arts-tax package
Voted against the package increasing the assessment and changing its exemptions and administration.
Raise the arts tax and expand exemptions · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the final arts-tax package
Voted against the package increasing the assessment and changing its exemptions and administration.
Zimmerman · why he voted no. He argued that the higher charge would still burden minimum-wage workers and that voters should decide major changes to a tax they originally approved.
Raise the arts tax and expand exemptions · official record (external)Zimmerman · why he voted no (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
Opposed the expansion plan; supported appointing the advisers
Opposed the June 2025 plan to expand Portland Street Response, the unarmed crisis-response service. In December, supported appointing the community committee that would help guide it.
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, favored keeping the service unarmed while expanding the situations its mental-health and medical responders could handle.
Opposed an earlier version, then supported the revised plan
In April 2025, opposed advancing the Portland Street Response proposal from committee. In June, supported the revised plan to expand unarmed crisis response. In December, supported 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed this expansion framework
Voted against this resolution setting out Portland Street Response’s expanded role and its community committee.
Expand Portland Street Response’s role · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Supported expanding the unarmed response
Opposed sending the proposal forward in committee in April, then voted yes on the amended resolution before full Council in June. His final position on that resolution was support.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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
Split on board membership; proposed using expected savings
Supported the first board appointments and removing Halsey over eligibility. Opposed removing alternate member Bob Weinstein over his conduct and opposed the later replacement appointments. Proposed using reserves for police and fire services, then repaying them with money the police-accountability office was expected not to spend.
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.
Split on board membership; supported using expected savings
Supported the first board appointments and removing Halsey over eligibility. Opposed removing alternate member Bob Weinstein over his conduct and opposed the later replacement appointments. 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed removing the alternate
Voted against the portion of the report removing Weinstein from the alternate roster.
Remove an accountability-board alternate for cause · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed removing the alternate
Voted against the portion of the report removing Weinstein from the alternate roster.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed this board appointment and term package
Voted against the February replacement and term-setting resolution, after supporting the board’s initial appointments in June 2025.
Fill vacancies and restart accountability-board terms · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed this board appointment and term package
Voted against the February replacement and term-setting resolution, after supporting the board’s initial appointments in June 2025.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Proposed using oversight underspending
Supported the $7.68 million plan for police support, training and fire rescue, backed by expected underspending in the oversight office.
Their stated case. Her amendment argued that projected unspent oversight funding could restore police and fire services while meeting the adopted-budget charter requirement.
Clerk’s amendment roll call · PDF page 59 (external)Clark 2 · amendment text, PDF page 9 (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: No
Keep the oversight funding in place
Rejected using expected police-accountability office underspending to reimburse the public-safety restoration package.
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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
Supported the staffing assessment and property-enforcement changes
Supported requesting a police staffing-and-cost assessment and expanding enforcement rules for properties linked to repeated criminal activity. The assessment vote did not itself fund new officer positions.
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 requesting a police staffing-and-cost assessment and expanding enforcement rules for properties linked to repeated criminal activity. The assessment vote did not itself fund new officer positions.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Supported stronger tools against repeated property crime
Voted for the amended rules allowing the City to require property owners to address repeated criminal activity, including trafficking-related activity.
Expand chronic-nuisance property enforcement · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Supported stronger tools against repeated property crime
Voted for the amended rules allowing the City to require property owners to address repeated criminal activity, including trafficking-related activity.
Expand chronic-nuisance property enforcement · official record (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.
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 to put the gun proposal on hold
Supported pausing the proposal to restrict licensed concealed carry in specified City buildings. His yes vote was for that pause, not for adopting the gun 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Voted to put the proposal on hold
Moved and supported the committee motion to table the proposed public-building firearms restrictions.
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.
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.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Supported advancing the amended proposal
Opposed Kanal’s amendment in committee, then supported referring the amended proposal to full Council. His referral vote was yes; full Council had not yet voted.
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 the May interest transfer
Approved the climate-investment changes and the May transfer of interest to the general budget. Later proposed restoring police and fire services with money expected to go unspent by the police-accountability office, and backed July’s smaller plan using reserves and other one-time money.
Opposed the investment-plan changes; supported transferring interest
Opposed the final changes to the climate fund’s investment plan but supported the May transfer of interest to the general budget. Later backed using additional interest to restore parks, fire rescue, unarmed police support and other city jobs.
Supported the climate plan and the May interest transfer
Approved the climate-investment changes and the May transfer of interest to the general budget. Opposed the later Services First proposal to use additional interest 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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 advancing the pause; missed the final vote
Supported sending the proposed pause in selected development-upgrade requirements from committee to Council, but was absent from the final vote. Later supported further work to make building rules consistent and improve permitting.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Absent
Absent from this vote
Supported sending the ordinance forward from the housing committee in August, but was absent from the final September vote. His committee support and final absence are separate facts.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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 the forest plan and Sellwood sale; missed the parks-tax vote
Supported 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. Was absent when Council put the parks tax before voters.
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.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on refer the five-year parks levy to voters. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Refer the five-year parks levy to voters · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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
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.
