Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-05-06
Time: 08:00

City of Portland
CDBG Priority Setting Task Force:
Meeting 2

Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 8:00 AM Meeting
Location via Zoom


To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email cdbg@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the CDBG Priority Setting Task Force meeting to guarantee their inclusion
in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure
your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item.

REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION:
The CDBG Priority Setting Task Force will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to the Remote
Meeting Policy adopted by the CDBG Priority Setting Task Force. Allow your computer to install the free
Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a
recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the
telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment.

https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/84398845920?pwd=x46c5hLRwObPWWhOMlo1oayF2WymV3.1

1. Introductions
2. Select Chair & Co-Chair
 Review and Accept Minutes of CDBG Priority Setting Task Force meeting held April 22,
3.
 2026
 a. April 22, 2026 Meeting Minutes
4. Review "Welcome Packet" Material and Complete Whiteboard Exercise
 a. 2026 City Council Goals Memo
 b. 2025 CDBG Policies
 c. 2021 CDBG Priority Task Force Report
 d. 2025 Roux Institute Portland Needs Assessment
 e. 2025 ETC Institute Portland Community Survey
5. Needs, Goals, Priorities
 a. 2022-2026 Needs Priorities Goals
6. Next Meeting: May 20, 2026
 a. Draft Priority Impact Levels
 b. Scoring Review




 1

City of Portland
CDBG Priority Setting Task Force:
Meeting 2

Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 8:00 AM Meeting
Location via Zoom


To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email cdbg@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the CDBG Priority Setting Task Force meeting to guarantee their inclusion
in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure
your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item.

REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION:
The CDBG Priority Setting Task Force will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to the Remote
Meeting Policy adopted by the CDBG Priority Setting Task Force. Allow your computer to install the free
Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a
recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the
telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment.

https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/84398845920?pwd=x46c5hLRwObPWWhOMlo1oayF2WymV3.1

1. Introductions
2. Select Chair & Co-Chair
 Review and Accept Minutes of CDBG Priority Setting Task Force meeting held April 22,
3.
 2026
 a. April 22, 2026 Meeting Minutes
4. Review "Welcome Packet" Material and Complete Whiteboard Exercise
 a. 2026 City Council Goals Memo
 b. 2025 CDBG Policies
 c. 2021 CDBG Priority Task Force Report
 d. 2025 Roux Institute Portland Needs Assessment
 e. 2025 ETC Institute Portland Community Survey
5. Needs, Goals, Priorities
 a. 2022-2026 Needs Priorities Goals
6. Next Meeting: May 20, 2026
 a. Draft Priority Impact Levels
 b. Scoring Review




 1

 Page 1
CDBG Priority Setting Task Force Minutes of Business Meeting Held April 22, 2026 at 8:00 am

A recording of the meeting is posted here. These minutes provide a record of those in
attendance, the general discussion taking place, and motions made. Please refer to the
recording for discussion details.

In attendance:
Teale Smith
Stephanie Miller
Kyla Wigant
Colleen Cooper
Gwendolyne Tuttle-Beaudoin
Kristen Dunphey
Miyabi "Abbie" Yamamoto
Tae Chong
Belviga Mpolo
Matt Starr
Barbara Ginley
Jill Johanning
Carly Lappas
Christina Bowman

Mary Davis, Division Director, City’s Housing and Community Development Division
Cameron George, Compliance Officer, City’s Housing and Community Development Division

The meeting started at approximately 8:04 am.

Remote Participation Policy

Mary Davis, HCD Division Director, directed the Task Force to vote on the remote meeting policy to
allow virtual meetings. The policy mandates advance notification via the Civic Plus platform, allows
public attendance, and requires roll call voting.

 ●​ Motion: Stephanie Miller moved to adopt the remote meeting policy.
 ●​ Second: Teale Smith seconded the motion.
 ●​ Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote (14-0).

Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA)

The Task Force is subject to the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), and the meeting is
considered a public proceeding. Members were advised that informal conversations among three or
more Task Force members concerning Task Force business are considered a public meeting and
must meet notification and record-keeping requirements.

Consolidated Plan and CDBG Overview




 Page 2
The Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) outlines how the City of Portland intends to use federal
funds—including CDBG, HOME funds, and Emergency Solutions Grants —over the next five years. The
Task Force's work, currently at the community engagement stage, will shape CDBG funding priorities
for the cycle beginning July 1, 2027.

 ●​ Funding: Portland is an entitlement community that receives direct CDBG funding from HUD.
 Over the current five-year period, HUD allocated approximately $9.2 million in CDBG funds.
 The historical annual pool is about $1.8 million.
 ●​ Objectives: All CDBG projects must aim to meet one of three national objectives: benefit to
 low-to-moderate income (LMI) persons/households, elimination of slum and blight, or urgent
 need. At least 51% of a project's beneficiaries must be within the LMI limit (80% of the area
 median income, or $72,000 for a single-person household).

Current Program Set-Asides and Funding Limits

The Task Force will make recommendations for funding limits and set-asides. Current allocations
include:

 ●​ 20% for Planning and Administration (funds staff in the Housing and Community
 Development Office).
 ●​ 33% for Social Services (e.g., non-profit funding for unhoused services).
 ●​ 47% for Development Projects (e.g., sidewalk improvements, ADA compliance, housing
 rehabilitation).

The minimum request for social services is $10,000 with a maximum of $150,000, while
construction/development projects have a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $250,000.



Task Force Work Plan and Discussion

The Task Force plans to hold approximately 10 bi-weekly meetings, concluding at the end of August.
The focus will be on reviewing the four CDBG goals, assessing needs, and deciding the priority
impact level of each activity.

 ●​ Four Current CDBG Goals: Neighborhood Investment Infrastructure, Housing Availability,
 Economic Opportunity, and Addressing the Needs of the Growing Homeless or Unhoused
 Population.
 ●​ Seven Current Guiding Principles: Consistency, Measurable Community Impact, Location,
 Diversity and Inclusiveness, Priority of Lower Incomes, Leverage Funding, and Sustainability.
 These currently account for 30 of the 100 total scoring points.

Discussion on Scoring and Impact




 Page 3
Members initiated a discussion on strengthening the scoring framework, acknowledging the
opportunity for the Task Force to revise definitions, rules, and points values.

 ●​ Measuring Impact: Barbara Ginley and Tae Chong questioned the current metrics,
 suggesting that a 12-month funding cycle makes measuring impact (as opposed to process
 measures like "number of people served") unrealistic and difficult to define.
 ●​ Parity for Small Organizations: Tae Chong proposed exploring policy changes to address the
 health of the social service ecosystem. He suggested that the CDBG fund should prioritize
 smaller organizations who lack the resources to apply for multiple city funding sources (such
 as TIF, HOME funds, or Health and Human Services grants) that larger organizations can
 access.
 ●​ Application Quality: Teale Smith, drawing on his experience as a former Allocation
 Committee chair, noted that applications often fail to make an adequate argument for their
 long-term impact on the community.

Mary Davis clarified that the Task Force will provide recommendations, which the City Council will
ultimately decide whether or not to adopt for the Consolidated Plan.

Next Steps and Action Items
The next meeting is scheduled for May 6th.

 ●​ Task Force Members:
 ●​ Review the Needs, Goals, and Priority Impacts table.
 ●​ Review the welcome packet documents, particularly the 2025 CDBG policies, the
 Roux Institute of Portland Needs report, and the 2021 CDBG Priority Setting Task
 Force report.
 ●​ Be prepared to elect a Chair and Co-Chair at the next meeting.




 Page 4
City of Portland | Executive Department
Danielle West, City Manager



Portland Common Council
Goals 2026 to Committee
Workplans
Through the 2026 goal-setting process, the Portland City Council has identified six Common
Council Goals that will guide the Council’s collective work this year. These goals represent areas
where councilors expressed shared commitment to advancing meaningful change. During the
goal-setting workshops, councilors also identified concrete actions the Council could consider to
translate these high-level goals into tangible policy work.

The attached chart demonstrates how these priority themes, specific goals, and proposed actions
connect to create an integrated approach to Portland's most pressing challenges. As committees
develop their detailed 2026 workplans, this framework provides a roadmap for ensuring
individual committee work contributes to Council-wide progress. The specific actions identified
by councilors serve as starting points for committee deliberations, with the understanding that
committees may refine, prioritize, or sequence these actions based on capacity, timing, and
emerging opportunities.

The 2026 Common Council Goals represent an ambitious agenda that seeks to make progress on
Portland's most critical needs while building toward long-term community resilience. The
connection between these goals and proposed committee actions provides a clear pathway from
aspiration to implementation, ensuring that the Council's collective vision translates into
meaningful policy change for Portland residents




 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101 | 207-874-8300 | info@portlandmaine.gov

 Page 5
 2026 Common Council Goals Mapped to Council Committees with Potential Actions for Consideration in Committee Workplans

Theme Description Committee Potential Action
 Consider adjustments to inclusionary zoning ordinance to promote housing production.
 Address Portland’s housing challenges by Consider policy amendments to streamline building permit application review and approval.
Accelerate Housing Housing &
 encouraging the development of more
Production and Economic Review Social Housing Task Force recommendations and consider council action on next steps.
 homes and protecting affordability, so
Strengthen Affordability Development
 current and future residents can live and Consider amendment to Duson Trust Fund ordinance to support housing assistance for residents
Protections Committee
 thrive in our community. (e.g., eviction prevention, security deposit assistance).
 Consider amendment to the rent control ordinance to strengthen enforcement.
 Consider council action to support reduction in chronic homelessness by 50% (currently 120
 Decrease the number of people
 Health & people experiencing chronic homelessness) by end of 2026 (e.g., consideration on day shelter,
 experiencing chronic homelessness by
 Human adjustments to charitable food distribution license, regional and state partnerships).
Reduce Chronic advancing policy to enhance support
 Services &
Homelessness systems and address the underlying causes Review missions of city shelter facilities (i.e., Family Shelter, Warming Center).
 Public Safety
 that lead to housing instability in our
 Committee Consider amending the rate of exchange for the needle exchange program with a public health
 community.
 perspective.
 Support Vision Zero plan roll-out with council leadership.

 Create safer streets for all users by Express public support for Franklin Street Arterial plan and implementation.
 Sustainability &
Reduce Pedestrian and advancing policy to prevent traffic deaths
 Transportation Consider development of Vision Zero ordinance, focused on complete streets, pedestrian safety,
Bicyclist Fatalities and injuries while improving accessibility for walkability, and community engagement.
 Committee
 pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
 Develop legislative proposal for intersection camera pilot to improve safety to be introduced in the
 2027 State Legislature session.

Support Affordability for Ease the tax burden for Portland residents Consider a policy amendment to expand tax affordability programs such as Portland Senior Tax
All Residents Through by finding new ways to fund city services Finance Equity Program (P-STEP).
New Revenue Policies and providing direct tax relief to households Committee Consider a policy amendment to diversify city revenue streams to offset taxpayer burden (e.g,
and Targeted Tax Relief who need it most. fiscal impact of cruise ships, Payment in Lieu of Taxes).

 Address climate change by cutting carbon
 emissions, expanding clean energy and Sustainability &
Advance the Goals of Consider policy to further advance One Climate Future goals are met (e.g., environmental impacts
 energy-efficient buildings, supporting Transportation
One Climate Future of cruise ships, viability of solar on municipal buildings).
 sustainable transportation, and preparing Committee
 Portland for a resilient, low-carbon future.
 Foster a thriving local economy by Housing & Explore ordinance regulating parking lot advertising and pricing disclosure requirements.
Strengthen Economic
 increasing support for businesses and Economic
Vitality and Support Local Close out council action on Live Nation venue proposal.
 strengthening conditions that help Portland's Development
Businesses
 business community grow. Committee Consider policy to enhance public support for the arts.




