After months of debates and deliberations, the time has come for our 12 city leaders to vote on a balanced budget. Today, using the Mayor’s proposed budget as a starting point, councilors will take a vote to approve the city budget.
What are the stakes for transportation-related funding? Before I get into the amendments being discussed at Council today, it’s worth knowing a few basics about the starting point:
As I reported earlier this month, the Mayor’s proposed budget helps the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) avoid the worst of the cuts and layoffs they had prepped for. He does this by raising fees on parking, rideshare app users, and leaf pickup fees. Mayor Wilson is also counting on $11 million from Salem when/if state lawmakers to pass a gas tax increase this session.
Back to today’s action…
I’ve been tracking the conversations and have reviewed the 100 or so amendments councilors have proposed. I did a short overview video on Instagram yesterday afternoon, but since that went up the full list of amendments has been made public.
As we get ready for what is likely to be a 12 hour council meeting today, I thought I’d share a list of the transportation amendments below. I found about 15 amendments from 7 different councilors. Check them out below in alphabetical order (note that a “Budget Note” is more of a policy intention statement that doesn’t have a financial component):
Councilor Olivia Clark (D4)
Develop a “Community Partnership Framework”: Clark wants to invest $160,000 into the Public Works Service Area (one FTE) to create a new program that would empower citizen volunteers to take on programs and services. This could mean a group like SW Trails or Bike Loud PDX could take on a more substantial role in doing things like trail maintenance or bike lane sweeping. This could also become the program that, for instance, helps a group of bike bus leaders secure “Road Closed” signs to create a safer route to school.
Add a budget note to improve SW Trails and address the Red Electric Trail: Clark wants to raise the profile of the 4T Trail (maintained by SW Trails, a nonprofit group) from the OHSU Waterfront campus to Pill Hill. This note directs the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to identify funding required to improve the trail and bring a report outlining their findings to the Transportation and Infrastructure (T & I) Committee by January 1, 2026. Clark also wants PBOT to bring a plan to design and complete a segment of the Red Electric Trail (from Terwilliger Blvd, through a newly acquired part of George Himes Park under Barbur Blvd, then north on low traffic streets to Gibbs St and across the Hooley Bridge, to arrive at the south waterfront) to the T & I Committee by the same date.
Councilor Mitch Green (D4)
Transfer Council Office Funds to FY 2025–26 for District 4 Pedestrian Safety Projects: Green wants $75,000 in one-time General Fund dollars to spend on “selected pedestrian safety projects” in his district.
Councilor Sameer Kanal (D2)
Increase the TNC fees from $2 per ride to $2.21 per ride and swap $1,620,000 in TNC Fees for PBOT General Fund: Kanal is one of several councilors eyeing an increase in fees for rideshare users as a way to backfill the PBOT budget. TNC ride fees are currently 0.65 cents and the Mayor’s proposed budget wants to double that to $1.30. Councilor Angelita Morillo has an amendment to increase that to $2.00 (see below). Kanal would use the additional $1.62 million raised from his increase to bolster PBOT’s General Transportation Revenue (a discretionary source of funding from state gas tax and other fees that is used for basic maintenance and operations).
Add a Budget Note to Study a Package Delivery Fee: Kanal wants the city’s Revenue Division and City Attorney to explore the feasibility of a new fee on last-mile deliveries to fund transportation. Kanal’s fee would exempt prepared food deliveries.
Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane (D3)
Amend the Budget to Restore Funding for Vision Zero: The Mayor’s budget proposed a $277,000 cut to Vision Zero (VZ) work. Koyama Lane’s amendment seeks to boost VZ spending by $500,000. To pay for that she recommends cutting other PBOT programs or using bureau contingency funds.
Amend the Budget to Support Vision Zero Programming: A separate Koyama Lane amendment seeks to move PBOT’s top Vision Zero staffer to the Deputy City Administrator of Public Works’ office. The move is intended to more fully integrate VZ across multiple bureaus and give the issue more power. This would also include an increase of $216,000 from the General Fund to the DCA Public Works office to kickstart VZ efforts.
