portland’s first budget process under a new form of government: how did we do?
We’ve made it through the first budget cycle under our new form of government!
What lessons can we (city government, elected officials and the community at large) take away from this first budget process under our new system? How should we measure success, or at least progress, in creating an optimal process for considering constituent requests in the context of citywide needs and priorities?
With the new 2025-26 fiscal year beginning on July 1st, Portland, like many other jurisdictions, faced a significant budget shortfall. A new 12-member City Council, working under a newly instituted form of government, engaged community members to hear their budget priorities and consider community feedback on the draft budget.
Core goals of charter reform were to install a more representative city council and to increase civic engagement in decisions that affect communities. So we watched the City Council’s final budget discussions with a focus on how to evaluate this year’s process for determining and weighing community priorities, while getting the budget across the finish line on time.
What we know so far:
Portland’s new City leaders adopted a few concrete changes to the budget process this year, in large part to more consistently and comprehensively gather public input. Among them:
There were more public listening sessions than in past years, spread over a greater variety of venues to accommodate residents throughout the city. Community listening sessions were also longer than in prior years. Despite these changes, more residents wished to speak (in person or on Zoom) than there was time available, as has often been the case in the past.
The City offered a new program of budget education and financial context early on. In January, the City offered budget introduction meetings in each district to help community members learn about the City budget processes. These budget 101 presentations were designed to help the public navigate budget realities and trade-offs.
The City provided opportunities for community to weigh in earlier in the process than in past years. The city administrator publicly released draft budget recommendations in February. In prior years the City Budget Committee reviewed bureau budget requests with staff in March. Review sessions were held during the work day and the public was welcome to listen in, but not to comment.
City Council commissioned a survey to learn more about community priorities. This is unusual, but we couldn't track down a clear history. Council members also had access to several other recent surveys including the Portland Insights Survey, a survey from Portland’s Metro Chamber, and the Portland: Your City, Your Choice survey (full disclosure, North Star provided financial and staff support to field this survey).
The City sought public opinion on how to address its budget gap. In March and April, City Council gathered community input on service prioritization through a new budget reduction poll. Councilors asked Portland residents to indicate which of 22 service areas they were willing to cut and which ones they were not. Respondents were encouraged to select at least 5 service areas to scale back.
Constituents had greater access to information about proposed budget amendments this year. City Council published a running list of amendments, allowing the public to track each proposal by number and author. In the past, amendments were generally introduced during city council meetings, making them harder for the public to follow and engage with in advance.
In addition, the new council committee structure allowed those interested in particular policies and services to better understand how they were represented in the overall budget document. Earlier this year, City Council established eight standing policy committees in which council members consider, develop, and recommend legislation in each of their assigned policy arenas – including potential budgetary implications of such legislation. This committee structure is a primary mechanism for public engagement, providing an opportunity for the public to learn about proposals as they are being developed, as well as to provide testimony before the committees.
A few reflections:
Evaluating the effectiveness of a city’s budget process is inherently challenging. While broad indicators such as public engagement and transparency are often considered good practice, they do not necessarily guarantee satisfactory outcomes, particularly in the context of a budget shortfall.
This year, the City took steps to increase opportunities for public involvement in the budget process and City Councilors have expressed a desire for more public input next year. With significant funding challenges ahead in Portland – and at all levels of government across the state over the coming decade – clear communication between public leaders and constituents will be crucial. Transparency around available resources, service provision, and shared values will help minimize harm from service cuts and foster trust in local institutions. Improved public education could help overcome multiple challenges in framing the current situation to voters and generate useful feedback on service priorities.
That said, the relationship between public engagement and budget outcomes is dynamic. Public involvement and satisfactory budget outcomes are connected, but it’s worth keeping in mind that one doesn’t automatically lead to the other. Some considerations include:
Who’s Involved? Research indicates that public meetings tend to advantage those with resources and flexible employment schedules (often older, wealthier homeowners). However, budget cuts have outsized impacts on the residents who rely on public services most: low income people, people of color, and other marginalized groups. There are mechanisms that can complement Portland’s representative elections to ensure a broader diversity of voices enter budget conversations. City Council members interested in deeper civic engagement could explore broader public polling, deep community canvassing, and partnering early in the process with organizations that directly serve the populations they most want to hear from to develop communications and feedback channels.
When? The City typically begins developing its draft budget in the fall, and City Council adopts it in June. So, when is community input most impactful? Historically, community listening sessions were held in early to mid-April, with public hearings in May. This year, the City moved listening sessions up a couple of weeks and introduced budget education presentations in January to help residents engage earlier and more meaningfully. These are encouraging steps. Still, Portlanders would likely benefit from more consistent, year-round education and engagement efforts. Better understanding of the budget process can help residents provide more informed input, strengthen public dialogue, and improve outcomes in a resource constrained environment.
How? Open-ended feedback and public testimony can be invaluable, but it often doesn't address the difficult trade-offs involved in resource allocation. Activities that prompt residents to allocate resources or propose solutions to these trade-offs—like the budget reduction exercise—can offer meaningful insights. Other examples we’ve seen include the New York Times’ "You Fix It" game and California’s State Budget Challenge, which offer hands-on experiences in budget decision-making.
Measuring Participation. This budget cycle, the city gathered 1,724 online comments, 359 testimonies at community listening sessions and 4,725 responses to the budget reduction exercise. How do we assess that level of engagement? And is more feedback always better? On one hand, more public comments could reflect increased community awareness and civic engagement. On the other, it could also signal dissatisfaction with the current direction, or a disconnect between community and leadership priorities.
The City may need to experiment and iterate with several different strategies to involve the public in shaping its budget, particularly as financial constraints intensify. We’re encouraged that City leaders have signaled a desire to align limited resources with community values and preferences. Doing so will require not only broader participation, but also better civic education to help residents understand the budget process, resource limitations, and service trade-offs.
Regardless of the approach, having representative and accountable decision-makers is crucial to developing an effective budget that serves community priorities. Recent changes to Portland's election system — expanding the City Council from 5 to 12 members, introducing multi-member districts, and adopting ranked-choice voting — are significant steps toward more inclusive representation and governance. These reforms better position Portland to make budget decisions that reflect the city’s diverse needs in equitable ways.
Linda Nettekoven
Linda’s long time commitment is one of helping groups and individuals find and express their “voice” whether in the workplace, the neighborhood, city hall or beyond.
Marina Kaminsky
Marina North Star's research manager. Her work has focused on exploring how to support under-served and marginalized communities.