 Page 6
 CITY OF PORTLAND MAINE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM POLICIES AND
 PROCEDURES



 For more information, please contact:
 City of Portland ~Division of Housing and Community Development
 HCD Program Manager
 289 Congress St
 Portland, ME 04101
 Phone: (207) 874-8731
 Email: cdbg@portlandmaine.gov




 1

 Page 7
TABLE OF CONTENT
I. PURPOSE
II. POLICY OBJECTIVES
III. ELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENTS
IV. INELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENTS
V. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
VI. INELIGIBLE PROJECTS
VII. APPLICATION SUBMISSION
VIII. SCORING CRITERIA
IX. FUNDING LIMITS AND SET ASIDE
X. TIMELINE
XI. ELIGIBLE GRANT EXPENSES
XII. PROGRAM INCOME
XIII. CROSSCUTTING FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
XIV. ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING AND DRAW REQUEST
REQUIREMENTS
XV. PROCUREMENT​
XVI. INSURANCE
XVII. SECURITY INTEREST ON REAL PROPERTY​
XVIII. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
XIX. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROLS
XX. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND BUDGET
XXII. MONITORING
XXIII. RECAPTURE POLICY
APPENDIX A: CDBG SUBRECIPIENT QUICK REFERENCE PAGES




 Page 2

 Page 8
I. PURPOSE

 The Community Development Block Program is a federally funded program that
 provides annual grants on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop
 and carry out a wide range of community development activities directed towards
 revitalizing neighborhoods, providing suitable living, expanding economic
 opportunities, increasing local community facilities and services, and improving
 infrastructure, principally for low to moderate income persons residing in the City.
 The purpose of this policy is to govern the disbursement of Community Development
 Block Grant funds to applicants that meet the requirements for participation in a
 financial assistance program that meet U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
 Development eligibility requirements. Through these guidelines, the City of Portland
 seeks to provide grant funds to assist non-profit organizations and structured entities
 engaged in various programs. This policy sets forth the criteria used to determine and
 identify eligible organizations, programs, and activities for which the grant funds will
 be considered.

 This document may be amended from time to time by the administrative staff of the
 Community Development Block Grant Program.

II. POLICY OBJECTIVES

 The specific objective of this policy is to provide funding to city wide eligible
 infrastructure projects, non-profit organizations that benefit and provide
 opportunities for City of Portland low and moderate income residents, and
 administration of the Community Development Block Grant program. All
 programs and activities must meet federal eligibility requirements and must
 serve 51% or more of low and moderate income residents in the City. Federal
 laws, regulations and guidelines supersede City of Portland policies and
 procedures in an event where a conflict may arise.

 The City of Portland’s Community Development Block Grant federal allocation is
 contingent upon an annual review of performance and funding availability subject to
 federal budget negotiations. Related documents include the Annual Action Plan,
 Consolidated Plan, CDBG Task Force Report, and Citizen Participation Plan.

III. ELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENTS

 The City of Portland will extend grants to the following applicant organizations
 if they are:

 ●​ Registered as a non-profit organization and currently exempt from
 federal taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,
 and in good standing with the IRS, State of Maine, and the City of
 Portland.
 ●​ Organizations providing services to City of Portland residents
 ●​ City of Portland Maine Departments

IV. INELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENTS
 Page 3

 Page 9
 The City of Portland will not extend grants to the following applicant organizations:

 ●​ For-profit businesses or organizations not currently exempt from federal
 taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (some
 exceptions apply);
 ●​ Public and private schools/districts;
 ●​ Political campaigns, or attempts to influence public office;
 ●​ Organizations that unlawfully discriminate as to race, religion, income,
 gender, disability, or national origin;
 ●​ Projects or programs aimed at promoting the teachings of a particular church
 or religious denomination, or construction projects of churches or other
 religious institutions;
 ●​ Foundations affiliated with a for-profit entity;
 ●​ Individuals;
 ●​ Sponsor teams, special events or fundraising activities.

V. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
 Eligible projects must meet federal eligibility requirements and should meet a
 Consolidated Plan Priority. The City has an obligation to address all the priorities set
 forth in the consolidated plan period. The City reserves the right to fund activities as
 necessary in order to meet this objective.

 ●​ Federal Eligibility: The following guidelines are used to determine
 preliminary eligibility status:

 ○​ Eligible Public Service Activity (if providing a service):

 ■​ New Activity

 ■​ Quantifiable increase in the level of service provided by the
 Activity

 ■​ Activity which has experienced a loss of funding



 ○​ National Objective (must meet one of the following):

 ■​ Activity serves an area defined by the Census as low and
 moderate income (refer to map of eligible areas found on
 website.)

 ■​ Activity benefits residents HUD presumes are low and moderate
 income: abused children, victims of domestic violence, elderly,
 severely disabled, homeless, illiterate adults, persons living with
 AIDS, and migrant farm workers.

 ■​ Activity must collect income documentation for each client

 Page 4

 Page 10
 which documents their household (or the individual) as a low
 and moderate income as defined by HUD. Eligible programs
 must serve clients who are at least 51% low or moderate
 income.

 ■​ Activity must create at least one full time job at either 34
 hrs/week or part-time 17 hrs/week.

 ○​ Aid in the Prevention and Elimination of Slum or Blight

 ■​ The property must exhibit physical signs of blight or decay that
 are detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. Blight or
 decay must be documented and submitted as part of the
 application.

 ■​ The project must address one or more of the conditions which
 contributed to the deterioration of the property, included in the
 description or scope of work.

 ■​ The project must be designed to eliminate specific conditions of
 blight or physical decay, such as acquisition, clearance,
 relocation, historic preservation or rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
 is limited to the extent necessary to eliminate a specific
 condition detrimental to public health and safety.

●​ Federal Priorities: The following activities are eligible in CDBG under CFR
 570.200-570.210

 • Acquisition of Real Property • Microenterprise Assistance
 • Disposition • Homeownership Assistance
 • Public Facilities and • Program Administration Costs
 Improvements • Technical Assistance
 • Clearance • Housing Services
 • Public Services • Special Economic Development
 • Interim Assistance Activities
 • Relocation
 • Loss of Rental Income
 • Privately-Owned Utilities
 • Rehabilitation




●​ Local Priorities: The following are needs and goals identified in the
 Consolidated Plan (found on the City website). Applications which
 fall under High Priority Examples will be favored:

 Page 5

 Page 11
1.​ Neighborhood Investment & Infrastructure: Create strong,
 safe, accessible, and vibrant neighborhoods


 CDBG projects will invest in infrastructure to improve neighborhood
 assets and build strong, safe, accessible and vibrant neighborhoods;
 Improve accessibility and livability through age-friendly designs and
 ADA compliance; Build sidewalks and trails to improve connectivity,
 increase the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation, and redevelop
 streetscapes to create shared streets for cars, bikes, and pedestrians that
 integrate with the fabric of the neighborhood; Support programs that
 increase safety in neighborhoods for residents and visitors

 High Priority Examples Other Examples
 ●​ Accessibility/ADA ●​ Community centers and
 compliance engagement programs
 ●​ Alternative modes of ●​ Disability Services
 transportation ●​ Non-profit rehab
 ●​ Community policing ●​ Public infrastructure
 ●​ Park and Recreation outside of targeted
 Facilities neighborhood
 ●​ Public infrastructure in ●​ Senior Services
 targeted neighborhoods ●​ Tree planting


2.​ Housing Availability: Increase housing availability & affordability

 Increase housing availability and affordability to all Portland
 residents regardless of income, race, ethnicity, and family size.
 Encourage housing development by removing barriers to traditional
 urban housing types while ensuring the inclusion of workforce and
 age-friendly housing in significant development projects. Note that
 material and labor costs for new construction is not an eligible use.

 High Priority Examples Other Examples
 ●​ Adaptive reuse for housing ●​ Environmental testing and
 ●​ Housing Retention remediation
 ●​ Housing Start up Assistance ●​ Energy efficiency/
 ●​ Rehabilitation of existing weatherization
 housing ●​ Fair housing activities
 ●​ Heating and fuel assistance
 ●​ Legal services
 ●​ Tenant/landlord counseling
 services


3.​ Economic Opportunity: Create economic opportunities to transition
 Page 6

 Page 12
 people out of poverty

 Invest in Portland businesses to enable them to expand to create jobs.
 Invest in persons wanting to create microenterprises. Engage job
 seekers in a continuum of services to increase their professional
 capacity, financial stability, and ability to maintain employment. Focus
 on difficult to employ populations including homeless, new Americans
 and single parent head of households. Combine resources and build
 partnerships between public and private entities to provide
 opportunities to transition Portland residents out of poverty to
 sustainable employment and financial stability.

 High Priority Examples
 ●​ Career advancement services
 ●​ Education
 ●​ Job training
 ●​ GED attainment
 ●​ ESL
 ●​ Job Creation
 ●​ Job retention support services
 ●​ Childcare vouchers
 ●​ Housing counseling
 ●​ Transportation assistance
 ●​ Microenterprise Assistance



4.​ Address the Needs for Growing Homeless Population: Prevent and
 Reduce Homelessness

 Prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless and entering
 into the shelter system. Rapidly rehouse those who enter the shelter
 system. Provide necessary resources to assist vulnerable population’s
 transition out of homelessness, including housing opportunities for
 chronically homeless or long-term stayers at homeless shelters.


 High Priority Examples Other Examples
 ●​ Behavioral Health Services ●​ At risk youth services
 ●​ Emergency services to
 prevent homelessness
 ●​ Food Assistance
 ●​ Housing and Housing
 Services for long term
 shelter consumers
 ●​ Housing Startup Services
 Page 7

 Page 13
 ●​ Shelter services



VI. INELIGIBLE PROJECTS

 The following activities are specifically identified by HUD as activities that are not
 eligible for CDBG funding. See 24 CFR 570.207 for a full list of activities not eligible
 for CDBG funds. These include:

 ●​ Political or religious activities.
 ●​ Lobbying activities
 ●​ Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or use of buildings or portions
 thereof used for the general conduct of government.
 ●​ General government expenses.
 ●​ Purchase of equipment, furnishings, or fixtures, motor vehicles, and other
 personal property.
 ●​ Direct income payments beyond more than three (3) consecutive months to
 individuals for items such as food, clothing, and rent.
 ●​ Operating and maintenance expenses unless associated with providing a public
 service
 ●​ Construction of new housing, unless as a special activity by a qualified
 Community Based Development Organization per 24 CFR 570.504(a).
 ●​ Treatment works for liquid industrial wastes or sewage.
 ●​ Supplanting or substituting expenses currently paid for by other sources.

​
VII. APPLICATION SUBMISSION

 Basic requirements for a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction are set forth in CDBG
 Program Regulations 24 CFR 570. Federal requirements allow leeway for how a
 local CDBG program shall be managed. Local community needs, resources, priorities
 and procedures for managing the CDBG program are reviewed by the CDBG Priority
 Task Force and approved by the Portland City Council. Every 5 years the City Council
 approves a 5-year Consolidated Plan that outlines the City’s Needs, Goals, and
 Priorities for the upcoming 5-year period. In addition, each year the City Council
 approves the current year’s Action Plan which includes objectives and outcomes
 identified in the plan, an evaluation of past performance, and activities to be
 undertaken in the next year. Although both the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan
 describe the performance standards and procedures City staff will use to evaluate and
 monitor activities and ensure compliance with HUD requirements, it is necessary to
 outline and document all programmatic policies and procedures.

 Prior year examples community Development Block Grant Application is located on
 the City of Portland’s website and must be completed and submitted by the deadline.
 The program has two applications: Social Service and Development Activities.

 Social Service Applications should be submitted when an applicant is applying for

 Page 8

 Page 14
 funds to administer a program providing services to at least a portion of low income
 individuals.

 Development Activity Applications should be submitted when an applicant is
 applying for funds to complete a rehabilitation on real property, complete
 infrastructure improvements, or administer an economic development program.

 Application Submission Requirements:

 One (1) application must be submitted per program; organizations may submit more
 than one (1) application for separate and distinct programs.

 Application submissions must be signed by an authorized official or include a
 signed statement from the authorized official attached to the application;

VIII. SCORING CRITERIA

 Applications will be reviewed by staff to establish eligibility with the federal
 eligibility criteria outlined in the above sections. If staff determines an application to
 be ineligible, the applicant will be notified and the CDBG Allocation Committee will
 be made aware. Staff will review all eligible applications and provide comments on
 the organization’s capacity to deliver proposed services.

 All eligible applications will be evaluated by the CDBG Allocation Committee (see
 Rules and Regulations on City of Portland website), who will generate scores and
 award recommendations, which in collaboration with the City Manager will then be
 presented to the City Council, for final review and approval.

