Skip to main content
Portland City Councilor Angelita Morillo last week proposed a $4.35 million cut to the city’s homeless camp cleanup program as part of the fall budget adjustment process. After a lengthy Wednesday meeting of the Portland City Council, where Morillo’s proposal took front and center stage, the controversial proposal died.
The proposal failed, but only after it kicked up a public fight between Morillo and Mayor Keith Wilson, who exchanged allegations that the other was misleading the public about the consequences of the cut. Their dispute reflected old and deep disagreements about the ethics and effectiveness of sweeping homeless camps.
Morillo’s proposal—to cut $4.35 million from the city’s Impact Reduction Program that funds homeless camp cleanups—first gained traction late last week. She proposed it as an amendment to what the city calls its technical adjustment ordinance, or the midyear budget adjustment process to correct for any mistakes, unexpected deficits, or unexpected surpluses. This year, the council is reckoning with a nearly $19 million midyear budget deficit.
Wilson over the weekend sounded the alarm. (Sweeps have increased under his administration, as has IRP’s budget; and earlier this month, Wilson reinstated enforcement of the city’s camping ban, which he touted has led to the arrest of 40 people on outstanding warrants and to 39 people accepting shelter beds.)
In a rare public missive over the weekend responding to Morillo’s amendment, Wilson went nuclear. In the email, he warned that Morillo’s amendment would put “neighborhood livability at risk.” He also alleged her proposal would result in cuts to the Portland Parks & Recreation, the Portland Police Bureau, services to women suffering from domestic violence, and trash pickup programs that hire formerly homeless people. “This would be devastating for every neighborhood as upwards of 4,000,000 pounds of biohazard materials could be left uncollected,” Wilson wrote. “Perhaps most painful of all, we would be forced to lay off up to 100 workers, including those in successful workforce development programs that prioritize hiring workers with lived experience of homelessness or prior incarceration.”
Morillo fought back. In a series of social media videos and posts on Bluesky and Instagram, Morillo said Wilson had provided a “deep mischaracterization” of her proposal and said he was “fearmongering.” She said a portion of that cut—$2 million—would be better spent on food and rent assistance and immigrant refugee groups.
“I really haven’t aired out dirty laundry in an attempt to build rapport with my colleagues, but if my name is going to be smeared on a massive list-serve you leave me no choice but to respond,” she wrote on Instagram. On Bluesky she wrote: “Mayor Wilson could’ve called me to clarify and ask questions before blasting us in a newsletter, but of course he has to find a scapegoat when he doesn’t magically end homelessness on [Dec. 1] by warehousing people.”
In the days leading up to Wednesday’s meeting, councilors to Morillo’s right panned her proposal, as did business and some environmental groups.
Councilor Steve Novick told WW midweek that Morillo’s amendment gave too little time to both the public and the council to properly weigh the implications.
“The idea of giving councilors and the public five days—including two weekend days and one holiday—to review and react to three major budget cuts is outrageous,“ Novick said. ”Any councilor who believes in public involvement in the budget process should oppose these proposals."
Councilor Olivia Clark said Morillo’s amendment “seems to represent a growing toxicity and lack of respect on Council.” Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney in an email to constituents wrote that “meaningful change requires planning, transparency, and community input. Portlanders deserve a government that takes the time to get it right, not one that makes sweeping changes on short notice.”
A group of environmental, union and business groups penned a letter Tuesday evening urging the council to reject Morillo’s proposal, focusing on what they said was a $1 million cut to the parks bureau that would violate “the commitment to taxpayers and directly reduce future funding available for park maintenance, recreation programs, and community services.” Signatories included 1000 Friends of Oregon, Willamette Riverkeeper, the Portland Metro Chamber, AFSCME Local 189 and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters.
Come Wednesday, the disagreement over what Morillo’s amendment would do permeated much of the 10-hour council meeting. While Morillo’s amendment included other line items, too, the cut to the sweeps program took center stage in the debate. At the start of the discussion, Morillo called on her policy analyst to correct the record, saying much of what Wilson’s email had claimed was false. Instead, Morillo reiterated from the dais, her proposal’s intent was simple: to reduce the number of homeless camp sweeps.
The city’s chief financial officer, Jonas Biery, took issue with some of the information presented by Morillo’s office. “I’m concerned that some information that was presented seems to me to be inconsistent with what I’ve heard about service impacts from the bureaus,“ Biery told councilors.
After hours of testimony from members of the public, the council debated Morillo’s amendment and subamendments. As it became clear Morillo’s amendment would fail—Councilor Loretta Smith, who earlier in the week appeared ready to support it, withdrew her backing—Morillo made pointed remarks to both her colleagues and Wilson, who was present in the chamber.
She again accused Wilson of “whipping [organizations] into a frenzy” by warning them they would be on the chopping block were Morillo’s amendment to pass. She said Wilson had used those organizations “as shields for deeply problematic policy.”
“So if the administration is going through and calling those folks and whipping them into a frenzy—and yes, by the administration I do mean you, Mayor Wilson, and some of your staff,” Morillo said, looking directly at Wilson, “they are pitting us against community members we never wanted to stand against.”
(Ground Score Association had sent a letter to Morillo’s office earlier in the week, stating that its “contract will collapse, resulting in the immediate loss of income and stability for 67 of our workers,” should Morillo’s amendment pass as is. The council did pass an amendment Wednesday that, if the technical adjustment ordinance is approved, will move Ground Score to a different bureau to insulate it from any cuts or changes.)
Councilors supporting Morillo’s amendment, including Mitch Green and Candace Avalos, used the issue at hand to hammer a stance they’ve taken for much of the year: that the administration’s proposed budgets are not simply a neutral accounting process, but instead a political one. (Biery, the city’s chief financial officer, has taken recent issue with that sentiment. In a recent council committee meeting, he said: “I’ve heard language suggesting that there’s an attempt to game the numbers or produce a shadow budget. I want to state as directly as possible, that that is absolutely not the case.”). That allegation largely reflects a growing ideological split between the council’s six-member progressive caucus, called Peacock, and the mayor’s office.
Morillo’s amendment eventually died. Three councilors voted in opposition: Pirtle-Guiney, Smith and Novick. Five voted for it, including Morillo, Mitch Green, Tiffany Koyama Lane, Jamie Dunphy and Sameer Kanal. Councilors Avalos, Clark, Zimmerman and Dan Ryan were absent at the time of the vote.
Prior to the final vote, Wilson and Morillo went at it once more in final remarks. Morillo alleged Wilson conjured up false consequences of her amendment in an attempt to kill it.
“And now, regardless of how anybody feels about this amendment, the fact that the mayor and city bureaucrats would engage in this sort of behavior should be of deep concern to ever single one of my colleagues,” Morillo said. “It would seem that the mayor is more interested in his own agenda than working within the boundaries of our new government.”
Wilson asked to respond to Morillo’s remarks.
“We’ve heard from people from across the city and they feel blindsided. They feel cut out of this process, confused by the shifting narrative and the unclear answers from the council. It relies on bad information that does not acknowledge the immediate and severe hardship this would bring to neighborhoods,” Wilson said.
And in a rare public swipe at the council, which has passed few policies in its first year, Wilson said: “We need a professional, disciplined executive. Also we need a professional, disciplined council. I ask that you vote no.”
The council voted to send the overall technical adjustment ordinance to a second reading next week, without Morillo’s proposed changes.
