Decisions/2025-227
Emergency ordinance2025-227

Should Portland approve the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission FY 2025-26 Fund Budget?

The City of Portland is a party to an intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah County and the cities of Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village, dated December 24, 1992, as modified by subsequent amendments, creating the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission (“MHCRC”) for the purposes of:Advocating for and protecting the public interest in the regulation and development of communications systems;Monitoring and helping resolve subscribers' concerns; andFacilitating the planning and implementation of community uses of communications technologies.The MHCRC contracts for staff and other support services through a separate services agreement with the City of Portland. The MHCRC funds an equivalent of 4.35 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions in the City’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, plus related materials, services, financial and administrative costs.The Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) establishes the responsibilities and powers of the MHCRC, including the process for member jurisdictions’ approval of the MHCRC’s annual budget. Under the terms of the IGA:The MHCRC transmits its adopted fiscal year budget to the jurisdictions for approval; andEach jurisdiction annually contributes funding to the operations of the MHCRC as determined during the annual budget process through a cost allocation methodology.The MHCRC adopted the FY 2025-26 Fund Budget, FY 2025-26 Goals and Objectives (respectively document Exhibit A) at its May 19, 2025, Regular Meeting. About 35% of the MHCRC operating budget is funded by the jurisdictions’ allocations and the remaining by other MHCRC resources. The City of Portland cost allocation for the FY 2025-26 operating budget is $355,622, which is the MHCRC Special Appropriation amount contained in the City of Portland Council FY 2025-26 budget. The City’s cost allocation represents 65% of the total jurisdictional allocations to the budget with 35% provided by the East County jurisdictions.Nearly all the MHCRC’s resources are funds collected from the cable companies in the form of franchise fees from revenue earned within the MHCRC member jurisdiction areas and public benefit fees (referred to as “PEG/I-Net fees” in the franchise) county-wide. The expenditures are disbursements, governed by the IGA and restricted for certain purposes under the cable services franchise agreements, to:East County Jurisdictions (franchise fee balance);Community media providers (MetroEast Community Media for both operating and capital funds; and Open Signal for capital funds);Community Technology Grants to support nonprofits’, schools’, library’s, and local governments’ video production technology needsFor more detail on the MHCRC budget, see document Exhibit A: Proposed MHCRC FY 2025-26 Fund Budget.

Official impact statement
See the official legal title

*Approve the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission FY 2025-26 Fund Budget​

Next appearanceFinal action is posted; watch for implementation updates.
Follow this matter
01 · Understand it

What this proposal would actually do.

Plain-language orientation first. Every substantive statement below links to its official basis.

What would change

The City of Portland is a party to an intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah County and the cities of Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village, dated December 24, 1992, as modified by subsequent amendments, creating the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission (“MHCRC”) for the purposes of:Advocating for and protecting the public interest in the regulation and development of communications systems;Monitoring and helping resolve subscribers' concerns; andFacilitating the planning and implementation of community uses of communications technologies.The MHCRC contracts for staff and other support services through a separate services agreement with the City of Portland. The MHCRC funds an equivalent of 4.35 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions in the City’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, plus related materials, services, financial and administrative costs.The Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) establishes the responsibilities and powers of the MHCRC, including the process for member jurisdictions’ approval of the MHCRC’s annual budget. Under the terms of the IGA:The MHCRC transmits its adopted fiscal year budget to the jurisdictions for approval; andEach jurisdiction annually contributes funding to the operations of the MHCRC as determined during the annual budget process through a cost allocation methodology.The MHCRC adopted the FY 2025-26 Fund Budget, FY 2025-26 Goals and Objectives (respectively document Exhibit A) at its May 19, 2025, Regular Meeting. About 35% of the MHCRC operating budget is funded by the jurisdictions’ allocations and the remaining by other MHCRC resources. The City of Portland cost allocation for the FY 2025-26 operating budget is $355,622, which is the MHCRC Special Appropriation amount contained in the City of Portland Council FY 2025-26 budget. The City’s cost allocation represents 65% of the total jurisdictional allocations to the budget with 35% provided by the East County jurisdictions.Nearly all the MHCRC’s resources are funds collected from the cable companies in the form of franchise fees from revenue earned within the MHCRC member jurisdiction areas and public benefit fees (referred to as “PEG/I-Net fees” in the franchise) county-wide. The expenditures are disbursements, governed by the IGA and restricted for certain purposes under the cable services franchise agreements, to:East County Jurisdictions (franchise fee balance);Community media providers (MetroEast Community Media for both operating and capital funds; and Open Signal for capital funds);Community Technology Grants to support nonprofits’, schools’, library’s, and local governments’ video production technology needsFor more detail on the MHCRC budget, see document Exhibit A: Proposed MHCRC FY 2025-26 Fund Budget.

Official proposal and impact statement
What would stay the same

The reviewed sources do not clearly identify every existing policy, service, contract, or obligation that would remain unchanged.