 Funding recommendations will be determined by utilizing the following guiding
 criteria:

 ●​ Consistent. All projects and programs will be reviewed with respect to the
 Consolidated Plan and other HUD requirements; City goals, priority impact
 levels, and other CDBG or HOME investments. Proposals should be
 coordinated with relevant City Departments where appropriate and align with
 City initiatives.
 ●​ Measurable Community Impact. Programs and projects will be evaluated
 based on how well they create a significant and measurable community impact.
 ●​ Diversity and Inclusiveness. Programs and projects shall address the
 community’s diversity and create a culture of belonging.
 ●​ Priority to Lower Incomes. Priority will be given to projects and programs
 that serve the lowest income persons.
 ●​ Leveraged Funding. CDBG cannot be the only source of funding for a
 program or project; leveraging other funds is essential.
 ●​ Location.* Project benefits the targeted LMI area or neighborhood and
 considers other nearby improvements.



 Page 9

 Page 15
 ●​ Sustainability.* Project demonstrates benefit to the environment through
 energy efficiency or similar considerations, as well as demonstrates
 economically sustainable practices.
 ●​ Letters of Support and MOUs Demonstration of support from peer
 organizations and clients.
 *Does not apply to social service applications.

 The CDBG Allocation Committee will score each application based on the criteria
 above. Each Committee member will rate how the application addresses each scoring
 category using one of the following: Absent, Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good,
 Outstanding. There will be corresponding point values for each rating which will total
 a maximum of 100 points.

 POSSIBLE
 SCORING CATEGORY
 POINTS
Goal, Priority Impact Level & Community Need 30 points total
Goal – Applicant demonstrates consistency with Consolidated Plan, city goals, priority impact
 15
initiatives, and other CDBG/HOME investments.
Priority Impact Level 5
Community Need – Applicant demonstrates sufficient community need through reference of
 10
plans, reports, data, or past experience.
Guiding Principles 30 points total
Measurable Community Impact – Applicant demonstrates a significant and measurable
 10*/5
community impact.
Diversity & Inclusiveness – Project addresses the community’s diversity and creates a culture
 10/5
of belonging.
Priority to Lower Incomes – Priority should be given to projects that serve the lowest income
 10/5
persons.
Location - Project benefits the targeted LMI area or neighborhood and considers other
 5
nearby improvements.
Sustainability - Project demonstrates benefit to the environment through energy efficiency or
 5
similar considerations, as well as demonstrates economically sustainable practices.
Capacity to deliver 25 points total
Financial Need – Applicant demonstrates how CDBG funds are necessary to the program. If
Applicant is requesting an increase in funding from the previous year, they sufficiently 5
demonstrate a need and expansion of service.
Leveraged Funds – Project demonstrates other sources of funding in addition to the CDBG
 5
request.
Experience Providing Service – Applicant demonstrates sufficient experience in delivering and
 5
managing this or similar projects.
Readiness to Proceed – Applicant demonstrates sufficient staff and organizational capacity to
 5
implement project promptly.


 Page 10

 Page 16
 POSSIBLE
 SCORING CATEGORY
 POINTS
Financial Stability – Applicant demonstrated sufficient nonprofit status (if applicable), agency
 5
operating budget, and recent audit (if applicable).
Partnership/Collaboration: a single overall score for the following:

 ●​Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
 15 points total
 ●​Letter of Support(LOS)
 ●​Demonstrated Outreach




 PENALTY POINTS DEDUCTED

 Missing Section/s 1 point deducted per item

 Failing to follow Submission 0.25 point deducted per
 Guidelines instance

 0.25 points deducted per
 Errors (e.g. in budget calculation)
 instance

 Appeals Process: An applicant may appeal only the score that it receives. The appeal
 must be based on a factual error that was made and that, if corrected, would result in a
 grant award or a higher award. The appeal must be filed in writing within 10 calendar
 days of the date upon which the Allocation Committee publishes the scores.

 The appeal shall be filed to:

 Office of the City Manager, Portland City Hall, 389 Congress Street, Portland, ME

 The appeal shall identify the specific factual error or errors that are alleged and be
 accompanied by documentation that supports the allegation. If the City Manager or
 his/her designee determines that, if granted, the appeal would result in a change to the
 appellant’s application score sufficient to result in a grant award or a higher grant
 award, the City Manager or his/her designee (“Hearing Officer”) shall schedule the
 matter for a hearing. The hearing must be held within five days of the date upon
 which the appeals period ends. The Hearing Officer shall issue a written decision
 within three days after the completion of the hearing. The date of the hearing and the
 date by which the written decision must issue may be extended by agreement between
 the appellant and the City.

 If an appeal is granted, the Hearing Officer’s decision shall state the additional points
 awarded to the applicant and be transmitted to the Allocation Committee within 3
 days after the completion of the hearing with instructions to make the appropriate
 adjustments in the CDBG allocations that result from the scoring change.

 Page 11

 Page 17
 The Allocation Committee shall not be required to meet to make any final adjustments
 to its allocation grant awards recommendations until all appeals have been decided.

 Reservation of Rights: The City of Portland reserves the right, at its sole discretion,
 to award all, a portion, or none of the available CDBG funding for this fiscal year, and
 may reject any and all proposals based on the quality and/or merits of the proposals,
 or when it is determined to be in the public interest to do so. Furthermore, the City
 may extend deadlines and timeframes, as needed.

 City of Portland reserves the right to substantiate any applicant’s qualifications,
 financial information, capability to perform, availability, past CDBG performance,
 and to verify that the applicant is current in its financial obligations to the City.

 The City of Portland reserves the right to waive any informalities in proposals, to
 accept any proposal or portion thereof, and, to reject any and all proposals, should it
 be in the best interest of the City to do so.

IX. FUNDING LIMITS AND SET ASIDE

 New Applicant Set-Aside of up to 20% of the previous year allocation within the
 respective funding category, for applications that score 75 points or higher in Social
 Services

 Public Infrastructure Set-Aside of up to 60% of the cumulative Development
 Activity funding available to City programs

 Minimum Grant Request: $10,000 for Social Services and Development Activities

 Maximum Grant Request: $150,000 for Social Services; no more than 30% of the
 previous year's allocation amount or $250,000, whichever is less for Development
 Activities; Public Infrastructure projects are exempt from the maximum grant cap.

 Maximum Cumulative City Request: 45% of funding available for Social Services
 and 85% of funding available for Development Activities can go to City programs

X. TIMELINE

 The Community Development Block Grant program period is from July 1 through
 June 30. The regular term for Social Service grants is one (1) year; for Development
 Activities it is two (2) years.

 Recipients must sign the CDBG Subrecipient Agreement no later than July 1 or the
 award may be forfeited and the funds returned to the CDBG program for reallocation.

XI. ELIGIBLE GRANT EXPENSES

 Eligible grant expenses should be specifically identified in the application budget and
 Page 12

 Page 18
should be easily and accurately demonstrated in the operation and activities of the
program and/or project. Grant requests should be limited to those expenses that relate
solely to the operation of the program during the Grant period. Funds will be
provided for eligible expenditures on a reimbursement basis only.

No costs can be incurred or obligated from CDBG funding until a release of funds is
received from HUD by the City of Portland and a contract between the City of
Portland and the recipient is executed. Environmental Review and historic
preservation at the State and local level are required before construction jobs can
begin.

The following categories are eligible grant expenses for both Social Service and
Development Activities:
●​ Personnel Costs: The Grant will award salary expenses directly associated
 with the program, unless otherwise specified in the contract agreement.
 ○​ Salaries: Salaries charged to the program should be based on actual
 hours spent on the funded program multiplied by the employee’s
 hourly billing rate.
 ○​ Timesheets: Detailed and accurate time records for all employees paid
 under the contract must be kept by the organization and available upon
 request by the City. Acceptable time records must show the total hours
 worked. Payroll documentation must be completed in accordance with
 the organization’s accepted practice and be approved by a responsible
 official(s). Other detailed information may be required based on
 funding source requirements.
 ○​ Exception: Subrecipients cannot supplement personnel costs for staff if
 those costs are already allocated out of the existing City budget.
●​ Contractual/Consulting Services: The Grant will award costs for
 organizations and individuals external to the organization that have entered
 into a written agreement with the organization to provide any services outlined
 in or associated with the agreement, and whose services are to be funded under
 the program budget within a program year.
 ○​ All consultant arrangements must be competitively procured in
 accordance with the Section XIII if the service is a result of the CDBG
 award. The organization shall not enter into an agreement with the
 external organizations without first consulting the City. The City must
 approve the written agreement prior to the commitment of funds.

●​ Insurance: The Grant will award costs for reasonable insurance payments.

●​ Travel: The Grant will award costs for travel plans, however, all plans must be
 approved as part of the organization budget submission to the City. Any travel
 plans in excess of the original budget that require a budget modification
 require preapproval.

 Page 13

 Page 19
 ○​ Mileage will be reimbursed in accordance with the organization’s
 standard rate, not to exceed the IRS rate in effect at the time of travel.
 Mileage reimbursement excludes normal round trip to and from work.
 ○​ Meals unrelated to the funded program shall not be reimbursable, (i.e.
 organization parties, executive meals and meals at meetings). Charges
 for alcohol are not reimbursable and gratuities shall not exceed 20% of
 the total bill.

●​ Equipment: The purchase of equipment is generally ineligible; leasing or
 renting equipment is preferred. Equipment is defined as tangible property
 costing more than $500 and having a useful life of more than one (1) year.
 All purchases of equipment require City pre-approval. The request should
 include the cost of the item, where it will be purchased, a detailed
 explanation of why it should be bought rather than leased or rented, and
 where the funds for the purchases will come from. If City CDBG funds
 will be paying only a portion, list all other funding sources and the
 respective amounts. The Grant may award costs for equipment if the
 predominant use (50% or more) is directly associated with the City
 funded program. Individual purchases valued over $500.00 must be
 identified in the budget, and must be competitively procured in
 accordance with Section XIII. Organizations must maintain an inventory
 of equipment purchased with Grant funds. The inventory will be reviewed
 during monitoring and will include a review of the item’s make/model,
 serial number, location, and condition. Prior to disposal of an asset, the
 city, at its discretion, will determine if the item must be returned or will
 approve the entity’s plan for disposition.

●​ Supplies: The award can be used for items which cost less than $500 and
 which have a useful life of less than one (1) year.

●​ Construction Materials and Labor: The award can be used for
 materials and labor costs associated with a Development Activity. All
 materials and labor must adhere to the procurement procedures in Section
 XIII. Please review the Crosscutting Federal Requirements as Davis
 Bacon Wage Rates, Section 3, Build America Buy America, Lead Paint
 Hazard, etc may apply. Please also review the Section XVII for security
 interest requirements. Staff will determine if a 10% retainage will be
 included in any approved construction budget.
●​ Vehicles: If vehicles are rented, the costs must be listed under Vehicle Rental
 in the initial submitted program budget.

●​ Office Costs: The award can be used to cover office costs which includes
 utilities, rent, mortgage payments, and communication/other necessary
 services at the location or offices associated with the program.

●​ Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are the expenses of doing business including
 administrative expenses and overhead necessary for the general operation of

 Page 14

 Page 20
 the program.
 ○​ The Grant will allow indirect costs of up to 15% of the total direct
 costs, unless otherwise specified in a federally negotiated indirect
 rate, proof of which must be submitted at the time of application.
 ○​ Indirect costs will be funded based on the direct costs submitted for
 reimbursement.

 ●​ Income Payments: These expenses should be reviewed by staff to ensure
 eligibility, but may include rent, bus passes, food, utilities, childcare,
 clothing, hygiene kits and other costs paid on behalf of clients. To be eligible
 the direct support cannot exceed a period of three (3) consecutive months
 and must be made directly to the provider of such items or services on behalf
 of the individual. Emergency grant payments are able to be used for
 arrearages so long as the payments from the grant are made within the first
 month of assistance and continue through the applicable consecutive period.

 ●​ Sales Tax: Sales tax incurred by a tax exempt organization is generally an
 ineligible expense, except:
 ○​ When exempt status is not recognized out of state, or
 ○​ Reimbursement claims by the employees or through direct client
 supportive services, which must include an itemized receipt and be
 part of their official duties during program operation.
 ●​ Other Expenses Directly Related to the Program: Additional eligible
 expenses must be solely related to the services to be provided, but are not
 specifically included in the previous categories. These items may include:
 participant travel, staff training, security costs, occupancy, licensing fees,
 printing, shipping, delivery and messenger services, material development
 costs, advertising costs for recruitment, books, journals, periodicals,
 audio-visual services, facility rental, and program refreshments. Additional
 criteria or clarification for some of these categories are listed below:
 ○​ Participant travel: Explain the purpose of travel, number of
 participants, estimated miles, and frequency (ex. per day, per week).

