Portland City Councilors’ Taxpayer-Funded Vienna Trip

Background and Policy Context

In April 2025, the Portland City Council unanimously approved a resolution directing city leaders to study social housing models in Seattle, Montgomery County (Alabama), and Vienna, Austria. Councilors Candace Avalos and Mitch Green co-sponsored the measure, with District 1 Councilor Jamie Dunphy joining the Vienna leg to examine the “gold standard” of affordable housing that Vienna is known for. The resolution charged each office with researching long-term housing stability, community wealth building, and livability to inform Portland’s own housing strategies.

The Vienna Study Trip

In September 2025, Councilors Avalos, Dunphy, and Green—as well as their chiefs of staff and select Portland Housing Bureau staff—embarked on a week-long, taxpayer-funded trip to Vienna. The delegation joined an “educational curriculum” organized by a community partner, touring social housing complexes, meeting with municipal housing officials, and participating in workshops on governance and financing structures unique to Vienna’s century-long commitment to public housing.

Financial Breakdown

Councilor Avalos’ office reported spending a total of $19,677.14 for herself and two accompanying staff members. This sum covered round-trip airfare, hotel accommodations, local transportation, and program fees. Separately, Councilor Dunphy’s office disclosed $15,688.49 for him and Chief of Staff Madeline West. Both figures reflect bookings made through the city’s contracted travel agency rather than direct purchases, which Dunphy’s office noted resulted in higher costs than market rates.

Detailed Expense Categories

According to the breakdown released by Councilor Dunphy’s office:

• Airfare: $2,200 per person (agency-booked Condor flights; market rate was $850 if booked directly)

• Lodging: $987.66 per person ($123.24 per night)

• Ground Transportation: $99.95 total for in-city transit

• Program Registration Fees: $7,000 total (partial refund anticipated)

• Meals & Incidentals: $813 (40% of the $2,021 daily allowance)

Reimbursement Policies and Procedures

Portland’s travel policy requires all trips to be pre-approved with estimated costs and post-trip reports with receipts. For international travel, the city follows U.S. State Department per diem rates—in Vienna’s case, $507 per day for meals and incidentals, with reductions when meals are provided. Full accounting is not available until post-trip paperwork is reviewed, which can be delayed by staffing availability when offices are abroad.

Justifications from Council Leadership

Avalos’ Chief of Staff, Jamey Evenstar, defended the expense by emphasizing the value of “lived experience” on the ground, noting that nine-hour time differences made Zoom calls impractical and in-person engagement yielded insights impossible to glean virtually. Evenstar cited new professional connections in Vienna that he said will translate into collaborative efforts to secure quality, affordable housing in Portland. Councilor Avalos herself stressed that this was a study trip—not a vacation—and argued the firsthand observations and dialogue with residents and officials in Vienna would inform best practices back home.

Public Reaction and Criticism

Many Portlanders reacted with frustration, labeling the journey a “boondoggle” and questioning why elected officials needed to spend thousands of dollars overseas when academic papers, policy analyses, and video tours are readily available. Critics called for stricter requirements: mandatory written reports within 60 days, tighter oversight on travel agency use, and exploration of virtual alternatives for preliminary research. Skeptics also pointed out past trips (such as a Portugal delegation on drug policy) have yet to yield clear results on pressing local crises like homelessness and addiction.

Policy Implications and Lessons

The Vienna trip highlights several tensions in municipal governance:

• Replicability Challenge: Vienna’s social housing is funded through unique political structures and a century of public investment—elements not easily transplanted to Portland’s context.

• Administrative Inefficiencies: City policy compelled use of a travel agency that inflated airfare costs, spurring calls to reform booking procedures.

• Transparency vs. Urgency: While the resolution mandated research, the delay in cost disclosure—driven by policy-required pre- and post-trip paperwork—undercut public trust.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The release of detailed costs has done little to quell debate. To balance robust policy research with fiscal stewardship, Portland might consider:

1. Requiring pre-trip public justifications and post-trip impact assessments.

2. Leveraging hybrid models: initial virtual briefings followed by smaller, targeted site visits.

3. Reforming travel-booking rules to allow direct purchases when demonstrably cheaper.

By tightening oversight and clarifying tangible outcomes, the city can ensure future study excursions deliver maximum value to taxpayers without the taint of wastefulness.