Official matter record
Who may be affected

The MHCRC has a Finance Committee, which developed the draft FY 2025-26 budget at their May 1 meeting, and the full MHCRC adopted the budget at its May 19, 2025, regular meeting. Each member jurisdiction considers budget approval at a city council or County Commission meeting.

Official community impact statement
What happens next

Passed

Latest official agenda appearance
02 · Evaluate it

What the record establishes and what it does not.

Votes show choices. They do not, by themselves, prove why a member made that choice.

Rationale review not yet published

We will not turn the roll call into invented arguments.

The vote above establishes who supported or opposed that exact motion. A source-validated account of the competing reasons will appear only after human review of the meeting transcript and documents.

Financial implications

The City of Portland’s cost allocation to the MHCRC FY 2025-26 budget, as outlined in this ordinance, is included in the Council FY 2025-26 budget as a Special Appropriation. No additional resource is anticipated.

Official financial impact statement
Open questions
  • The source-linked record has not yet received a human review of competing arguments. A yes or no vote alone does not establish a Councilor’s rationale.
  • What implementation evidence will show whether the intended result occurred?
Can residents still participate?

Official testimony on this decision has closed. Residents can still contact their district Councilors about implementation and follow-up.

Official Council agenda
03 · Verify it

Inspect the complete research record.

Official text, source files, exact motions, roll calls, provenance, and the technical completeness check remain available without crowding the explanation above.

Official documents1 sources
Final legal actionEmergency ordinance 192078

The operative official record after Council action.

Open at Portland.gov
Read the full official text

​​The City of Portland ordains.Section 1. The Council finds:The City is a party to an intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah County and the cities of Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village dated December 24, 1992, as modified by subsequent amendments, creating the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission (“Commission”). The Intergovernmental Agreement (the “IGA”) establishes the responsibilities and powers of the Commission, as delegated by the participating jurisdictions. The City Council approved the City of Portland’s participation in the Commission by Ordinance No. 166168, enacted on January 20, 1993.Under the terms of the IGA, after adopting its annual budget, the Commission transmits the budget to the jurisdictions. The Commission’s adopted budget becomes effective after approval by the jurisdictions.Under the terms of the IGA, each participating jurisdiction contributes funding to the operations of the Commission as determined during the annual budget process through a cost allocation methodology.The Commission adopted the FY 2025-26 Fund Budget at its May 19, 2025, Regular Meeting and has transmitted the adopted budget to the jurisdictions for approval.The City has appropriated sufficient funds in its approved FY 2025-26 budget for the City’s cost allocation identified in the Commission FY 2025-26 budget.NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:As provided under the City’s intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah County and the cities of Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village dated December 24, 1992, as modified by subsequent amendments, creating the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission, the City of Portland approves the Commission FY 2025-26 Fund Budget as attached as Exhibit A to this ordinance.The City’s Special Appropriation for the Commission FY 2025-26 Fund Budget is $355,622.Section 2. The Council declares an emergency exists because it is necessary to approve the budget without delay in order to provide authority to transact the financial affairs of the Commission for FY 2025-26; therefore, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Council.

Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes2 meetings · 2 votes
Read all 1 exact motions
Jun 9, 2025 · Main · Passed

Motion to send the Ordinance, document number 2025-227, to the full Council with the recommendation that it be passed: Moved by Pirtle-Guiney and seconded by Novick. (Aye (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Novick, Green, Avalos, Zimmerman)

Final Council action · Jun 18, 202512 yes · 0 no

Final action on 2025-227: *Approve the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission FY 2025-26 Fund Budget​

Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Jun 9, 20255 yes

Motion to send the Ordinance, document number 2025-227, to the full Council with the recommendation that it be passed: Moved by Pirtle-Guiney and seconded by Novick. (Aye (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Novick, Green, Avalos, Zimmerman)

Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
Why technical findings are hidden above

Unreviewed keyword matches and machine-extracted fragments are not presented as authoritative findings. Only 0 human-reviewed findings are available for this matter.

Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats

This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.

Decision definition

The official title and operative text identify the requested action.

Complete
Official legal text

Official text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.

Complete
Financial impact

The official impact statement includes financial information.

Complete
Funding source

The impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.

Complete
Supporting documents

No linked attachments were found on the official page.

Unknown
Referenced exhibit integrity

The text references exhibits. This guide has not yet automatically verified that each referenced exhibit is present, populated, and internally consistent.

Unknown
Counterparty acceptance

The reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.

Not Applicable
Implementation

A direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.

Complete
Document stability

Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.

Unknown
Source record
First discovered
Aug 13, 2026, 1:13 PM PDT
Last checked
Sep 14, 2026, 2:22 AM PDT
Evidence hash
fea54e78f9e0d7be
Guide status
Deterministic baseline
Append-only timeline
  1. SOURCE UPDATED

    Passed

  2. DOCUMENT PUBLISHED

    Observed in the official source.

  3. Council Action

    Passed

  4. Council Action

    Referred to City Council