 ○​ Printing Services: Audio-visual and print production costs, reprint
 permissions, reproduction, and photocopying costs. All organizations
 must make reasonable efforts to secure the lowest responsible bidder
 for printing services.

XII. PROGRAM INCOME

 Program income is defined as any funds accruing to a subrecipient as a result of using
 CDBG resources as defined under 24 CFR 570.000(a). Examples include interest
 payment on loans provided with CDBG funds, rental fees from the use of a community
 facility, sale proceeds from purchased equipment or property, and fees charged for
 services funded by program resources. Subrecipients are required to keep records of
 Page 15

 Page 21
 the sources of program income in addition to reporting unanticipated program income
 separately from grant funds on a quarterly basis. Program income may be used to
 support the operation of a CDBG- assisted activity, however, this must be preapproved
 through the City. Program income not used to continue or benefit the original CDBG
 activity shall be returned to the program. The receipt and use of all program income
 must be documented and reported annually to the City.

 The sole source for CDBG program income has been from the repayment of
 rehabilitation loans made to homeowners; repayment happens when the owner
 refinances the mortgage on the home or when the home is sold. The City reports
 CDBG program income at draw- downs of CDBG funds and applies program income
 to expenditures prior to requesting new funds.

XIII. CROSSCUTTING FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

 The Community Development Black Grant Program is subject to a number of
 crosscutting requirements which are identified in the City of Portland’s Crosscutting
 Policies and Procedures. However, applicants of the Grant shall be aware that the
 following may be applicable:

 ●​ Environmental Review per 24 CFR Part 58.
 ○​ Note: The HUD environmental review process must be completed
 before CDBG agreements are signed, and before the purchase of any
 land or buildings, or start of any work on a proposed project, even with
 non-HUD funds. Specifically, no party involved with the project may
 commit funds to the project, including incurring project costs, until the
 City completes the appropriate environmental review and public
 notification process, and if applicable, HUD approves a certification of
 compliance with environmental laws and request for release of funds
 from environmental conditions.
 ●​ Davis Bacon and Related Acts
 ●​ Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968

 ●​ Uniform Displacement Act
XIV. ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING AND DRAW REQUEST REQUIREMENTS

 When subrecipients incur costs for projects or programs, the amount due is to be
 paid in full and then the subrecipient may request reimbursement from the City.
 Incurred costs must be included in the approved budget and must be allowable
 under 2 CFR 200 subpart E.

 All draw requests must be made quarterly and submitted with the quarterly
 accomplishment report. Appropriate backup documentation is required for all
 expenses.

 Page 16

 Page 22
 The quarterly accomplishment reports must include a brief narrative of progress
 towards the goals, the number of clients served – along with their demographic
 and income information – and the number of units of service.

 The program goal for clients served and the goal for units of service will be
 defined in the Subrecipient Agreement. The units of service are used for Social
 Service subrecipients to track the progress made towards the program or project
 objectives. Subrecipients are expected to submit draw requests which are
 generally proportional to the progress made towards their unit of service goal,
 and evenly distributed across the year-long term of the grant.

 The Social Service subrecipients will be expected to meet the following
 benchmarks throughout the grant term:

 1.​ In order to submit reimbursement requests for 50% of the award amount
 (usually around the end of Quarter 2), the total units of service must be
 more than 40% of the unit of service goal. If this is not met, the
 subrecipient must submit a letter to staff outlining the challenges in
 meeting the goal.
 2.​ In order to submit reimbursement requests for 75% of the award amount
 (usually around the end of Quarter 3), the total units of service must be
 more than 65% of the unit of service goal. If this is not met, the
 subrecipient must submit a letter to staff outlining the challenges in the
 goal.
 3.​ In order to submit reimbursement requests for 100% of the award
 amount (usually around the end of Quarter 4), the total units of service
 must be more than 90% of the unit of service goal. If the subrecipient
 cannot meet this threshold, they must submit a letter to staff prior to
 submitting their last reimbursement request outlining the challenges
 faced. Staff will determine appropriate final reimbursement.

 If at any time during the grant term, a subrecipient believes that their unit of
 service or client goal cannot be met by the end of the term, they can submit a
 request to amend the Subrecipient Agreement to reduce the proposed goals.
 Inability to meet benchmarks may be noted on your performance record
 submitted to the CDBG Allocation Committee.
XV. PROCUREMENT
 When a grantee or subrecipient elects to hire a contractor, consultant, or make certain
 purchases, these goods and services must be procured competitively. This section
 highlights the procurement rules for certain thresholds. In general, efforts must be
 taken to assure that small, minority, women, disabled persons, veteran-owned
 businesses are used when possible.

 ●​ $25,000 or More: Any expenditure of $25,000 or more must be procured by a
 formal competitive process, including an open-end bidding process. The formal
 competitive process requires a Bid or Request of Proposals (RFP) which

 Page 17

 Page 23
 includes scope of work documents, federal contract documents, and other
 items. The bid due date must be no less than two weeks after the advertisement
 is placed. A qualified bidder will be selected by predetermined criteria
 identified in the bid following the close of the bid. Contracts must include all
 documents provided in the bid documents.

 The open-ended bidding process can be used for subrecipients who need
 recurring services or goods. This allows for a bid that identifies the unit costs
 of a good or service that the subrecipient can request on demand without
 having to go out to bid. This procurement process will be honored for two
 consecutive years.

●​ $1,000 to $24,999: Services, including construction services, in this threshold
 must follow the above process of bids, but does not have to be formally
 advertised. Instead, the scope of work and federal requirements must be shared
 with interested bidders who can submit bids. A bid walk through is also
 recommended to ensure that all bidders can understand the complete scope of
 the project. A qualified bidder will be selected by predetermined criteria
 identified in the bid documents following the bid due date.

 Goods in the above threshold do not need to be formally bid. Subrecipients
 must obtain a minimum of three (3) written quotes. A qualified quote can be
 selected by reasonable criteria.

 Note: It is the City’s preference that all construction projects be competitively
 bid out through an RFP. However, due to the current challenges of securing
 construction services, this is suggestion and not a requirement.

●​ Less than $1,000: For goods and services less than $1,000 the subrecipient can
 purchase with the written permission from the HCD Program Manager.

The selection of goods or services for any threshold should be made to the lowest
responsive and responsible source. The subrecipient should identify written criteria
ahead of time which defines a responsible source.

For construction or facility improvement contracts or subcontracts exceeding the
simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), the awarding agency may accept
the bonding policy and requirements of the grantee or subgrantee provided the
awarding agency has made a determination that the awarding agency's interest is
adequately protected. If such a determination has not been made, the minimum
requirements shall be as follows:
 ●​ A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to five percent of the bid price.
 The ``bid guarantee'' shall consist of a firm commitment such as a bid bond,
 certified check, or other negotiable instrument accompanying a bid as
 assurance that the bidder will, upon acceptance of his bid, execute such
 contractual documents as may be required within the time specified.
 ●​ A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the
 Page 18

 Page 24
 contract price. A ``performance bond'' is one executed in connection with a
 contract to secure fulfillment of all the contractor's obligations under such
 contract.
 ●​ A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract
 price. A ``payment bond'' is one executed in connection with a contract to
 assure payment as required by law of all persons supplying labor and material
 in the execution of the work provided for in the contract.

XVI. INSURANCE

 Each subrecipient will be required to obtain and maintain adequate insurance in order
 to receive funding from the City of Portland. Insurance requirements include:

 ●​ Public liability insurance in the amount of $400,000 with the City of Portland
 listed as an additional insured

 ●​ Worker’s compensation insurance

 ●​ Employment compensation insurance

 The Subrecipient will obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this Contract
 a fidelity bond covering its employees handling funds hereunder in an amount no less
 than the amount of funds granted hereunder, or such lesser amount as the City may
 approve. In lieu of a fidelity bond, the Subrecipient may provide crime insurance
 coverage, which includes a “Client’s Property” clause. Subrecipient shall provide the
 City with a certificate of insurance showing the City as Joint Loss Payee. Subrecipient
 agrees that in the event that a claim is made under such coverage on behalf of the City,
 Subrecipient will be solely responsible for any deductible amount in order to ensure
 that the City is reimbursed the full amount of any loss covered by such coverage up to
 its limit of liability.

XVII. SECURITY INTEREST ON REAL PROPERTY

 When real property is improved using federal dollars over a certain amount, the City
 requires a mortgage be placed on the property to ensure federal requirements of the
 project are met. At the time of the commitment of funds, the City will provide the
 mortgage and promissory note to the applicant in accordance with the policy below:

 ●​ Improvements to Real Property of a Business Owner: If the expenditure
 of CDBG funds resulted in the creation of jobs, the jobs must be created and
 maintained for the specified time frame below, or the recipient may be
 required to repay the City a portion of the funds. A term of five (5) years will
 be enforced if CDBG funds are less than twenty five thousand dollars
 ($25,000). A term of ten (10) years will be enforced for CDBG funds greater
 than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000).

 Page 19

 Page 25
 ●​ Equipment Purchase by any Subrecipient: The purchase of equipment
 over $10,000 may require a UCC-1 which includes a commitment that said
 equipment will be used for the CDBG-funded program or project for the
 length of its useful life, unless otherwise approved by City staff.

 ●​ Improvement to Real Property of a Nonprofit Organization: The
 building must continue to operate in a manner that serves primarily low
 income persons for the specified time frame below, or the recipient may be
 required to repay the City a portion of the grant/loan amount on a declining
 basis per year. A term of five (5) years will be enforced if CDBG funds are
 less than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). A term of ten (10) years
 will be enforced for CDBG funds greater than twenty five thousand dollars
 ($25,000).

 ●​ Single Family Rehabilitation: Property owner(s) must be income eligible
 and use the property as their primary residence for the time frame specified
 or the homeowner may be required to repay the City a portion of the
 grant/loan amount on a declining basis per year. A term of ten (10) years will
 be enforced for CDBG funds greater than twenty five thousand dollars
 ($25,000).

 ●​ Multi-Family Rehabilitation: The property manager must rent 51% of the
 units to income eligible renters for the time frame specified or the property
 owner may be required to repay the City a portion of the grant/loan amount.
 Terms are dependent on the investment per unit: at fifteen thousand dollars
 ($15,000) per unit a term of five (5) years is required; at twelve thousand
 dollars ($12,000) per unit a term of four (4) years is required; at nine
 thousand dollar ($9,000) per unit a term of three (3) years is required. These
 terms will apply to CDBG payments made for relocation costs or utility
 improvements for multi-family, in addition to construction costs.

XVIII. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
 The Subrecipient shall maintain all records required by the Federal regulations
 specified in 24 CFR 570.506 that are pertinent to the activities to be funded.
 Except as otherwise authorized by the City, such records shall be maintained for a
 period of even (7) years from the date of submission by the City of the annual
 performance and evaluation report in which the specific activity is reported on for the
 final time. Notwithstanding the above, if there is litigation, claims, audits,
 negotiations, or other actions that involve any of the records cited and that have started
 before the expiration of the six-year period, then such records must be retained until
 completion of the actions and resolutions of all issues, or the expiration of the six-year
 period, whichever occurs later.
 The City reserves the right to evaluate the Subrecipient's accounting, reporting and
 internal control systems, and to require changes when in the sole opinion of the City,
 deficiencies exist. Failure on the part of the Subrecipient to implement required
 changes may result in the holdback of Grant funds.

