Portlanders voting this fall will decide whether to establish a citywide participatory budgeting program, but Measure 26-267 leaves many details about how it would operate for officials to work out after the election. If approved, the measure would set aside an amount equal to 2% of Portland’s general fund — about $16 million annually — for projects selected through a public process. The ballot measure does not specify where the money would come from, how project proposals would be screened, who could vote or how that vote would be run. Supporters say leaving those choices open would allow the city to design a workable program rather than lock a detailed administrative plan into the city charter. Critics, including Mayor Keith Wilson and most unions representing city employees, say the lack of rules creates risks and could add pressure to a budget already facing a shortfall of more than $100 million. Eddie Kurtz, who manages the campaign backing the measure, said a charter amendment should not prescribe the program’s full design. He pointed to the Portland Clean Energy Fund and Multnomah County’s Preschool for All program as examples of initiatives whose detailed requirements, he argued, created implementation challenges. Supporter Devin Ruiz described a process in which the mayor and City Council could set a yearly theme, an appointed committee would oversee submissions, and budget delegates would help refine proposals. The measure says city staff and delegates from across Portland’s districts would narrow submitted ideas to a limited set of feasible projects. Residents would then choose among them, though the measure does not define voter eligibility or the voting method. Supporters have cited Metro’s community-choice grants as one example of participatory budgeting. Metro distributed $2 million for neighborhood nature projects in 2023 and committed another $3 million in a later round. The agency said 3,164 people ages 11 and older voted on projects. Metro has no further round planned, a spokesperson said. Christine Lewis, a Metro Council member who supports Portland’s measure, described ways Metro accepted ideas, including drawings, written submissions and recorded messages. But Portland would create its own program, and the county elections office would not administer its project vote. Opponents say the less formal process could lack safeguards against manipulation; supporters have dismissed that concern as unfounded. The measure’s financial impact is a central point of dispute. Wilson said the city is already struggling to provide basic services while facing layoffs and cuts. The city had a $160 million deficit last year and is expected to face another budget gap in 2027, according to the measure’s opponents. Supporters say the council could use money outside the general fund, including Portland Clean Energy Fund revenue or interest generated by the climate tax. Using those funds could prove contentious, particularly because some groups backing the measure have opposed diverting climate-fund money for other purposes. There is also no clear answer about who would pay for ongoing costs if voters select projects that require continuing upkeep. Councilor Candace Avalos, a supporter, said the city would need to consider those obligations case by case. She argued that a community decision to fund a facility such as a fire station would signal that residents expect it to remain operational. The measure has split the City Council along caucus lines. All six members of the progressive Peacock caucus support it, saying it would give residents more direct influence over public spending. The council’s six other members oppose it. Councilor Elana Pirtle-Guiney has argued that requiring at least $16 million in annual spending would put new projects ahead of basic maintenance and services. Portland voters approved a major government restructuring measure in 2024, which created four voting districts and a 12-member council responsible for setting the city budget, alongside a mayor and city administrator who manage bureaus. Some questions about how that system should work remain contested. Measure 26-267 would again leave significant choices about city governance and spending to be resolved after voters cast their ballots.