Vision Zero budget notes: Lane wants to re-affirm VZ by requiring PBOT to more clearly identify funding needs, increase the frequency of reporting, update the VZ Action Plan, and make sure all VZ actions are rooted in PBOt’s Equity Matrix toolkit. A separate budget note calls on PBOT to create a funding and staffing plan to reconvene the VZ Task Force and report back to Council by September 1, 2025.
Councilor Angelita Morillo (D3)
Increase Transportation Network Company (TNC) Fees from the Mayor’s proposal of $1.30 to $2.00: Morillo’s proposal would raise an addition $5 million for PBOT beyond the Mayor’s proposal.
Amend the Budget to Support Critical Traffic Safety Measures in District 3: Morillo wants $800,000 in one-time funding reallocated from the Portland Police Bureau to PBOT in order to complete a safety project on Calle Cesar Chavez from SE Powell to SE Schiller. Morillo’s intention is to improve safety on the stretch of Cesar Chavez where Tuyet Nguyen was hit and killed while walking back in January and where Jeanie Diaz was killed in 2023.
Transfer New Police Funding to Support Traffic Safety Infrastructure: Morillo wants to use $2 million the Mayor had set-aside for the Police Bureau to support PBOT “traffic safety infrastructure.”
Amend the Budget to Transfer New Police Funding to Explore evidence-based, place-based environmental interventions that can be implemented to reduce crime and gun violence in high-risk or hotspot neighborhoods: Morillo is seeking $500,000 from the General Fund to support the Safe Blocks program. Her intention appears to be similar to how former City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty (Morillo’s former boss) used PBOT and Portland Parks interventions to decrease crime and gun violence in Mt. Scott Park in 2022.
Councilor Loretta Smith (D1)
Amend the Budget for Funding for the Sidewalk Improvement and Pavement Program (SIPP): Smith seeks to pass an ordinance that would allocate $200 million for the Sidewalk Improvement and Pavement Program (SIPP) passed earlier this month. The funding would be raised by selling $50 million worth of limited revenue bonds for the next four years. Smith wants the $8 million debt service on these bonds to be paid for by funds the Portland Housing Bureau pays to Multnomah County as part of Joint Office of Homeless Services.
Councilor Eric Zimmerman (D4)
Amend the Budget to Provide $50,000 of one-time General Fund to community trails group for signage repair, replacement, and updates in the SW and NW trail system: Zimmerman wants to help fund repairs and updates in the “SW and NW trail system.” I’m not yet clear on what specific trails he’s talking about, so we’ll have to wait and see how this one shakes out.
That’s it for amendments. Council will deliberate all of these today in what could be a meeting that runs close to midnight. If you want to follow along, check the meeting page with all the documents, and/or watch the livestream on YouTube. The Council will morph into the Budget Committee at 11:45 am.
Keep in mind, today’s vote is to approve the budget. The final budget will be officially adopted on June 18th. Between now and then, they can make only relatively minor adjustments.
I’ll have the budget meeting playing at Bike Happy Hour tonight, so come by Rainbow Road from 3:00 to 6:00 pm if you want to talk about it. If you have any questions about the budget, just ask and I’ll be happy to share what I know (or find out if I don’t). And stay tuned on Thursday for a recap of any transportation-related fireworks.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
If Olivia Clark can actually get the Red Electric trail built, so we no longer need to take Barbur or Terwilliger to get downtown from SW and vice-versa, that will be a game-changer for cycling and walking.
As anyone who reads BP knows, SW has been sorely neglected in the development of cycling and walking infra, so I hope the other councilors support Clark in these efforts.
I think a lot of the Red Electric trail is pretty good and would serve a pretty similar purpose to greenways on the east side of the river (that is, mostly low traffic shared streets). It will enhance connectivity to some of the schools along the route and help connect some of the neighborhoods better through ROW shortcuts.
My issue with it is the alignment (https://swtrails.org/trails/red-electric/) that uses SW Slavin Rd and SW Corbett. Slavin Rd is a circuitous route with an inconsistent gradient and Corbett is a car sewer. This will not be a game changer to connect Hillsdale to downtown via bike.
What really needs to happen is to take away one of the severely under-utilized 3 downhill car lanes on Barbur, move those existing jersey barriers from the side of the road to between the car drivers and suddenly you have 15ft path protected by giant cement barriers which is plenty wide enough to accompany bikes and pedestrians.