 Page 20

 Page 26
All costs shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices,
contracts or vouchers, or other official documentation evidencing in proper detail the
nature and propriety of the charges. All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers,
orders, or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to this Contract
shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
The Social Services Subrecipients shall submit to the City quarterly performance
reports documenting service delivery and beneficiary data. Development Activity
Subrecipients must submit quarterly status updates including a narrative and
supplemental documents. A year-end narrative documenting program outcomes is
also required by the City. At such times and in such forms as the City may also
require, there shall be furnished to the City such statements, records, reports, data and
information, as the City may request pertaining to matters covered by this Contract.
The final report of expenses incurred under this Contract will be submitted to the City
within 30 days after the termination date of the Contract.
At any time during normal business hours and as often as the City or HUD may deem
necessary, there shall be made available to the City or HUD for examination all of its
records with respect to all matters covered by this Contract and will permit the City or
HUD to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to
make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel,
conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this
Contract and related sub-contracts and sub-recipients. The City reserves the right to
withhold final payment under the Contract to the Subrecipient for Grant expenditures
until the results of the Subrecipient project's final audit are complete and found to be
satisfactory to the City. A Subrecipient that receives $1,000,000 or more in a fiscal
year shall have an annual independent audit in accordance with 2 CFR 200 Subpart F.
The City reserves the right not to further fund Subrecipients whose administrative
policies, in the sole and exclusive judgment of the City Manager, are not in the best
interest of the recipients receiving Subrecipient services.
The Subrecipient must maintain financial records, in accordance with the applicable
requirements listed in §570.502 - uniform administrative requirements - including
source documentation for entities not subject to parts 84 and 85 of the regulation. In
addition to requirements in 2 CFR 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”. Grantees shall maintain
evidence to support how the CDBG funds provided to such entities are expended.
Such documentation must include, to the extent applicable, invoices, schedules
containing comparisons of budgeted amounts and actual expenditures, construction
progress schedules signed by appropriate parties (e.g., general contractor and/or a
project architect), and/or other documentation appropriate to the nature of the activity.
The Subrecipient must maintain records required to be maintained in accordance with
other applicable laws and regulations set forth in §570.502 - Subpart K.
In the case of housing related projects, the Subrecipient must maintain fair housing
and equal opportunity records containing:
 ○​ Documentation of the analysis of impediments and the actions the
 Page 21

 Page 27
 City has carried out with its housing and community development and
 other resources to remedy or ameliorate any impediments to fair
 housing choice in the City community.

○​ Documentation of the analysis of impediments and the actions the
 City has carried out with its housing and community development and
 other resources to remedy or ameliorate any impediments to fair
 housing choice in the City community.

○​ Data on the extent to which each racial and ethnic group and
 single-headed households (by gender of household head) have applied
 for, participated in, or benefited from, any program or activity funded
 in whole or in part with CDBG funds. Such information shall be used
 only as a basis for further investigation as to compliance with
 nondiscrimination requirements. No recipient is required to attain or
 maintain any particular statistical measure by race, ethnicity, or gender
 in covered programs.

○​ Data on employment in each of the City operating units funded in
 whole or in part with CDBG funds, with such data maintained in the
 categories prescribed on the Equal Employment Opportunity
 Commission's EEO–4 form; and documentation of any actions
 undertaken to assure equal employment opportunities to all persons
 regardless of race, color, national origin, sex or handicap in operating
 units funded in whole or in part under this part.

○​ Data indicating the race and ethnicity of households (and gender of
 single heads of households) displaced as a result of CDBG funded
 activities, together with the address and census tract of the housing
 units to which each displaced household relocated. Such information
 shall be used only as a basis for further investigation as to compliance
 with nondiscrimination requirements. No recipient is required to attain
 or maintain any particular statistical measure by race, ethnicity, or
 gender in covered programs.

○​ Documentation of actions undertaken to meet the requirements of
 §570.607(b) which implements section 3 of the Housing Development
 Act of 1968, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1701U) relative to the hiring and
 training of low- and moderate-income persons and the use of local
 businesses.

○​ Data indicating the racial/ethnic character of each business entity
 receiving a contract or subcontract of $25,000 or more paid, or to be
 paid, with CDBG funds, data indicating which of those entities are
 women's business enterprises as defined in Executive Order 12138,
 the amount of the contract or subcontract, and documentation of
 recipient's affirmative steps to assure that minority business and
 women's business enterprises have an equal opportunity to obtain or
 Page 22

 Page 28
 compete for contracts and subcontracts as sources of supplies,
 equipment, construction and services. Such affirmative steps may
 include, but are not limited to, technical assistance open to all
 businesses but designed to enhance opportunities for these enterprises
 and special outreach efforts to inform them of contract opportunities.
 Such steps shall not include preferring any business in the award of
 any contract or subcontract solely or in part on the basis of race or
 gender.

 ○​ Documentation of the affirmative action measures the City has taken
 to overcome prior discrimination, where the courts or HUD have
 found that the City has previously discriminated against persons on
 the ground of race, color, national origin or sex in administering a
 program or activity funded in whole or in part with CDBG funds.

XIX. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROLS

 Accounting Standards: The Subrecipient agrees to comply with 24 CFR 200 and
 agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures required therein, utilize
 adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary source documentation for all costs
 incurred.

 Cost Principles: The Subrecipient shall administer its program in conformance with
 all applicable requirements and standards detailed in 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform
 Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
 Awards” which supersedes, consolidates, and streamlines requirements from OMB
 Circulars A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations,” or A-21, “Cost
 Principles for Educational Institutions,” as applicable.

XX. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND BUDGET

 Amendments to Program Scope: It is generally not permissible to amend the scope
 of an approved program, however, amendments will be considered under extenuating
 circumstances which are beyond the control of the organization. Such requests will be
 reviewed by the HCD Program Manager, who will make a recommendation to the
 Housing and Community Development Division Director who will provide approval.

 Amendments to Budget: It is generally not permissible to amend items within an
 approved budget, however, organizations that wish to amend budget item(s) are
 required to contact the HCD Program Manager to discuss the change and the
 procedure for submitting the budget amendment. The HCD Program Manager will
 make a recommendation to the Housing and Community Development Division
 Director who will provide approval.

 Amendments to Timeline: Extensions will only be considered if the subrecipient can
 adequately demonstrate delays which were outside of their control. Extensions will be
 granted for up to three months after the close of the original grant period. Any further
 delays will be noted on correspondence to the scoring committee if the subrecipient
 Page 23

 Page 29
 seeks future funding. The HCD Program Manager will make a recommendation to the
 Housing and Community Development Division Director who will provide approval.


XXII. MONITORING

 Monitoring is the regular and systematic examination of all aspects associated with
 the administration and implementation of a private, local, state, or federally funded
 program in an effort to ensure compliance with regulations. This process will ensure
 that programs are implemented in a timely and efficient manner. It will also allow
 the City of Portland to determine which programs require assistance and/or revisions
 in an effort to ensure quality programs and organization sustainability.

 Monitoring will be conducted through site visits and an extensive review of
 Subrecipient’s reporting documentation.

 ●​ Site visits: Site Visits will be conducted by the HCD Program Manager at
 least once during the program’s operation to determine fiscal adequacy and
 program quality. Site visits will allow staff to determine whether a program is
 operating within the parameters in the organization’s Agreement and Scope
 of Services while also allowing staff to assess and offer guidance to the
 unique needs of a particular organization. Site visits are scheduled with
 organization personnel. Unscheduled visits may include attendance at public
 events.

 ○​ During onsite review, the following tasks may be performed: Review
 selected documentation (i.e., general ledger, expense reports,
 submitted invoices, attendance rosters program curricula and
 schedule, etc.); Review program data; Visit service areas of the
 related program; Conduct focus groups with staff, or other individuals
 participating in or affected by the program; Discuss preliminary
 findings and/or follow-up meetings; Conduct additional monitoring
 activities, as needed.

 Monitoring results will be based upon Subrecipient’s site visit and
 reporting documentation. The on site monitoring will be used to
 determine whether the organization is in compliance with the Policies
 and Procedures of the Grant. Subrecipients will be notified in writing if
 they are not in compliance and will be required to develop a Corrective
 Action Plan that will be reviewed by the HCD Program Manager.

 ●​ Compliance Determination:
 ○​ IN COMPLIANCE: The program fulfills its obligations as outlined in
 the Policies and Procedures.

 ○​ NOT IN COMPLIANCE: The program is not in complete compliance
 with the Policies and Procedures. A Monitoring Report will be issued to
 the organization within 30 calendar days of the site visit and/or review
 Page 24

 Page 30
 of reporting documentation. The report will address any findings,
 recommendations and corrective actions, if applicable. Subrecipients
 will have 30 to 60 days to develop a Corrective Action Plan delineating
 strategies and a timeline in which they plan to correct any findings. The
 Corrective Action Plan will be reviewed and feedback will be provided
 to the Subrecipient within 30 to 60 days. The Youth Services Director
 will work with the Subrecipient to ensure the plan is comprehensive,
 manageable and timely. Post-monitoring visits may occur to ensure the
 plan has been implemented. When Subrecipient has provided sufficient
 evidence that the Corrective Action Plan has been fully implemented, a
 closeout letter will be issued indicating that all findings have been
 resolved.
 ●​ Failure to Enact a Corrective Action Plan: A Subrecipient’s failure to
 sufficiently implement its Corrective Action Plan within a timely manner, may
 lead to ineligibility for future funding or special conditions and restrictions on
 the Subrecipient’s ability to receive future grant funds. Special conditions and
 restrictions may include: Additional reporting; Additional onsite monitoring;
 Withholding or suspension of grant funds.

 Additional program-specific conditions may also be imposed at the discretion
 of the HCD Program Manager. The Subrecipient will be notified in writing if
 there are any special conditions or restrictions attached to the grant award. The
 notice will include: Nature of the special conditions/restrictions; Any
 corrective actions that must be implemented before the conditions/restrictions
 may be lifted; The process by which such conditions/restrictions may be
 appealed by the Subrecipient. All appeals will be heard by the City Manager’s
 Office.




XXIII. RECAPTURE POLICY

 When a program has been completed and the final payment request has been
 processed, any outstanding funds will be recaptured. The organization will be
 contacted to verify that the project or activity is 100% complete and all costs have
 been submitted. This will be followed up with a written recapture amendment, which
 must be signed by the organization and returned to the HCD Program Manager. Failure
 to return this amendment within 60 days will result in automatic recapture. Recaptured
 funds will be reallocated during each annual application cycle or an interim cycle if
 sufficient funds.




 Page 25

 Page 31
 For more information, please contact:
City of Portland ~Division of Housing and Community Development
 HCD Program Manager
 289 Congress St
 Portland, ME 04101
 Phone: (207) 874-8731
 Email: cdbg@portlandmaine.gov




 Page 26

 Page 32
APPENDIX A:




CDBG SUBRECIPIENT QUICK
 REFERENCE PAGES
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
 CITY OF PORTLAND



 The following pages serve as brief procedural
 overviews of the actions that may be required of the
 CDBG Subrecipients throughout their grant term.




 Page 27

 Page 33
Post Award
In order to commit funding to your project or program, we need to collect and complete
a few required items.

 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Provide instructional fliers such as this one when necessary
 ●​ Provide information about HUD requirements via the program policies
 ●​ Send an award letter with checklists of items to submit prior to contract signing.
 ●​ Conduct a mandatory training for all subrecipients
 ●​ Be available for technical assistance to the applicant.
 ●​ Provide you with the updated HUD income limits for eligibility
 ●​ Review final budget
 ●​ Draft and send contract (“Subrecipient Agreement”)

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

At the start of the grant term, subrecipients must submit all documents required as
prompted in Neighborly. The applicant must also ensure all resulting documents are
saved in their organizational files (and not just stored in Neighborly).

At the start of the grant term, the subrecipient may need to provide the following:

 ●​ Updates to project application, including clientele goals, unit of service goals,
 outcomes, etc
 ●​ CDBG Policies
 ●​ UEI Sam.gov Registration
 ●​ Insurance including Public Liability Insurance in the amount of $400,000 with
 the City of Portland as an additional insured; worker’s compensation Insurance;
 and Employment Compensation Insurance
 ●​ Subrecipient Agreement
 ●​ Mortgage/Promissory Note held by the City of Portland, if award includes
 property improvements
 ●​ Phase 1 and/or 2 Environmental Assessment, if award includes property
 improvements
 ●​ Income Verification Form with updated Income Limits




 Page 28

 Page 34
Environmental Review
HCD Staff will create an Environmental Review prior to signing the Subrecipient
Agreement to ensure there is no negative environmental impact for the proposed
project. If there are any concerns that are raised as a result of this review, staff will inform
the subrecipient.

 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Provide a checklist of items to provide for the environmental review.
 ●​ Keep subrecipient informed of environmental review status.
 ●​ Remind subrecipient that no action can be taken on the grant until the
 environmental review is complete.
 ●​ Send out a Notice to Proceed once the Environmental Review is complete.

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

All CDBG projects must undergo an environmental review prior to any contracts,
bidding, or work.

