Councilors signal budget amendments to add emergency planners and exercise capacity for CEI Hub and city response

Portland councilors and PBEM staff discussed proposals to add emergency-planning positions and exercise capacity to better prepare the city for complex hazards, including planning related to the Columbia Corridor energy/critical infrastructure (CEI) hub.

Deputy Director Jordan Wylie and PBEM Chief Resilience Officer Richard Narwal told the Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee the bureau currently lacks dedicated planning and exercise staff for many citywide contingency needs and for large, complex projects such as the CEI hub. Narwal said three additional emergency-management positions (two planners and one exercises/training role) would improve coordination, plan development, and testing; PBEM staff estimated a larger, ideal staffing need of roughly 55 positions and about $10 million to cover all mission-essential functions, but said smaller targeted hires would provide important near-term capacity.

What councilors proposed: Councilor Nick/Novick (transcript: "Novick") said he intends to propose budget adjustments that would reallocate council-office funding to cover PBEM positions. He described a slimmed package to fund two planners and one exercises/training position at roughly $625,000 total and suggested reducing new council office budgets by about $52,083 each to cover the cost. Councilor Kunal said he supports adding PBEM capacity and noted complementary requests to add CEI-dedicated planning positions in the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability are also being considered (Clark 2 / Novick 3 referenced during discussion). Councilors asked for briefings on options and the administration's recommended funding sources.

Why it matters: PBEM staff said current resource limits force them to "triage" and prevent robust plan-testing and exercises; Narwal said the bureau currently has about 0.25 FTE dedicated to exercises and that additional exercise capacity would allow the city to validate plans and conduct multi-jurisdiction emergency exercises. Councilors framed the requests as investments in resilience for hazard scenarios that could have large public-safety and economic consequences.

Funding and process questions: Councilors discussed potential funding sources (reallocating council discretionary funds, contingency in the adopted budget, and federal grants). Novick initially described a larger $3 million proposal funded by cutting council-office budgets, then narrowed to the $625,000 proposal for immediate PBEM hires; Councilor Kunal and others noted complementary funding sources exist but also flagged the need to clarify overhead and discretionary constraints in existing budget lines before finalizing amendments. PBEM staff also noted some federal funding that supported positions may end, potentially requiring further adjustments.

Next steps: Councilors requested briefings from PBEM and associated bureaus before the committee's June 12 meeting and indicated they would file formal budget amendments (Novick 3 and related proposals were discussed). No formal vote on amendments was recorded in the transcript; committee members said they expected more detailed budget proposals and administrative follow-up in advance of the next meeting.