Plus, if they want to keep the theme of Red Electric, Barbur is the logical choice since that was the old Southern Pacific alignment that the Red Electric trolleys used
SW Slavin Road is the only option available. It is a dead-end road for cars which makes it far better than anything else in the area.
Comment of the week. We’ve got enough routes that are scenic or circuitous. Let’s create bike and pedestrian routes that connect destinations in a straightforward way on favorable geography and see how induced demand works for us.
What’s an example of a feasible, direct connection that does not already exist?
East and West Burnside closed to car traffic, from Washington County to Gresham.
That would complement the FX20 bus service in 2030 when the second seismic resistant bridge opens to the Center City. Designate the Burnside Regional Life Line crossing of the Willamette to Regional Transitway in the TSP2045 as it will be the only Willamette crossing to be accessible following a major seismic event. Bicycle access would work with this strategy.
For everyone in the last article about Councilor Koyama Lane up in arms about proclamations and task forces being meaningless, I’d like to point out that she is allocating money to Vision Zero too. Maybe councilors who care enough about Vision Zero to make a proclamation and task force also care enough to allocate money to it, what a concept.
I’m glad to see she is doing something more likely to have an impact.
• Committing to disaggregating ALL Vision Zero data collected and analyzed by race and ethnicity, as well as location within Equity Matrix Zones, not simply at an overall level, but for all data points tracked and reported
• Committing to use the Equity Matrix as a component of decision making for new investments – enhancing our ability to understand if our reduction efforts are improving the disparities experienced in traffic violence by race and ethnicity
I hadn’t noticed this amendment of Councilor Koyama Lane’s before, but if this passes it looks like equity based placement rather than danger based placement of any speed or redlight cameras will be a priority.
Who will win? People who complain that red light cameras are racist or people who complain that not using red light cameras is racist?
Find out next time on “The Most Virtuous Equity Improvement Challenge” on TBS.
Councilor Koyama Lane is not allocating money to Vision Zero. The councilor has proposed an amendment and it’s unclear whether there is sufficient support for this amendment.
And while it would be nice to have an additional 500K spent on safety, this funding would be enough to build one additional enhanced crossing — at most. In the context of the billions of spending needed to begin to significantly implement vision zero, it is a drop in the safe-systems bucket.
The Mayor’s budget proposed a $277,000 cut to Vision Zero (VZ) work. Koyama Lane’s amendment seeks to boost VZ spending by $500,000.
Theres no guarantee that any of it (if allocated) will go to safety either. All its specifying here is that it will go to VZ work which if the last 10 years is any guide doesn’t really mean much.
Still, will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.
I’m sorry, are you implying that “slow the flock down” yard signs don’t mean much!?!?
/s
That is a meaningless distinction. Proposing an amendment to allocate money is what a councilor can do in their power as a councilor to allocate money. Councilor Koyama Lane cannot just wave her hands and allocate money, nor should any councilor be able to.
Do we need more money? Yes. But why not single out the other councilors who are doing less? I feel like Councilor Koyama Lane is interested and passionate about this issue, and that’s good.
I think it’s good that there is a councilor (or several) that is interested in obtaining a small amount of additional VZ funding.
My comment singled out the use of “allocated”, not the councilor.
So far, still meaningless.
Haven’t seen any new orange barrels put out to keep us all safe on the streets yet.
If you feel that a councilor actively proposing to spend money on an issue is “meaningless”, there is essentially nothing a councilor can do that is meaningful short of rolling out the barrels themselves. But of course, the peanut gallery here would find a way to say its “performative” if it were a councilor they didn’t like, and would find a way to defend the action if it was one they did like.
A number of folks apparently told councilors that the city – despite Wheeler asking us all to pitch in – actually hates volunteers doing anything but performative, feel-good things… like pull ivy in a small patch one day a year, or scrub graffitti for 3 hours. City attorneys nix many things due to liability fears, and even when a bureau WANTS to do something, they don’t have the FTE to staff or coordinate. There are union rules about work a dues-payer should be doing rather than a volunteer, but realistically there are not enough staff/dollars to get everything done solely by city employees.