Bidding a project prior to completion of the environmental review results in a bid made
on a scope of work that may not include any modifications for issues found during the
environmental review process. Therefore, it limits the alternatives available for mitigating
environmental issues, and can be choice-limiting. Choice limiting actions include, but are
not limited to, (1) actions having an adverse impact – e.g. demolition, dredging, filling,
excavation, including soliciting bids for these activities; (2) actions limiting the choice of
reasonable alternatives – e.g. execution of a legally binding agreement, signing a
purchase and sale agreement, signing an option agreement that does not allow the
purchaser to elect to terminate the option agreement if the property is not desirable;
entering into real property acquisition (including making bids on auctioned properties),
leasing, rehabilitation, demolition, environmental remediation, related site
improvements, relocating buildings or structures, conversion of land or
buildings/structures (including soliciting bids to undertake these activities).

HCD Staff will reach out via Neighborly with a checklist for documents to include in
order to complete the Review.

The environmental review process can take from one to ten weeks to complete
depending on the complexity of the project. Some projects may require additional
review. Once the environmental review has been approved, HCD will notify the
subrecipient that they may begin the procurement process.




 Page 29

 Page 35
Accomplishment Reports and
Draw Requests

 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Provide a training on Neighborly procedure as part of the Subrecipient Meeting
 ●​ Provide this written procedure for completing the required steps
 ●​ Review quarterly documents for payment
 ●​ Provide technical assistance to subrecipients as needed.

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

As discussed in the Subrecipient Training hosted by the HCD Staff, Subrecipients will
have to collect income eligibility and race data on all clients served.

This data is required to be submitted as an Accomplishment Report, prior to submitting
a quarterly Draw Requests. Both items must be submitted in Neighborly by 15th of the
month following the close of the quarter in order to be considered.

Once the quarter ends you will receive an automated email from Neighborly to complete
the following steps. You will need to complete the steps below at the end of every
Quarter. Review the Neighborly Subrecipient Guide for more information.

 1. Log into the participant portal in Neighborly. No paper or email requests will be
 considered.

 2. Click on the intended award and navigate to the "Reports" tab on the left hand
 side to enter in the requested data for the quarter.

 3. Once you have submitted the Report, navigate to the "Draw Request" tab on
 the left hand side.

 4. Click to "Add a Draw" and input the line item totals for which you are
 requesting reimbursement. Please ensure you submit documentation for each
 expense included in the request.

 5. HCD Staff will review your Report and Draw Request for completion and
 eligibility. If approved, the City of Portland will process your reimbursement. If
 denied, HCD Staff will respond with further instruction.




 Page 30

 Page 36
Monitoring

 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Notify the subrecipient if they have been selected for monitoring
 ●​ Conduct a site visit and meet with program administrator
 ●​ Issue findings which may impact the rest of your award or future access to CDBG
 funds

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

The City may monitor projects for compliance with CDBG requirements during the
project and up to six years after completion. All documents related to the project must
be kept and made available upon request, including but not limited to income eligibility
forms, invoices, and all documents on the CDBG files checklist. When the project is
finished, HCD will give a Letter of Completion with the date that files no longer need to
be available, usually six years after the project is complete.




 Page 31

 Page 37
Allowable Documentation for
CDBG Reimbursement

 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Review and process Draw Requests submitted through Neighborly. Emailed
 requests will not be considered.

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

The following are common expenses that are often included in reimbursement requests,
and allowable documentation for such expenses:
 1. Staff Costs (Salaries and Fringe)

Documentation: Paystubs or exported reports from payroll management system
showing staff name, title, and hours on the CDBG eligible program.

 2. Rent, Utilities, Insurance, etc

Documentation: Lease, Utility Bill, or Invoice along with proof of payment (voided check,
bank statement). If the program space has significant uses that are not CDBG eligible, all
reimbursement requests must be prorated to the amount of time the space is occupied
by the CDBG eligible program.

 3. Supplies and Equipment

Documentation: Receipts of purchases made for items under $500, if item is over $500,
see procedure in CDBG Policies under “Equipment Purchases”

 4. Consultants/Other Services

Documentation: Invoice for services provided, along with proof of payment. If the service
agreement was signed after the grant term began, documentation of required
procurement practices must be provided.

 5. Payments on Behalf of Clientele

Documentation: Invoices and Receipts for purchases made on behalf of clientele such as
home utilities, groceries, cell phone bill, etc. Payments must be made by the subrecipient
to the service provider (not given to the client directly) and cannot be for more than 3
consecutive months to the same individual.




 Page 32

 Page 38
Procurement and Bidding
This section is for subrecipients who are procuring goods or services as part of their
project, including construction.

 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Provide this construction process document.

 ●​ Provide technical assistance throughout the procurement process.

 ●​ Provide federal wage rates.

 ●​ Check for updated federal wage rates 10 days prior to bid closing (date given to
 HCD by subrecipient).

 ●​ Provide federal regulation language for bid documents, including Davis-Bacon,
 BABA, and Section 3.

 ●​ Check contractors for debarment.

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

 1.​ Pre-Bid Meeting

All subrecipients who are procuring goods or services, including construction, must meet
with the HCD Program Manager and Compliance Officer prior to the bid advertisement
and release. At this meeting, the bid requirements and process will be finalized and
discussed. If you release your bid prior to this meeting, or if the bid does not contain all of
the appropriate federal information, CDBG funds may not be used to pay for expenses
related to your project.

 2.​ Procurement Standards

Procurement standards and procedures certify that supplies, equipment, construction,
and other services acquired in whole or in part with federal funds are obtained efficiently
and economically in a manner that provides open and free competition. Procurement
options are based on the amount of the materials or services to be obtained. HCD is
required to use the strictest of federal, state, and local purchasing policies. All
construction services must be bid using a formal competitive process, outlined in
“Construction Procurement” below, regardless of amount. In the case of a subrecipient
who is providing housing rehabilitation, a competitive RFQ process may be used with a
plan to rotate services among qualified bidders. Procurement procedures for materials
are listed below.




 Page 33

 Page 39
 3.​ Procurement amounts:



Goods/Services amount Procedure Documents Required



Goods or non-construction Purchases distributed Rationale for retailers
services of $1,000 or less equally among qualified chosen
 suppliers, no quotes
 needed. Knowledge of cost
 reasonableness.




Goods or non-construction Minimum of 3 written Three written quotes
services between $1,000 quotes.
and $25,000 Rationale for chosen item


Goods or non-construction Must be procured by a Proof of advertisement in
services of $25,000 or more formal competitive process. paper of general circulation

Purchases may not be broken up into smaller amounts solely to circumvent
procurement procedures. If a purchase is to be broken up into smaller amounts, written
permission must be obtained from HCD prior to the purchase.

 4.​ Competitive Procurement

HUD requires that bids for construction projects are publicly and formally advertised. The
publication should be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation and
may also be sent to specific contractors. The advertisement must clearly define the
services needed and contain appropriate language describing federal requirements. Bids
must be solicited from an adequate number (3) of suppliers. Lastly, all bids must be
opened publicly at the time and place stated in the invitations for bid advertisement.
HCD recommends that you do not place the bid documents on your website unless you
have a procedure for identifying who is accessing the documents.

HUD requires that a firm-fixed price contract award must be made to the responsible
bidder who has been selected for the project.

Bid Notice




 Page 34

 Page 40
Bid notices must contain the following language: This project is funded with U.S.
Department of HUD, City of Portland Community Development Block Grant funding.
Federal wage rates and other regulations apply.

Two sample bid notices are provided here:

“Notice of invitation to bid for: Electrical, Plumbing & Gas work for commercial
Kitchen renovation. Bid documents available at mandatory bid conference on 7/2/10
at 3pm at 389 Congress Street Portland, Maine 04102. Submit bids to above address.
Deadline for bids 7/16/10. Late bids will not be accepted. Proof of insurance and
bonding required. This project is funded with U.S. Department of HUD, City of
Portland Community Development Block Grant funding. Federal wage rates and
other regulations apply.”

“Notice of invitation to bid for: Electrical, Plumbing & Gas work for commercial
kitchen renovation. Bid documents available by emailing theproject@gmail.com. A
mandatory bid walkthrough will be held on 7/2/10 at 3pm at 389 Congress Street
Portland, Maine 04102. Submit bids to above address. Deadline for bids is 7/16/10.
Late bids will not be accepted. Proof of insurance and bonding required. This project
is funded with U.S. Department of HUD, City of Portland Community Development
Block Grant funding. Federal wage rates, Section 3, and other federal regulations
apply.”

Bid Documents

Bid documents must contain a description of the services and qualifications desired,
federal wage rate information, and a description of scoring criteria. Bid practices that
restrict competition are not allowed, including but not limited to: requiring a brand name
product without allowing for an equal or similar product; requiring unnecessary
experience of excessive bonding; or placing unreasonable qualifying requirements on
firms. Additionally, HCD will provide documents that must be included in your bid
packet. After you choose a contractor, the completed bid packet should be included in
the contract as an appendix.

Bid and Wage Rates

The bid should be open for at least 2 weeks to ensure all interested parties may bid. A
copy of the notice must be sent to the HCD office and filed with the project. Eleven days
prior to the bid closing, the subrecipient must contact the HCD Program Manager to
obtain an updated copy of Davis-Bacon wage rates, if applicable. Any updated wage rates
must be sent to contractors ten days prior to bid closing. At bid closing, the subrecipient
will need at least three competitive bids to meet the procurement standards. The project
may need to go out to bid again or a walk through can be scheduled to meet the
required three bids.

Contractor Choice

Once bids have closed it is important to review the companies that have bid on the
project. At this time, the HCD Program Manager should discuss the Section 3 Business
 Page 35

 Page 41
Concern requirement when choosing a prime contractor. The developer must give
preference to a Section 3 Business Concern so long as their bid is reasonable and they
have the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the
prospective contract. In addition, if any of the bidders are a minority-owned or
women-owned business they will receive preference in being selected for the job, so long
as their bid is reasonable and they are capable of performing the work. Lastly, the
subrecipient should do their due diligence to refrain from awarding a contract to any
bidder that has been debarred or is under suspension by the federal government.
Subrecipients should provide Unique Entity Identifiers (UEI) to HCD before a selection is
made. All bidders should be searched at http://SAM.gov/ by the HCD Program Manager.
All completed bids must be sent to the HCD office before a selection is made.




 Page 36

 Page 42
Pre-Construction Meeting
 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Attend pre-construction meeting.

 ●​ Provide construction documents including EEO, Segregated Facilities, Section 3,
 MBE/WBE, and Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.

 ●​ Provide trainings for Section 3 for prime contractor and subcontractors. These are
 mandatory for any project receiving over $200,000 in total federal funds.

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

The pre-construction meeting must happen after a construction contract is signed, but
before any work is done. During the following should be discussed (as applicable):

 1.​ Review all documents for contractor and subcontractor and correct any issues.

 a.​ Equal Employment Opportunity ensures contractors cannot discriminate
 based on the basis of gender, race, etc. (EEO Poster must be displayed at
 the work site).
 b.​ Segregated Facilities ensures segregation does not occur on the work site.
 c.​ DBE/Subcontractor Utilization Form asks contractors to identify if any
 subcontractors are Women, Minority, and/or Veteran- Owned businesses.

 2.​ Davis Bacon (Applies to all projects over $2,000 on public, commercial, mixed
 use, and multi-family buildings)

 a.​ Purpose is to ensure prevailing wages are paid to laborers/journeymen on
 the project.
 b.​ Large projects will be managed in Elations.
 c.​ Review the wage rates and labor classifications
 i.​ Complete SF-1444 if new classification is needed
 d.​ Contractors and subcontractors must complete Certified Payroll Report
 (CPR) showing they meet the prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates
 e.​ Review CPR and discuss whether fringe rates are paid
 f.​ Weekly payment requirement and posted signage on site requirement

 3.​ Section 3 (Applies to all projects with total federal funds over $200,000)

 a.​ Purpose is to ensure low and moderate income workers and business
 owners are provided additional opportunities.
 b.​ Large projects will be managed in Elations.



 Page 37

 Page 43
 c.​ Review Section 3 Clause and the benchmarks for 25% of labor hours should
 be done by Section 3 Workers; and 5% of total labor hours should be done
 by Targeted Section 3 Workers.
 d.​ Review how to complete Employer Certification Form for each Section 3
 Workers (provide income limits if workers live out of state).

 4.​ Build America Preference (Applies to projects with a total project cost over
 $250,000)

 a.​ Purpose is to require large projects to source all construction and
 manufactured materials from Made in America certified vendors.
 b.​ Review Certification Form for all construction materials that will be used.
 c.​ If concerns arise, discuss the resources and waivers for sourcing.

