With more than 120 proposed budget amendments and nearly 12 hours of deliberations, Portland City Council worked until midnight Wednesday to pass an $8.5 billion 2025-26 budget. 

The budget, which is scheduled for final adoption on June 18, includes additional funding for homeless shelter beds and public safety, but it also relies on deep cuts to the city’s permitting department and an unspecified number of job cuts, citywide. 

On May 5, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson released a proposed $8.54 billion budget he called a “back to basics” spending plan that would shore up a $93 million deficit. Wilson’s plan called for an extra $4 million to the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) budget for officer staffing and recruitment, while substantially cutting staff in Portland Permitting and Development. The city’s Parks department is also positioned to take a large hit. The mayor’s proposed budget reflected nearly $10 million in cuts to Portland Parks & Recreation. 

City councilors later brought the $4 million PPB staffing bump down to $2 million and approved dipping into reserve funds to preserve 31 jobs in the permitting department. 

Wilson’s budget includes nearly $25 million in external funding that will go toward 1,500 shelter beds, which the mayor previously said he wants up and running by December 1. The budget also funds 50 shelter beds at the Bybee Lakes Hope Center, using money from a nationwide opioid lawsuit settlement.

“Given our current fiscal situation, I set forth to relentlessly raise funds from outside sources for my plan to end unsheltered homelessness,” the mayor stated in a budget message. “In this effort, I was successful in securing critical commitments from county, metro, and state levels.” 

Wilson’s budget, while praised by city councilors as a thoughtful approach to balancing a budget amid a nearly $100 million shortfall, is emblematic of the city’s financial quagmire. City leaders knew drastic cuts would be needed, but disagreed over where to make them. The 12-person Council submitted a combined 126 proposed amendments to Wilson’s budget. 

A proposal to divert $2 million from PPB’s budget increase to pay for parks upkeep and maintenance proved to be the most divisive, but ultimately garnered support from a majority of the Council. 

Councilors couldn’t see eye to eye, however, on a controversial proposal to strip $10 million in recommended funding to the city’s economic development agency, Prosper Portland, which has a healthy Strategic Investment Fund of roughly $50 million at its disposal.  

Councilors found compromises in many areas, like funding for economic development initiatives and an increase in fees for rideshare apps and golf course reservations. They also found a shared desire to improve next year’s budget process. A package of “good governance” budget amendments from Councilor Angelita Morillo was approved, which will add more reporting from the City Budget Office and more oversight of bureau spending. 

The Council also voted to adopt two related amendments that will raise revenue for the city’s transportation bureau and help fund its Vision Zero program. Throughout the 12-hour meeting, councilors heard hours of public testimony and debated dozens of proposed amendments to Mayor Keith Wilson’s recommended budget. 

Councilors kept the debate going until midnight, when they wrapped up without discussing most of the parks-related amendments—even though that subject dominated public comment earlier in the day. The Council plans to reconvene on June 11, and will take up the rest of the amendments at that time.

Public safety bolstered

The approved 2025-26 budget devotes $602 million toward the city’s public safety bureaus like police and fire. It also includes a boost for the city’s unarmed alternative response program, Portland Street Response.

After four years of leadership turnover and programmatic changes, PSR struggled to find its footing and lacked resources to expand its service hours. Next fiscal year will be different. 

Wilson’s budget carves out an additional $1.77 million for the crisis response program, adding 14 staffers. The program’s leaders, alongside Wilson, are now working to expand PSR to a 24/7 service that will eventually be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. 

Councilors applauded the PSR funding package, but were sharply divided on other public safety funding allocations–namely police. 

Amid blowback from critics who said the public safety budget was bloated, Mayor Wilson pointed to a letter from Portland Trail Blazers and Timbers management teams, urging city leaders not to deviate from the mayor’s recommended public safety funding.

“We are your partners in Portland’s revitalization. We are writing today to ask you to preserve the level of public safety funding in Mayor Wilson’s proposed budget, to help ensurethe safety of everyone we serve at the Rose Quarter and Providence Park,” the letter states. Wilson was further emboldened by recently published reporting on a poll from DHM Research that suggests 68 percent of voters would support bolstering the size of the police force to match staffing in other similar sized cities. (Another recent poll said voters would rather see cuts to police than parks.)

While the mayor's proposed police budget included $4 million for increased police staffing and recruitment—which wasn’t included in PPB's funding requests—it also relies on PPB cutting its overtime expenses by $2 million.

