Portland finance committee presses staff to deliver earlier, clearer mayor’s budget materials

Portland’s Finance Committee spent the bulk of its Sept. 22 meeting focused on the city’s 2025–26 budget calendar and how the executive and Council can change the timeline and materials to improve public engagement and Council deliberations.

Jonas Birri, the city’s chief financial officer, and Ruth Levine, budget director, told the committee that producing a technically checked, analyzed and book-ready mayor’s proposed budget requires roughly 18–20 weeks of work from the December starting point, which places the earliest feasible mayoral delivery in mid‑April. “When you add all that up, it’s about 18 to 20 weeks, which when you start at the December 1 gets you to roughly mid April,” Levine said.

Councilors said that timeline left the Council too little time to review and weigh amendments before adoption. “I think that not getting any budget until April, puts us in a ridiculous position,” Councilor Steve Novick said. Novick and several colleagues urged staff to produce earlier, conceptual scenarios — for example, a citywide proportional cut scenario — in January or February, so Council and the public can vet trade-offs before the sprint to finalize numbers.

Why it matters: Councilors said late delivery compresses public engagement and the Council’s amendment process, producing rushed decisions and frequent last‑minute clarifications from bureaus. Committee members repeatedly pressed for clearer “budget 101” materials, earlier upstream conversations with communities and better program‑level data (including FTE and fund sources) so Council can evaluate operational effects of proposed changes.

Councilor Carmen Rubio (vice chair at the session) and Councilor Nick Green emphasized the human resources limits in central finance: staff who would produce earlier materials are already stretched, and any acceleration would require choices about where to assign limited staff time. Birri said there are options to produce scenarios and rough forecasts earlier, but cautioned those figures are estimates and subject to change as revenue inputs solidify.

Committee members also discussed the former “requested budget” concept, ways to use committee meetings to vet potential amendments with bureaus before formal amendment filing, and whether some committee work should move to full‑Council “committee of the whole” sessions so all members see the same briefings.

What was decided: The meeting did not adopt any ordinance or motion on the calendar itself. Committee members asked staff and the Council President to develop a recommended budget calendar and clarified deliverables (what the Council should expect in January/February versus the mayor’s book). Staff said a full‑Council work session on the budget process is scheduled for Oct. 22.

The discussion also included repeated requests by the finance committee chair that the city administrator prioritize the central budget realignment and that bureaus provide program‑level clarity on employees, costs and funding sources — the committee flagged these as essential to improving transparency and reducing unnecessary amendments.