To be clear, even that performative work is great, but it isn’t enough. If we have no money, residents will need to help out, and instituional barriers to that, as well as financial excuses, need to be removed. The city stopped doing a number of things in 2008, and I started doing some myself, usually illegally. Sometimes I’ve been asked to stop, sometimes the city came in and finished the task, sometimes they pretend they don’t see. I loved telling dubious staffers “Wheeler and Hardesty told me to!” Hey, if some idiot wants to clear the Barbur shoulder of blackberry canes for 2 miles, let them! The ‘framework’ part comes from figuring out how it actually works without causing headaches elsewhere… that moron clearing blackberries? If she just left the canes there she’d create a fire and other hazards, so someone needs to be detailed to haul it off or mulch it.
Adopt One Block is a good model, and hopefully Portland won’t over-think things.
Zimmerman’s trail things might be more/repaired signs for SWTrails and Forest Park?
At first glance, I support all of these. I think we all agree that making roads less amenable to speeding makes us safer, and swapping temporary police enforcement for permanent infrastructure that reduces need for that enforcement is a better deal.
The money is there at PBOT to construct bikeways, fix potholes, and improve safety.. The fiscal management and executive leadership with proven management acumen is not.
Only in hyper-fordist capitalist ‘murrica would someone propose that local government can fix an ecocidal and homicidal urban transportation system by waving the flacid magic wand of fiscal conservatism .
Ah yes, micromanagement of the city administrator by each city councilor. Same as it ever was.
Wasn’t the whole point of the change of government structure to eliminate this sort of micromanagement by elected officials? That professional employees would manage government operations?
These are amendments, not directives from ‘the boss.’ If they don’t get enough votes they don’t get enacted. You are talking about a former process where a commissioner was pretty much allowed to rule their own sandbox. Try not to splash yer shoes when pissing on everything.
You need to actually read some of these amendments, many redirect jobs from central administration to council administration, re-creating the government structure that y’all ho-so-wisely thought you had eliminated.
Welcome to the smelly sewer of budget politics. Sorry about the ammonia smell, but I’m not the source, y’all are yourselves. My puddle is here in NC.
Is providing feedback on the city budget out of the scope of the city council’s role? That would surprise me.
Of course it’s within the scope of all elected leaders to manipulate budgets. My point was that Portland’s very naive voters, those who voted in favor of the charter change that is, somehow honestly stated that they believed that this sort of budget manipulation was going to end with the new form of government – “everything’s going to be fine after we are married” – etc. Now they are likely to start dealing with “buyer’s remorse”, the very stinky and messy process of actual government, particularly by those 6 up for re-election in Districts 3 and 4 in 2026.
No-one said it would be fine. We believed it would be better and so far it has been! For starters, the tune of a number of bureaus has changed as they’ve realized “their” commissioner won’t be there to make excuses or defend them. Before he lefr Wheeler tried to nail down all the anti-citizen policies he ushered in, and some of this tinkering is to pull up those nails. City was VERY unresponsive to public under Wheeler, and this council system is designed to reverse that. Also, Wilson has his priorities, and councilors have theirs, and negotiating those differences is how governments are supposed to work. You didn’t like the old system, you don’t like the new. What would you have liked to see? Personally, I preferred a mix of district and at-large, but I’m ok with what we have now.
You have a lot of valuable experience and insight to offer on this forum, David – maybe stick to that and save the snarky opinion pieces for a year or two. Feel free to make a big “I told you so” post should the wheels come off by then.
I like the districts. I would have preferred to have directly-elected bureau chiefs with the PBOT director being from District 1 (to deal with traffic), Housing from District 3, and BES from District 4 (to deal with the run-off issues).
What? What do you mean by this? Did you take a poll?
Did one person think this? Sure, that’s statistically inevitable.
Did even a significant number of the people who voted for the new charter think this? A majority? It’s (probably) impossible to know.
Sometimes it really does seem like you just make things up in service of your snark.
Ms. Morillo: We already did the police defunding thing in Portland. How did that work out for us?
https://manhattan.institute/article/portlands-police-staffing-crisis
I mean the project JM is alluding to in this article at the Mount Scott triangle was definitely a success from my memory. If we can spend $800k to permanently fix a public safety problem via infrastructure, that’s a better investment than having a cop respond to the same issue cropping up over and over again.