Rideshare fee increase and Vision Zero funding approved 

In an effort to rake in more money for the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), several councilors proposed an increase to the transportation network company (TNC) fee–a city surcharge attached to rideshare services like Uber and Lyft. Currently, the city charges 65 cents per trip, which supports (PBOT). Wilson recommended increasing the charge to $1.30, but some councilors saw an opportunity to raise more revenue for PBOT with a larger increase. 

The Council eventually approved a proposal from Councilor Steve Novick to increase TNC fees to $2 per trip to a vote, which he says will bring in an additional $10 million annually that he wants to dedicate to PBOT’s general transportation revenue fund. 

Novick was on City Council when Portland decided to allow Uber and Lyft to operate in the city in 2015. Despite a well-documented contentious relationship with Uber, Novick provided the key vote to let the rideshare companies in—a decision he now regrets. 

“[Allowing rideshare companies to operate in Portland] has just resulted in more cars on the streets and more carbon emissions,” Novick said at the May 21 meeting. “I think as long as they’re out there, which I regret doing, then we should use it to raise some money for transportation.” 

Currently, TNC fee revenue is dedicated to specific programming. 

Councilor Eric Zimmerman was strongly against the amendment, saying it disenfranchised people who rely on the services because alternative modes of transportation are “pretty crappy right now.” 

“I know it sounds great, that we’re taxing some big company, but it goes directly to the riders,” Zimmerman said. He said people don’t feel comfortable using TriMet, calling the buses and trains “barely palatable,” and referring to them as Portland’s “largest homeless shelters, where dangerous behavior happens every single day.” 

Councilor Angelita Morillo—a daily TriMet rider—had a strong response to Zimmerman’s comments. 

“As the only one here who’s dependent on transit because I don’t have a car, I don’t have a license… I don’t know why it’s always the men that are six feet tall who are terrified of being on the bus,” Morillo said. “People love the bus. I see people fall in love on the bus. And the reality is that we need this funding for our budget.” 

Ultimately, the amendment passed 8-4, with Councilors Loretta Smith, Olivia Clark, and Dan Ryan joining Zimmerman in opposing the increase. Following the vote, Councilor Jamie Dunphy introduced an amendment to move $2.5 million from the incoming TNC fee revenue away from PBOT’s coffers. 

Dunphy proposed allocating nearly $668,000 of the revenue to restore funding to the city’s Vision Zero program, which aims to address traffic violence on Portland’s streets. The program was set to lose that amount next year, as dedicated funding streams have dried up. Dunphy’s proposal reflected amendments submitted by Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane, who was seeking to restore funding for Vision Zero as part of a broader effort to champion the program.

While most councilors were on board with the Vision Zero allocation, they didn’t agree to move the remainder of the $2.5 million to the city’s general fund for other uses. They argued PBOT needs all the funding it can get, as the bureau has struggled to stay financially afloat for years and has many unfunded maintenance priorities. The council ultimately voted solely on the part of the amendment concerning Vision Zero funding. 

Even though the $668,000 is set to come from the TNC fee increase—meaning it won’t affect any of PBOT’s existing funding—some worried it would mean the transportation bureau would need to make cuts. Regardless, advocates for Vision Zero emphasized its importance as a core city program. 

Koyama Lane urged her fellow councilors to vote to fund Vision Zero, saying “we need to show Portlanders that we’re serious about this.”

“No one should die or be incapacitated from just going about their day, from moving through their neighborhood,” Koyama Lane said. “These are our streets. We have a responsibility to make them safe for everyone.”

The resolution ultimately passed with eight supportive votes. 

Parks or police? 

As the night wore on, nerves were raw and emotions erupted. With just over 30 minutes before the midnight deadline, the Council had yet to discuss parks or public safety funding. Pirtle-Guiney suggested holding over the parks funding discussion until June, when the budget comes back for final adoption. Morillo wasn’t having it. She insisted the group press on, to vote on a budget amendment she and Councilor Candace Avalos brought forward, that redirects $2 million from PPB’s budget increase over to Portland Parks & Recreation, to fund parks maintenance. 

“This is not about reducing police effectiveness. It’s about a balanced approach to public safety that includes well-maintained parks, where families feel safe gathering,” Avalos said. “Right now, Portland Police has 90 vacant positions while successfully reducing crime rates, and this amendment redirects the one-time funds that [were] increased above their base budget that would likely remain unspent due to ongoing recruitment challenges.”

Novick, who co-chairs the Community and Public Safety Committee and is often considered a swing vote on policing matters, had also proposed a package of amendments to divert money from PPB to PP&R, but his and several other councilors’ cost-saving amendments never made it to a vote. 

“I personally would rather we be increasing the police budget. I think that we could use a dedicated burglary unit, but I can't accept having most of the cuts fall on parks maintenance,” Novick said. “Increasing the police budget while we were slashing parks maintenance did not sit well with me.”