Added attention to homeless residents’ traffic deaths
Won a change requiring analysis of traffic deaths among people experiencing homelessness, then supported the renewed traffic-safety effort. 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Supported the traffic-safety framework
Moved the unanimously approved amendment requiring analysis of traffic deaths involving people experiencing homelessness, then backed the final resolution.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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 the final privacy rules after opposing an earlier version
Supported creating a central privacy office. Opposed advancing an earlier version of the accompanying privacy rules from committee, then supported the revised final version. 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Supported the final privacy framework
Opposed the December committee referral and sought to table the proposal, then supported the amended final framework before full Council in February.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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 office resources; preferred a different investigation
Supported increasing Council office budgets, reorganizing policy committees, and setting annual priorities. Supported an alternative investigation by administrators or the Auditor into unspent rental-registration money, then opposed the final public-inquiry proposal.
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 office resources; opposed the committee change and inquiry
Supported increasing Council office budgets and setting annual priorities. Opposed replacing eight policy committees with five and opposed the final public inquiry into unspent rental-registration money and how administrators informed Council about it.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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)
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the committee reorganization
Voted against replacing the existing committee arrangement with the proposed five-committee structure.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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)
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed this inquiry process
Voted against the final public-inquiry resolution. This records a choice about the proposed investigation process rather than establishing approval of any financial mismanagement.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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 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.
Helped withdraw complaint authority and supported the worker agreements
With Zimmerman, introduced the decision withdrawing permission for the City Attorney to file a labor-law complaint against AFSCME. Supported the Professional Workers, AFSCME, trade-union and civilian police-review staff agreements.
Helped withdraw complaint authority and supported the worker agreements
With Green, introduced the decision withdrawing permission for the City Attorney to file a labor-law complaint against AFSCME. Supported the Professional Workers, AFSCME, trade-union and civilian police-review staff agreements.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Supported withdrawing the complaint authority
Co-introduced the resolution to withdraw the previous Council’s complaint authority, then supported its unanimous passage.
Withdraw authority for an unfair-labor-practice complaint · official record (external)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Supported withdrawing the complaint authority
Co-introduced the resolution to withdraw the previous Council’s complaint authority, then supported its unanimous passage.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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
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.
Helped send the awards back, then supported final funding
Seconded the proposal to return the Children’s Levy grant recommendations for more work. Later supported the roughly $71 million package funding children’s services over three years.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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; opposed officer-identification rules
Supported the October sanctuary measures and the separate detention-facility fees. Opposed the later rules on visible officer identification, facial coverings and checking claimed law-enforcement authority.
Supported sanctuary protections, identification rules and detention fees
Supported sanctuary protections and later rules on officer identification, facial coverings and checking claimed authority. Also supported the separate fees for qualifying privately owned detention facilities.
Supported sanctuary protections; opposed officer-identification rules
Supported the October sanctuary measures but opposed the later rules on visible officer identification, facial coverings and checking claimed authority. Was absent from the final vote on the separate detention-facility fees.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed the identification and masking ordinance
Voted against the final ordinance setting these identification and facial-covering requirements.
Require law-enforcement identification and restrict masking · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the identification and masking ordinance
Voted against the final ordinance setting these identification and facial-covering requirements.
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 tax relief and local investment; missed the investment-policy vote
Supported the larger small-business tax exemption, storefront-support plan, and Cully’s housing and neighborhood investment plan. Was absent from the final vote on developing ethical options for investing City money.
Supported the final measures, including a revised position on Cully
Supported the small-business tax exemption, storefront-support plan, Cully investment plan and work on ethical options for investing City money. Earlier opposed advancing the Cully plan from committee, then supported the final neighborhood plan.
Supported business-tax relief; opposed the investment-policy resolution
Co-sponsored the larger small-business tax exemption and supported accepting the storefront-support report. Opposed the resolution calling for ethical options for investing City money. Was absent from the final vote on Cully’s housing and neighborhood investment plan.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: Yes
Supported the Cully investment priorities
Opposed the plan’s committee referral in February, then supported the final resolution in March. His final vote approved the district’s investment priorities.
Approve Cully’s five-year investment action plan · official record (external)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on approve Cully’s five-year investment action plan. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: 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)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: Yes
Co-sponsored the higher exemption
Co-sponsored the ordinance and moved an amendment before voting for the final exemption expansion.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Absent
Absent from this vote
Was absent when Council voted on adopt investment policy and seek ethical-screening options. The record does not contain a yes or no vote for this decision.
Adopt investment policy and seek ethical-screening options · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the amended investment-policy resolution
Voted against the ethical-policy amendment and the final investment-policy resolution.
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
Supported the renaming and a quicker implementation process
Moved the emergency clause to respond to community concerns and help staff carry out the change. Supported renaming César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard to honor farmworkers collectively.
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 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.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: Yes
Supported the Campesinos Boulevard name
Moved the unanimously approved emergency clause to respond to community concerns and facilitate staff implementation, then supported the ordinance.
Rename César E. Chávez Boulevard as Campesinos Boulevard · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: 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)
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
Helped revise the proposal, then opposed the sales ban
Advanced a change Council accepted, then voted against the final ban on sales of products from force-fed birds. Helping revise the proposal did not change her final no vote.
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.
Opposed the ban on products from force-fed birds
Voted against the final proposal to prohibit sales of products made from force-fed birds, including foie gras produced that way.
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.
Olivia ClarkOlivia Clark: No
Opposed the final sales prohibition
Advanced an amendment that Council adopted, then opposed the final sales prohibition. Her participation in revising implementation did not change her final no vote.
Prohibit sales of products from force-fed poultry · official record (external)
Mitch GreenMitch Green: 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)
Eric ZimmermanEric Zimmerman: No
Opposed the final sales prohibition
Voted against the final ordinance restricting these products.
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