How We Got Here

We think this timeline matters, because the sponsors describe this proposal as something Portland's leaders "ignored." The record shows something different: it was considered, twice, and not advanced — and the response was to come back asking for twice as much.

2022 — The Charter Commission looks at the numbers, then leaves it behind

Portland's Charter Commission — twenty citizen volunteers, not politicians — was convened in 2000 to restructure our city government. In September 2022, Participatory Budgeting Oregon presented a proposed amendment: a charter mandate funding PB at "no less than 1%" of the General Fund's discretionary ongoing resources, with binding resident votes.

Commissioners asked what it would cost.

In October 2022, the City Budget Director analyzed set-asides at 0.5%, 1%, and 5% at the Commission's request. Her memo warned that it would be "reasonable to assume that these resources would come from reductions to bureaus" — that over 70% of discretionary dollars go to Police, Fire, Parks, and homeless services — and that even at 1%, Fire's proportional share was "roughly equivalent to the closure of one fire station."

On November 29, 2022, the proposal came to a vote at the Charter Commission. It received 14 of 20 votes — short of the threshold needed to go to the ballot. That December, the same commissioners referred seven other charter amendments straight to voters, most by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. This one wasn't among them.

The proposal commissioners wouldn't send to voters at 1% — about $7 million by the Commission's own fiscal note — is back on your ballot at "at least 2%", or about $16 million.

2023–24 — A ballot attempt launches, then stops

Sponsors formed "Community Budgeting for All" and began gathering signatures for the November 2024 ballot. In May 2024, they suspended the effort and pledged to return in 2026.

2023 — Cleveland voters face the same question

The closest precedent anywhere: Cleveland's Issue 38 would have dedicated 2% of that city's general fund to participatory budgeting by charter amendment. Cleveland voters rejected it.

2025 — Independent researchers weigh in

City Club of Portland spent nine months studying participatory budgeting for Portland. Their conclusion: PB is worth exploring here, starting with a pilot adapted to Portland’s needs. But the report effectively rejected the model proposed in Measure 26-267: "Instituting a PB program that captures a portion of the general fund, that privileges PB above most other priorities, and that requires hefty new expenditures for administration creates unnecessary risks, especially when the city budget is under such pressure."

2025 — The ask comes back, doubled

Proponents file Initiative Petition 1PDX2025 in July. The new proposal sets the floor at "at least 2%" — twice the percentage the same sponsors proposed in 2022. Proponents turn in signatures on July 6, 2026, just weeks after Portland closed a $170 million shortfall by laying off roughly 100 employees and cutting homeless services, parks, and fire.

The question for voters isn't whether participatory budgeting is a good idea. It's why a $7 million proposal Portland's own Charter Commission didn’t advance to voters should be locked into the charter at $16 million and growing — permanently, and at the worst possible time.

Sources: Charter Commission work session decks, Nov. 29 and Dec. 3, 2022 (Proposal 14 text, 14–2 roll call, referral lists, $7.3M fiscal note); City Budget Office memo to the Charter Commission, Oct. 14, 2022 (Kinard); City Club of Portland report (March 2025), pp. 13–14 and errata; Cleveland Issue 38 results (November 2023).