However, Novick cited an “interesting conversation” with the Portland Metro Chamber, in which the Chamber leaders said they might be open to supporting an increased parks levy, but only if parks funding didn’t interfere with PPB’s budget. 

Morillo didn’t hold back.

“So what I'm hearing from Councilor Novick is that apparently the Portland Metro Chamber gets to run this town and tell everybody under vague threat what we can or cannot do with our budget,” Morillo said. “This is not a cut to police. There will not be a single officer laid off. This was a $2 million increase to the police budget, which no other bureau received at this time. …I would hope that one measly call with the Metro Chamber wouldn’t shiver your timbers so much that you couldn’t vote with us.” 

Morillo erupted in laughter. “C’mon Councilor Novick, come on!”

Tensions rose. “I’ve never seen a city council or county commission in my life be so giddy to cut public safety,” Zimmerman said, clearly agitated. “This is not a laughing matter.”

Several councilors referred to the $2 million reallocation as a “cut” to the police budget. The transfer would merely reduce PPB’s $4 million allotment for extra staffing down to $2 million. 

“Characterizing [this decision] as a cut is incredibly disingenuous,” Councilor Sameer Kanal said

Police Chief Bob Day and parks bureau Director Adena Long spoke about the impact the gain or loss of $2 million would have on their bureaus. 

Chief Day, who joined remotely, said shaving $2 million off the PPB budget increase would lead to “a reduction in services,” but couldn't immediately provide specifics.

“Clearly some of the councilors do not either respect or trust the responsibility given to me in my role as chief of police,” he said, clearly fatigued.

Long offered more detail about the impacts of parks maintenance cuts. She told the Council the mayor’s proposed budget would significantly reduce the number of staff needed to perform basic maintenance, litter removal, restroom cleaning, and repairs at city parks and natural areas.

“Cutting staff now means higher costs later,” Long said.

With about 15 minutes until midnight, Pirtle-Guiney grew impatient, asking councilors to keep their commentary to a minimum. “Can we please just vote?” she asked. Few of them obliged. 

Ryan lambasted his colleagues, telling them reallocating the police funding would be a “big, big mistake that [they] will regret.” 

“If we put this through, residents and businesses will continue to leave. The tax base will continue to erode,” Ryan said. “I really hope that this Council blocks this short-sighted amendment.” 

When Novick voted “aye,” Ryan’s last hopes were dashed. 

The vote passed 7-5, with Councilors Ryan, Zimmerman, Clark, and Pirtle-Guiney opposed. 

Zimmerman, Clark, Smith, and Ryan also voted against the adoption of the amended budget as a whole, in protest of the police funding decision. 

Insults fly over Council budget reductions

With several bureaus asked to scale back, Councilors looked for savings in their own budgets. Earlier that night, they voted to reduce their individual council office budgets by $120,000 each. Council budgets primarily pay for staff and office rentals.

The proposal was lambasted by Councilor Loretta Smith.

“It is not my fault that others on this dais did not get an office. I did and I did hire folks,” Smith said. 

The city charter changes call for an office in each Council district, but that hasn’t happened yet. Most councilors are primarily working out of City Hall. Smith said she’s renting an office in District 1 and has five staffers, and no room to cut her budget.

The $120,000 reduction was a compromise from an initial proposal to cut $200,000 each. That didn’t assuage Smith. 

“You all said you were gonna get offices and you didn't, and you all wanna chastise me,” she told her colleagues. “You failed to connect with your constituents.”

Smith continued until she was cut off by the council president and reminded of the rules of decorum and conduct during meetings.

Community centers no longer on the chopping block

Among the most unpopular proposals was a budget amendment from Councilor Novick to shut down the Community Music Center in Southeast Portland and Southwest Portland’s Multnomah Arts Center (MAC).

Novick’s budget adjustment was estimated to save $1.8 million that could be diverted to the parks maintenance budget. 

Portlanders turned out in droves to oppose the closures, calling them “short-sighted” and harmful to the community. 

Novick says he will no longer propose the closures, noting the decision to use PPB funding for parks achieved the budget impacts he sought when he first pitched his idea.

“I want to let you know that I hear you. I will no longer be considering the amendment, and acknowledge that I should not have put it on the table without first having a discussion with supporters and users of the Multnomah Arts Center and the Community Music Center,” Novick told constituents in emailed responses to their concerns over the potential community center closures.

The unknowns

Despite approving the budget, the Council’s timeline still leaves room for more amendments to be considered. Councilors are expected to reconvene on June 11 to consider additional adjustments, and will adopt the final budget on June 18.