HCD will be available to the prime contractor for technical assistance on federal
requirements throughout the construction phase of the project; however, subrecipients
should be included on all correspondence between the prime contractor and HCD.
Subcontractors should communicate to the prime contractor and not directly with HCD.
The subrecipient is responsible for ensuring all requirements are met for the project,
including but not limited to certified payrolls and Section 3.




 Page 38

 Page 44
Construction
 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Complete the Federal Labor Standards Compliance Checklist

 ●​ Review Davis-Bacon certified payroll forms

 ●​ Conduct Wage Rate interviews

 ●​ Provide Section 3 packet and technical assistance

 ●​ Review requisitions for eligible expenses

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

The subrecipient should be in contact with the HCD Program Manager to alert the HCD
office that construction has started. The HCD Manager should reach out to prime
contractor and subrecipient if they have not heard from either party near the estimated
start date. At the start of construction, the HCD Program Manager should review project
folder for Section 3 paperwork and take note of the Davis Bacon wages that had been
included in the contract and discussed during the preconstruction meeting. During
construction, the HCD Program Manager and Compliance Officer should receive payrolls
submitted by the prime contractor for the prime contractor and all subcontractors,,
updated employee lists if there are changes throughout construction, section 3
certification forms if applicable, change orders, and requisitions.

 1.​ Davis-Bacon

 Certified Payrolls
 Davis-Bacon Certified Payrolls should be submitted no less than monthly. If the
 project will be less than two months, weekly certified payrolls should be
 submitted. The prime contractor is responsible for collecting and submitting
 certified payrolls for all subcontractors. The Compliance Officer will be available
 provide technical assistance to prime contractors and subcontractors on how to
 complete the wage rate sheets as needed.

 When a payroll period has been submitted, the HCD Program Manager will
 schedule a meeting with the HCD Compliance Officer to review the payroll and
 note any errors. If errors are found the HCD Program Manager and Compliance
 Officer will calculate the correct pay and what is owed to the employee. Any errors
 will be relayed to the prime contractor Project manager and developer. The errors
 should note the subcontractor, employee name, employee position, corrected pay,
 and amount owed. The prime contractor will relay the information to appropriate
 subcontractor, with instructions to correct or amend the wage sheet. Corrective
 action must be returned to the HCD office within 15 days.


 Page 39

 Page 45
 Wage Rate Interviews
 On-site interviews are a Davis Bacon requirement to ensure that employees are
 being treated and paid fairly. Interviews must be random and need to be
 conducted while the construction is active. The HCD Program Manager and
 Compliance Officer should conduct one interview session early into the
 construction and another towards the end, depending on length of the project.
 The HCD Program Manager will schedule both interview sessions with the
 Compliance Officer.


 While on-site, the HCD Program Manager and Compliance Officer will ask the
 employees if they are willing to participate in an interview. The employees have
 the right to refuse, but management cannot force employees to decline. If all
 employees decline to be interviewed, document this on the interview forms and
 keep it in the project file. If employees are willing to participate, explain the
 interview requirement and assure the employee that all information is
 confidential. Interviews should be conducted in a private area and individually.
 When meeting with an employee, review the interview worksheet Each section
 needs to be filled out to the best of the employee’s knowledge. All worksheets
 must be brought back to the HCD office and placed in the project folder
 immediately.

2.​ Section 3

 If the project will take fewer than three months, Section 3 forms will be submitted
 on a weekly basis. If the project will take more than three months, Section 3 forms
 may be submitted monthly. The submission schedule for Section 3 is somewhat
 flexible and can be determined on a case-by-case basis. See the Section 3 packet
 for more details.

3.​ Employee Lists

 An employee list should be provided for the prime contractor as well as any
 subcontractors before the start of construction. If a new subcontractor starts after
 construction has commenced, an employee list must be provided before they
 start work.

 The prime contractor and all subcontractors must provide a second updated
 employee list to the HCD Program Manager after half of the funding has been
 paid out.

 The employee lists will be used when reviewing payroll to ensure that no new hires
 have been made. If new hires have been made the company will be required to
 submit documentation regarding how they advertised the position and gave
 priority to section 3 workers.

4.​ Change Orders



 Page 40

 Page 46
 All change orders must be submitted to the HCD Program Manager in a timely
 manner. The HCD Program Manager should communicate with the project
 manager regularly regarding change orders. HCD Program Manager has the
 discretion to determine the schedule of communication.

 When change orders are received, they should be saved to the electronic file and a
 paper copy should be placed in the paper file.

5.​ Requisitions

 Requisitions are to be submitted by the subrecipient. Requisitions should be
 submitted on a regular schedule determined by the subrecipient and HCD
 Program Manager during contract signings. The HCD Program Manager has
 discretion to adjust this schedule based on unforeseen circumstances during
 construction. Requisitions will contain a one-page itemized overview of all
 expenses for the invoice period. In addition, the subrecipient will provide all back
 up documents of expenses and payment. The HCD Program Manager will
 compare expenses and payments to ensure all expenses being invoiced match the
 backup documentation.

 The HCD Program Manager and Senior Accountant will process payment through
 the regular financial process and procedure. Payment will go directly to the
 subrecipient. Payment will go to contractors in special circumstances only. The
 HCD Program Manager and Compliance Officer will review the special
 circumstances approval of direct contractor payment will be determined by the
 HCD Division Director.

 Payment will be held if any of the following documents are missing:

 ●​ Section 3 paperwork for prime contractor or Subcontractor

 ●​ Payroll sheets

 ●​ Payroll adjustments due to wage rate errors

 ●​ Contract between subrecipient and prime contractor

 ●​ Subrecipient Insurance

 ●​ Subrecipient W-9

 ●​ Back up materials for expenses and payments

 Payment will be processed once missing documents are sent to the HCD office.




 Page 41

 Page 47
Post Construction
 The HCD Office will….

 ●​ Review files for completion using the CDBG File Checklist.

 ●​ Assist the subrecipient with scheduling an inspection.

 ●​ Attend the inspection meeting.

 ●​ Send a Letter of Completion with Record Retention date

 Responsibilities of the Subrecipient

The construction project will need final inspection by City Staff. The HCD Program
Manager will work with the subrecipient and inspections to set up a final inspection
meeting. The meeting will take place at the project site. The subrecipient must provide
the final certificate of occupancy or other documentation showing the work has passed
inspection, contractor lien releases, “as-built” drawings or plans, beneficiary forms (if
LMC), final completion report, photos of the finished project, and a narrative of the
project including any changes or challenges.

Once the final invoice has been submitted, the HCD Program Manager must review the
electronic and paper file. The two files should contain matching information. If they do
not, the HCD Program Manager must remedy the file with missing information. If the
two files are both missing documents, the HCD Program Manager will communicate
with the subrecipient to obtain the missing document. Once received, a copy should be
placed in the electronic and paper file. Once the file is complete, the HCD Program
Manager will process the final invoice and send a Letter of Completion with Record
Retention date.




 Page 42

 Page 48
2020 CDBG PRIORTIY
 SETTING TASK
  FORCE REPORT




 Updated August 2021




 Page 49
2020 CDBG PRIORITY TASK FORCE REPORT

PARTICIPANTS
Adam Cohen
Andrew Ouellette
Ashish Shrestha
Ben Strick
Brad Hanscom
Chase Hewitt
Don Harden
Grace Braley
Jim Hall (Chair)
Julia Sheridan
Lucas Blom
Mark Adelson (Chair)
Matt Dubel
Sam Heck

INTRODUCTION

The 2020 CDBG Priority Task Force is pleased to present its final report to the Portland City
Council for your consideration.

We found that the current system is extremely well run, and allocations continue to be made
that meet important city needs. City staff are to be highly commended for their organization and
knowledge, as well as, the hard work and commitment they bring to the effort of planning,
distributing and monitoring the use of these funds. The changes we are recommending are
intended to increase efficiency, fairness and transparency, to make minor evidence-based
adjustments, and to target the city’s highest priorities in a time of growing demand for resources
and a dwindling stream of funding.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES:
  • Create a capped set-aside to promote smaller new programs
  • Adjust city funding caps to better match survey data with historical data
  • Focus the city’s “high priority” list on housing and employment
  • Simplify the scoring process and subcategories
  • Increase communication amongst funding sources
  • Remain open to emerging needs

BACKGROUND

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a federal program from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that distributes funding based on allocations from
Congress to its entitlement communities, comprising over 1,200 cities and counties throughout




 Page 50
the country. Historically the City of Portland has received approximately $2 million in CDBG
funds annually.

For the past ten years this funding has decreased. There has also been increased scrutiny over
the past few years of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the CDBG
program nationally. The need for focus and accountability is greater than ever before. The City
of Portland must redefine how federal CDBG dollars are allocated to emphasize, to the greatest
extent possible, successful and measurable outcomes.

The City’s establishment of the CDBG Priority Task Force of 2020 stemmed from the City’s
commitment to re-evaluate every three to five years the priorities identified by the CDBG Priority
Task Force of 2008 and 2012 and the CDBG working group in 2013. This process began with
the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Ten Point Plan, approved by the City on
October 1, 2007. The HCD Ten Point Plan, a product of the HCD Task Force, required the
creation of the CDBG Priority Task Force, followed by the Annual Allocation Committee.

PROCESS

Positions on the 2020 Taskforce were advertised on the City website as a newsflash, as well as,
on the Boards and Committees page. The advertisement included a description of the taskforce,
along with the roles and duties of the members. Lastly, the application was available online with
contact information attached if a paper copy was needed.

HCD Staff directly advertised the opportunity to participate to all past committee members,
including the City Manager’s Policy Advisory Committee, HCD Task Force, CDBG Priority Task
Force, CDBG Annual Allocation/Scoring Committee, past applicants and awardees of CDBG
and HOME funds, and interested parties from the 2019 District Meetings. In total, invitations
were sent via email to 380 individuals and organizations.

HCD Staff received 18 applications by the January 24th deadline. Members were diverse in
their skill sets, represented all of the demographics listed in the taskforce guidelines, and every
neighborhood in Portland. At the February 19th, 2020 Council Meeting, the City Council
approved an order to reinstate the task force and approved the applicants as members. Four
members of the task force resigned due to unforeseen circumstances caused by COVID-19.

WORK PLAN

The Task Force had a strict work plan that covered three sections: priorities and principles,
structural changes, and administrative changes to the CDBG allocation process. The Task
Force met 12 times between March and September, twice a month for two hours. The majority
of these public meetings had to take place remotely via Zoom due to COVID-19.

The largest part of the Task Force work focused on the City’s “Needs-Goals-Priorities” table,
with a specific focus on high priority and priority activities.




 Page 51
This was also the focus of a large community outreach effort planned by the HCD office.
Unfortunately, due to COVID-19 was revised and conducted entirely online. HCD staff created a
targeted website with information regarding the consolidated planning process as well as
multiple platforms to provide feedback. The website contained targeted surveys for the general
public, business owners, social service providers, and past applicants and subrecipients of
CDBG funding. The City highlighted the link multiple times throughout the spring and summer
on their website and social media platforms. In addition, HCD staff partnered with Portland
Downtown, the Chamber of Commerce, and social service provider networks to spread the word
and encourage participation. At the time the survey closed there were 477 responses. The Task
Force used this data to inform their decisions regarding priority activities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

At a high level, the Task Force is generally recommending increased communication with other
funding sources, both within the City government and outside in the community, so as to
optimize similar outcomes and coordinate achievements together.

Analysis of prior applicant pools indicated that many specific CDBG processes are having the
desired effect. For example, the minimum allowable grant request in both social service and
construction / development has ensured an appropriate level of commitment required to run and
report on a CDBG funded program. In addition, application penalties have reduced the number
of difficult submissions that previously required intensive staff involvement in order to process.
For brevity, we have not listed all the topics which the Task Force reviewed and ultimately
decided should remain unchanged.

PRIORITIES
*see appendix for full table of needs / goals / priorities

The task force recommends the following high priorities:

 • Neighborhood Investment and Infrastructure: Public Infrastructure in targeted
 neighborhoods, including parks and recreation facilities, Accessibility/ADA Compliance,
 alternative modes of transportation, and Community Policing Administration.
 • Housing: construction of new housing (HOME funds only), the adaptive reuse of
 buildings for housing, rehabilitation of existing housing, housing retention, housing start
 up assistance. Housing Start-up Assistance has replaced Rental Assistance to allow for
 a broad range of housing assistance services, i.e. security deposits, utilities, housing
 application assistance and fees.
 • Economic development: career advancement services, job retention support services
 • Homelessness: Housing Services for long term stayers, emergency services to prevent
 homelessness, shelter services, housing start up assistance, Behavioral Health
 Services. Housing Start-up Assistance has replaced Rental Assistance to allow for a




 Page 52
 broad range of housing assistance services. Behavioral Health Services has replaced
 mental health and substance abuse services.