Hmm….was it actually shown that the plastic traffic barrels and other infrastructure installed by Hardesty were actually effective at reducing criminal activity and gun violence? From my memory Hardesty attempted to make that case, others not so much.
What does “actually shown” mean? The reporting JM did back then is what I had in my memory and nearby residents talk about going from 12 shootings a month to “barely any at all” (resident quote).
Per the PPB crime tracking dashboard, total reported crimes in Mount Scott- Arleta is down from 574 from March 2021-2022 to 431 from March 2024-25 (-25%). How much of that is attributable to this project? I have no clue but I think there’s at least some evidence it worked
Yes, because law breakers are scared of anything orange. It reminds them of the orange jump suits that criminals often have to wear in jail.
Bring on more orange barrels and we can defund the police again!
How about dumping piles of gravel randomly done-a-purpose then painting the piles orange, maybe with the same spray paint that utility companies use to mark underground wiring and pipes? Maybe mark where you want to see protected bike lanes and Jersey barriers?
I’m just trying to find some figures to back up the quote in the article (there was a different localized hotspot map but it hadn’t been updated since before the article in question came out).
I think it’s reasonable to assume that vehicle related crimes (drive by shootings, etc.) are made more difficult if the road infrastructure makes driving quickly more difficult. And that it’s worth investing public safety $$ into solutions along these lines
You could compare it to the crime rate reduction citywide, which is also down over the same period.
Projects like that are great, but we shouldn’t try and convince ourselves that it isn’t just moving the problem to a different area.
I had been hoping to use a better data source, but the last time PPB updated the local hotspot map was before the prior article/work was done (it showed four specific shooting incidents near the project area in a one year span). I think it’s possible that fixes like this move the problem elsewhere, but I don’t feel like that’s a strong argument to not fix persistent safety issues.
So it’s important to admit the report (like the article you provided above) isn’t all that robust. Both sit just above expert opinion in the evidence-base. But “contributing factor” isn’t really sexy, and tends to get lost in the noise.
Redesigning a slip lane isn’t a silver bullet. With abstract stuff like crime, nothing is. Are things measurably better than before the project? Yes. A community came together, became engaged in making their neighborhood better, got buy in from parks and rec, and turned a dangerous place into something a little better. What contributed more to a decrease in crime and increase in road safety? Community engagement? Making a large speeding area into a park? Patrols by PPR? Public interest in the neighborhood? All of these?
Pretending that a simple increase in the number of police is always good is an unquestioning ideological stance. Helping the PPB via community engagement and street redesign programs just like this ignores how our environment isn’t simple enough to be reduced to that number.
So Portland has some of the highest taxes in the entire nation and we need volunteers to “take on programs and services”. I have to ask: “Where is all the money going?”
citation needed, though “some of the” is exceedingly vague. And don’t make me go link my old comments about the city budget numbers…
Portland has a medium to medium high tax burden, but most of the taxes in the Portland region do not go directly to the city government. I looked up the property tax bill of the apartment I live in, and about 1/3 goes to the City. Another 1/3 goes to PPS, and the final third is split between Metro and the County. Is our patchwork of local governments a well-thought out, logical system? No, I think we should explore some kind of county consolidation.
Oregon is heavily income tax driven, which I like for a lot of reasons, but it also means that the state is a relatively larger player in funding than in other places (just 4.5% of the City general fund comes from intergovernmental transfers [page 51]). The reason that the City is always seems to jump from budget crisis to budget crisis is at least partially attributable to a taxation structure that favors the state, county, and regional governments over our municipal government. But yeah, it’s hard to find practical solutions to these issues, and it’s easy to wax about how wasteful the government is
Portland has a nearly $7.1 Billion dollar budget….the per capita amount is very high:
In 2024, Portland, Oregon had a total city budget of $7.1 billion and a population of approximately 635,067, resulting in a per capita budget of about $11,179.
Seattle, Washington, by comparison, had total budget of $7.8 billion and a population of 749,256, giving it a per capita budget of roughly $10,410.
Austin, Texas operates on a budget of $5.5 billion for a population of 1 million, which works out to a per capita budget of around $5,500—noticeably lower than Portland’s
Denver, Colorado’s budget of $3.8 billion for about 715,000 residents yields a per capita budget of approximately $5,300.
