Portland finance committee reviews state budget risks, eight proposed city budget amendments ahead of June 23 council vote

Portland’s Finance Committee on June 18 heard an overview of state budget changes that could affect the city’s revenue and several proposed city budget amendments ahead of a full Council vote scheduled for Monday, June 23.

The committee received the state update from Brendan O’Connell, the city’s finance director, who said one “of the most problematic pieces of the budget was the per bed night cap” in a state rule he identified as Rule 26. “Our costs of providing service at the homeless services center are $87 per night and the state has put a rule in place basically saying that the most anyone can request is a maximum of 47 per night,” O’Connell said, adding that the state would reimburse at 70% above that cap. He said legislative relief appears unlikely before the final state budget is enacted.

Why it matters: the cap could widen the gap between the city’s actual costs to operate shelters and the state reimbursements Portland receives, potentially increasing pressure on local budgets or service levels.

Committee members also heard that a governor’s proposal to cap general assistance after three months has not advanced in the legislature. O’Connell said “there may be some 1‑time funds added into the state general assistance budget which some of which could come to the City of Portland,” and that the city manager would likely recommend reducing planned use of the city’s unassigned fund balance if one‑time state revenue materializes.

The meeting then reviewed eight specific amendment proposals that councilors or staff plan to bring to the full Council on June 23. None were voted on during the committee meeting; staff said formal amendments must be offered on the Council floor. Key proposals discussed:

- Childcare vouchers: Councilor (name on file) is expected to propose adding $50,000 in the City Council budget line to fund the Portland Child Care Voucher Collaborative, extending voucher funds through FY27. O’Connell said the change would increase the tax levy by $50,000 and have “a mill rate impact of less than a penny due to rounding.”

- City council wages: Councilor Regina Phillips (District 3) said she will propose a 25% increase for councilors for FY26. Phillips told the committee, “I’m basically asking for the city council, to get a raise because we just don't make a lot of money. We don't do this for the money.” Staff explained the budget already includes a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment, so the amendment would add roughly $33,000 to the tax levy when the linked school board compensation effect is included. The mayor’s salary is set by charter and would not be adjusted the same way without charter action.

- Community engagement coordinator: Councilor Phillips described a proposed new coordinator position estimated at roughly $118,000 and said “every single year when we do our goal setting... we put on there that we're gonna hire a community engagement coordinator.” Staff noted the position was not requested by departments, used a provisional grade for costing, and that the city manager controls operations under the charter; adding the funded position would not automatically compel the manager to hire it, though past practice suggests mayor and council direction is usually implemented.

- Marijuana licensing enforcement FTE: Following a Council order amending city code on marijuana retail licenses and on‑site nonalcoholic beverage service, staff described a proposed enforcement position priced at $102,715 to support code enforcement workload. The committee was told the position would increase the tax levy by about one penny if added.

- School HVAC staffing and city facilities: Staff explained the School Department selected an outside vendor for FY26 HVAC services; that decision could eliminate two city FTEs allocated to school HVAC. Rather than lay off two workers, staff proposed retaining some HVAC capacity to cover other city facilities (Baron Center, multiple fire stations, the ice arena and Riverside Golf Course), potentially reducing headcount by only one vacant position and offsetting contract costs where possible. No final staffing decision was made.

- Fish Pier Authority and Fish Exchange consolidation: The committee reviewed an amendment that would consolidate the Fish Exchange budget into the Fish Pier Authority enterprise fund and authorize about $240,000 of Fish Pier Authority fund balance to cover an anticipated FY26 operating gap. Staff said the change is net neutral to the overall city budget and would not affect property taxpayers.

- Rent‑registration inspector: Councilor Ben Grant proposed funding a rental registration / inspection position estimated at $101,003 to increase inspection capacity; staff said the position could roughly double inspection throughput from about 4,000 to 8,000 (units), according to the inspections director. The FY26 tax‑levy impact was estimated at about one penny.

- Before‑and‑after‑bell program expansion: Staff from Parks and Recreation described an amendment to add four full‑time positions to the before/after school program at a net cost of about $62,000 when accounting for revenues. Angela O’Connor, deputy director for Parks, said permanent staff would reduce turnover and allow the city to add roughly 13 children per full‑time hire.

Discussion vs. action: committee members debated whether some positions should be phased in, whether further job descriptions or a wage study were appropriate (particularly for council pay), and whether the council should require more specific scopes for the community engagement coordinator. Staff reiterated that public comment on amendments will occur at the June 23 Council meeting and that details and backup will be added to each amendment before then.

The committee also took a brief question on the Climate Action Fund. Staff said approximately $125,000 of Climate Action Fund dollars is appropriated in the operating budget to support the sustainability team; no other Climate Action Fund appropriations are included in the FY26 operating budget as proposed.

Formal action: the committee did not take action on budget amendments. The only formal motion recorded during the meeting was a procedural motion to adjourn moved by Councilor Ben Grant and seconded by Councilor Pelletier; the motion passed by recorded voice vote.

What’s next: staff will add amendment backup documents for the June 23 Council meeting, when public comment and formal amendment motions are scheduled. The Finance Committee planned a follow‑up meeting on July 17 to continue work on outstanding items.