Chicago, Illinois has a total budget of $16.7 billion and a population of about 2.7 million, leading to a per capita spending level of around $6,200.
AND regarding taxes:
Portland residents face a combined state and local income tax rate of approximately 14.8% for individuals earning over $125,000, making it the second-highest in the nation, just behind New York City at 14.78% . This rate includes Oregon’s state income tax of 9.9% and Portland’s local income tax of 4%.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/2025-state-tax-competitiveness-index/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PortlandOR/comments/1c9iplu/oc_the_most_populated_city_in_each_state_and_its/
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/portland-taxes/
https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/central-city-task-force-finds-portland-has-second-highest-top-marginal-tax-rate-in-u-s/
Again with the misleading number! If you actually consult the budget, you will find that the total net city budget in FY 23-24 was $5.7B (page 47). Intracity transfers should not be counted if you are talking about how much money the city receives or is spending. And $2.5B of the $5.7B is beginning balance – which is spendable money in the normative sense, but is also not exactly relevant to a discussion about current tax burden (since that money has accrued to the city over its entire history).
Per capita using the $5.7B figure (which is still probably misleading) puts us at $8,975 per head, while the $3.2B figure (which is closer to the total amount of tax taken in during a given year) puts us at $5,038 per head. Since you haven’t linked the other cities budgets, I’ll link the last time Denver came up in the comments and I took the time to do some math – if you can’t be bothered to click the link, Denver does not include starting balance or intracity transfers in their budget figure. And comparing city budgets is stupid anyways since they provide very different services depending on local context. Seattle has very high per capita spending, but something like half of the spending is on running a revenue neutral public utility. Portland doesn’t do that, so instead the public has to face PGE rate hikes with no real recourse.
And yes, when you single out just the income tax, Portland has a high tax burden. But that completely ignores that there is no broad-based sales tax in Oregon, and that property taxes (relative to property value) are very low here! Oregon relies on the income tax heavily! You also stating the highest marginal tax bracket as a total tax rate – which is deeply misleading. An individual earning $125k in Portland (exactly the minimum for the PFA and Supportive housing services tax) doesn’t actually pay anything to Multnomah County or Metro, since only earnings over $125k are taxed.
The Tax Foundation link quotes Oregon as being #30/50 in highest tax rate, so medium to medium high. But relative to our immediate neighbors of Washington and California, we have a much lower tax burden. A person choosing between the major west coast states may lean Oregon over our immediate neighbors, which probably matters more than competing with Wyoming or Louisiana.
You can pearl clutch all you want about “high taxes driving away tax payers”, but you shouldn’t do it with factually incorrect numbers. And linking a Reddit post as a source.. come on. Portland, and Oregon in general, have a lot they could improve on in our taxation structure, but I don’t think the issue is as simple as “high taxes bad”. What we should be doing is property tax reform that allows the city and county to tax real property at its actual value, rather than a derivative of it’s 1995 value, so there isn’t a permanent and increasing structural deficit in funding for our local governments. Maybe then we wouldn’t be forced to issue a new bespoke tax (or issue bonds) every time we want to do something.
And Pacificsource’s coal-heavy energy production. It’s shameful that a city with many proclamations and resolutions to being “100% renewables” or “carbon neutral” has done virtually nothing to achieve this goal.
(Another example of how “taskforces” and “resolutions/proclamtions” really don’t mean much in this city.)
One example of Portland inertia came to my mind this morning, as I listened to the gas-powered leaf blower from a neighbor’s lawn service.
“Quiet-Clean PDX” did a great job getting ordinances passed in the city and county to ban these things, they go into effect in 2026.
Why was this such a heavy lift in Portland? It has taken forever. Other cities accomplished this in just months. And will the new ordinance be respected and enforced? Who knows?
IMO, Portland is a fundamentally libertarian city with progressive veneer.
YES! I can’t wait Lisa!
Because Portland has this horrible tendency to have to build consensus on every little thing. We elect officials for their view points and what they say they are going to do. They should just do it, not form yet another task force or committee. But of course, if things go wrong they can blame the task force and not themselves.
In this case, voters even allocated a fair but of money to that end, which we’re now using for street sweeping and other random things.
You mean the allocation went into the slush fund?!? Because, despite the desires of some here that money will magically go for what it’s supposed to be for, if the money isn’t specifically allocated with correct verbiage (and follow up) and not the generic fluff the past and current Portland Councilors seem to love its going to end up funding whatever?
*pacific power
Anyone can twist the numbers any way they want to justify their narrative.
I think I’ll take the word of the City’s budget office over yours any day of the week. But hey that’s just my narrative.
One of the main tenants of authoritarianism is to submit that facts don’t exist. This is one of the best means for spreading misinformation and disinformation by undermining the public belief in truth. If everyone just has a “narrative,” then it’s the people in power who decide on facts.
I am literally quoting the budget. You can click on the link, navigate to page 47, and see “intracity transfers: 1,591,483,511”, along with a separate line item for “Total Net City Budget: $5,798,803,977“.
Accounting practices vary by city, as do services provided. These things matter if you want to accurately judge the effectiveness of taxation policy and municipal services across different cities and states in the US. If you just want to blather on endlessly about how much Portland sucks, that’s fine I guess, but I like it here and want to improve the city. We can’t do that if everyone just drones on about how much money we waste by quoting a number that is, by some metrics, 50% too high and does not accurately portray the local tax situation.
There are things Portland can improve on, but blindly slashing and burning the city budget because you did some bad math and saw a different city has a smaller budget number is reckless and annoying at best.
Y’all should also subtract intergovernmental funding (usually state & federal grants for stroads, water treatment, and sewers), another half-billion, so the total city budget is closer to $5.2 billion overall.
When looking at other cities nationwide, be careful on noticing what is being paid for or not. Many cities have municipal transit services, city-owned and funded public schools and colleges, social services, even hospitals.
Again with the misleading number! If you actually consult the budget, you will find that the total net city budget in FY 23-24 was $5.7B (page 47).
By Sophie Peel
May 22, 2025 at 9:15 am PDT
“Moments before midnight Wednesday, the Portland City Council approved an $8.5 billion preliminary budget”
Turns out you’re both off a little bit. Ms. Peel says its 8.5 and I kind of believe her research.
Please, just go to the budget below and take a minute too look at it. Both Sophie and blum are correct, but you’re comparing different things.
Above, blum is talking about the Net budget (After intracity transfers) for FY 23-24.
Above, Sophie is talking about the Gross budget for FY 24-25 (before city transfers).
That’s the full FY24-25 number, which includes intracity transfers and starting balance. I was using the FY23-24 numbers based mostly on the comment I was responding to using it.
Yes, perfect, as always with people who don’t pay any taxes, fiscal prudence is just a few more billion dollars away with other peoples money.
Not exactly what I mean – we should have a property tax system where the amount assessed is based directly off what a property is worth now. Since property tax receipts are capped at 3% YoY, local governments struggle to provide services in the long run as expenses (and inflation) have outpaced that – especially in recent years.
In the short term, this could be done without raising anyone’s property taxes (though perhaps some of the most undervalued ones would have to see an increase, haven’t actually pulled the numbers).
Is it any surprise that businesses and people are leaving Portland? A shoe company announced this week that they are closing their Portland factory to move production to Rand Paul’s Kentucky.
It’s a totally ridiculous amount! That’s $11K for every man, woman, and child. That’s just the City, just add on county, metro, state, etc taxes on top of that.
Well watching the budget hearings from our new “A” team city council just shows they too are totally incapable of helping the citizens of the city. Out of one side of their mouths they are crying about how expensive it is to live and work in Portland, then out the other side they are raising our taxes. Hypocrites.
Non-profits, construction companies, unnecessary job positions (Male Achievement Analyst – yes it’s really a job with the City), just to name a few..
My community has 2 municipal grave diggers, I kid you not – the city owns and operates several cemeteries within its parks system – the cemeteries are also arboretums with labeled trees and plants. There’s even a pauper grave – carefully mapped but unmarked graves for those too poor to afford a headstone. I’m guessing Multnomah County has the equivalent for their numerous cemeteries.
This doesn’t make sense. Jeanie Diaz was murdered by motorist North of SE Powell, across from the Belmont Library where she worked.
Someone got something wrong here.
Props to Jonathan for putting the time in to read through these amendments.