The above list represents adjustments to previous “high priority” activities. Most notably, we are
recommending a combined category of “behavioral health” that captures both mental health and
substance use services. This recognizes the co-occurring nature of mental health and
substance use, and that best practice involves addressing both simultaneously.


SCORING


 SCORING CATEGORY POSSIBLE POINTS

 Goal, Priority Impact Level & Community Need 30 Total
 • Goal 15
 • Priority impact (5pts high Priority, 2pts 5, 2, or 0
 priority, 0pts eligible activity)
 • Community need 10
 Guiding Principles: 30 Total
 • Measurable community impact 10
 • Diversity and inclusiveness 5 Construction/ 10 Social Service
 • Priority to lower incomes 5 Construction/ 10 Social Service
 • Location (construction only) 5
 • Sustainability (construction only) 5
 Capacity to deliver: 25 Total
 • Financial need 5
 • Leveraged funding 5
 • Experience providing service 5
 • Readiness to proceed 5
 • Financial stability 5
 Partnership/Collaboration 15 Total


 PENALTY POINTS DEDUCTED
 Missing section/s 1 point deducted per item
 Failing to follow Submission Guidelines, section 0.25 point deducted per
 I.C.3 (including but not limited to: application not typed, instance
 page limits, max/min request amounts, etc)
 Errors (e.g. in budget calculation) 0.25 points deducted per
 instance




 Page 53
The task force reviewed subcategory scoring from several prior years, and recommends an
adjustment to the overall scoring structure. The goal of the changes is to streamline the
process, make it more approachable and predictable for applicants and the allocation
committee, and decrease arbitrary point value assignments to subcategories.

Under this scheme, each subcategory will be ranked on a universal scale of 1-5 (poor to
excellent), with multipliers applied to especially important categories, resulting in a total 100
possible points per application. For example, the “ Goal” scoring category is worth 15 total
points. The Allocation Committee will score it 1-5 and that number will be multiplied by 3 to get
the total points awarded out of 15. The Task Force feels this structure should allow for flexibility,
and defers to HCD Staff and the Allocation Committee for minor changes. For example, the
Allocation Committee may determine a need to apply fractional ranks (such as 4.5 out of 5.0) in
order to achieve higher precision comparisons amongst applicants, or staff later recommends
adjustments to category multipliers to catch up to changes in city priorities.

Relative weights have been simplified while attempting to respect the overall levels of
importance that had been determined during prior scoring rounds.

 • 15% of the overall score is weighted toward “Goal”, and 15% toward “Collaboration”
 • 10% toward each of the following: Community Need, Measurable Outcomes, Diversity,
 and Lowest Income Served
 • Each remaining subcategory contributes 5% to the overall total score.

The task force is also recommending a few fine-grained adjustments to scoring subcategories.
The goal of these changes is to reduce redundancy and a neutralizing effect to the scoring. In
addition, we felt that expanding the scoring and page limits for collaboration will result in quality
outreach and partnership efforts. The taskforce chose to increase the page limits for the
collaboration section from two pages to eight pages. Lastly, expanding priority activities to
include all eligible activities will open up the applicant pool, while still giving preference to the
aforementioned priority activities.
 • “Consistent with City Plans” will now be captured under “City Goals” in both scoring and
 the narrative of the application
 • Collaboration will be a single overall score rather than tiered scoring for Outreach,
 Letters of Support, and Memorandum of Understanding
 • Priority Activity will include three categories for scoring, “High”, “Priority”, and “Eligible
 Activity”

SET-ASIDES AND GRANT RANGES

The Task Force analyzed average allocations and requests from year to year, and it became
clear that there are hurdles for small, new, and innovative programs. Through this analysis and
discussion the Task Force recommends the creation of a set-aside of up to 20% for new
programs that can meet a minimum score of 75 (out of a possible 100), with any remainder to
be allocated toward the general pool. We hope to create a balance between new applicants and




 Page 54
veteran programs that provide essential services. This dilemma and balance has been a
consistent discussion between staff and the yearly allocation committee.

Based on review of average grant requests over the last 5 years, the Task Force is
recommending that the maximum allowable request in the construction / development category
be reduced from $250,000 to $200,000 per program. Very few applicants request the maximum,
and the average request was well below, at $127,000.

The Task Force also recommends a slight reduction in the City funding caps:

 • Reduce the maximum City funding cap in Social Services from 45% to 40%
 • Reduce the maximum City funding cap in Construction and Development from 85% to
 80%
 • Simplify the overall calculation by eliminating the 60% public infrastructure cap.

The hope with these changes is to allow a larger number of applications to receive funding
through the initial allocation process, rather than requiring a redistribution intervention by the
City Manager or City Council.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

It became clear from the beginning that we were working at an extraordinary time in Portland’s
history, and this would need to be reflected in our recommendations to the Council even if
specific responses remain unknown at this time. It’s critically important that the overall funding
process can balance the need for structure with an ability to remain open and flexible to address
new emerging priorities and needs the City will be facing throughout the 5 year timeframe of the
plan. The task force identified three emerging areas that may impact how CDBG funds are
allocated in coming years.

COVID-19 and Portland’s response to the ongoing health crisis:
It’s likely COVID-19 will impact the City and its residents for many years to come and in every
facet of life in Portland. As we’ve learned, the City’s lower income and non-white populations
are hurt the most by the pandemic. The economy, business growth, employment opportunities,
housing, education, health care, food security, human services, and transportation are all in
some form of change or limbo due to this health crisis. CDBG funding will have a future role in
mitigating some of the impacts, and the City needs to begin planning now on how best to face
these challenges.

New Homeless Service Center:
Preventing and alleviating homelessness remains an important priority for the City. CDBG
funding can have an important direct or indirect role in making the City’s plan for the new
Homeless Service Center a reality, in cooperation with the state’s ongoing development of more
regional solutions. Although generally the task force valued more permanent solutions over




 Page 55
temporary, we agreed that emergency shelter needs to remain a high priority at this time. This
could be revisited if a more stable situation were to prevail.

Racial Equity and Inclusion :
The Task Force had initial discussions at the beginning of this process regarding funding for
Community Policing. The item was tabled, and discussed again in light of the national spotlight
on racial justice and equity, and local community outcries for increased social service funding.
The Task Force believes the City’s Community Policing efforts are valuable and successful, and
should remain a high priority. However, a majority of the Task Force believes that the City
should begin to plan for funding Community Policing administration from the City’s budget, both
to ensure stability of ongoing critical services, and to free up additional CDBG funds for human
services that complement these efforts. We understand the strain the city’s budget is under and
how difficult it might be to absorb 100% of this function, so at this time we are not
recommending immediate removal of the CDBG set-aside for community policing
administration.




 Page 56
 APPENDIX

I. Needs-goals-priorities table
II. Summary of motions and votes




 Page 57
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL
Neighborhood Investment & Infrastructure: Create strong, safe, accessible and vibrant Including but not limited to (in alphabetical
 neighborhoods: order, not in order of priority):
Description: Public safety and mobility are key
components to improving the livelihood of Description: Invest in infrastructure to HIGH PRIORITY
Portland neighborhoods. There is a significant improve neighborhood assets and build strong, • Accessibility/ADA compliance
need to build neighborhood sidewalks where safe, accessible and vibrant neighborhoods. • Alternative modes of transportation
none exist, improve ADA compliance, and Improve accessibility and livability through • Community policing
increase access to alternative modes of age-friendly designs and ADA compliance. • Park and Recreation Facilities
transportation. Additionally, there is a need to Build sidewalks and trails to improve • Public infrastructure in targeted
increase resident’s ability to remain or become connectivity, increase the use of bicycles as a neighborhoods
active and engaged members of their mode of transportation, and redevelop
neighborhoods through community based streetscapes to create shared streets for cars, PRIORITY
services and programs. bikes, and pedestrians that integrate with the • Community centers and engagement
 fabric of the neighborhood. Support programs programs
Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020 the that increase safety in neighborhoods for • Disability Services
Portland City Council identified four goals residents and visitors. • Non-profit rehab
that identified this need: 1) 15 buses for 15 • Public infrastructure outside of targeted
minutes: Add 15 buses to our fleet allowing Invest in programs and services that address
 neighborhood
us to reduce peak hour wait times to an hour the specific needs of members of the
 • Senior Services
to 15 minutes. 2) Light Hybrid rail to the community. Encourage programs that build a
 • Tree planting
eastern waterfront: install hybrid electric rail sense of inclusiveness, safety, and security
cars to come into Portland’s eastern within individual neighborhoods.
waterfront to reduce traffic. 3) Implement a
plan for installation of solar arrays. 4)
Increase public transit infrastructure and
capacity in the City. The 2030 Comprehensive
plan lists the following strategy: Full Service
City: 2. Provide services to all residents.
Operate City facilities and services in an
efficient and effective manner that is
responsive to all segments of the community.

Resource:
City of Portland 2019 & 2020 City Council
Common Goals. and the 2030 City of Portland
Comprehensive Plan
 UPDATED 9.21.2020


 Page 58
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL
 Housing Availability: Increase housing availability & affordability: Including but not limited to (in alphabetical
 order, not in order of priority):
Description: In the 2019 Housing report it was Description: Increase housing availability and
reported that Portland has an affordability gap affordability to all Portland residents HIGH PRIORITY
of $255,796. In addition, there is a lack of regardless of income, race, ethnicity, and • Adaptive reuse for housing
affordable rental housing within Portland’s family size. Encourage housing development • Construction of new housing (HOME
housing supply. The City Council continues to by removing barriers to traditional urban funds only)
make housing availability and affordability housing types while ensuring the inclusion of • Housing Retention
their goal. workforce and age-friendly housing in • Housing Start up Assistance
 significant development projects.
 • Rehabilitation of existing housing
Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020 the
Portland City Council identified the following
goal to address this need: Increase access to PRIORITY
rental and home ownership that is safe, • Environmental testing and remediation
affordable, and accessible. • Energy efficiency/weatherization
 • Fair housing activities
Resources: • Heating and fuel assistance
2030 Workforce Housing Demand Study • Legal services Tenant/landlord counseling
2019 City of Portland Housing Committee, services
Interim Housing Report
2019 & 2020 City Council Common Goals.




 UPDATED 9.21.2020


 Page 59
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL
 Economic Opportunity: Create economic opportunities to Including but not limited to (in alphabetical order,
 transition people out of poverty: not in order of priority):
Description: Portland has a well-developed
employment support system with many Description: Invest in Portland businesses to
established providers. However, the system is enable them to expand to create jobs. Invest HIGH PRIORITY
fragmented, providers work in silos, there is in persons wanting to create • Career advancement services
insufficient funding to cover needs of potential microenterprises. Engage job seekers in a • Education
workers, and career planning and financial continuum of services to increase their • Job training
stability are often prioritized less than job professional capacity, financial stability, and • GED attainment
placement. Employment retention support is ability to maintain employment. Focus on • ESL
scarce and turnover results in economic difficult to employ populations including • Job retention support services
uncertainty for employees and higher costs for homeless, new Americans and single parent • Childcare vouchers
employers. head of households. Combine resources and • Housing counseling
 build partnerships between public and • Transportation assistance
Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020 the private entities to provide opportunities to
Portland City Council identified the following transition Portland residents out of poverty PRIORITY
goal: Promote Economic Development in the to sustainable employment and financial • Job Creation
City in a manner that provides for increased stability. • Microenterprise Assistance
property values, diversification across industry
sectors and high paying jobs. Specifically, as it
relates to HUD programming and objectives, the
Council further identified the need to advance
work on the “Minority and Women-owned
Business Development Initiative” and secure City
Council approval to invest CDBG funds in
workforce development.

Resources:
Portland Economic Development Vision and Plan
Portland Community Chamber of Commerce:
Portland’s Economic Scorecard 2014-2015
Muskie School of Public Service: The State of
Infant Pre-K Childcare in Portland, Maine 2015
GPCOG 2014-2018 Economic Development
Action Plan

 UPDATED 9.21.2020


 Page 60
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL
 Address the Needs for Growing Homeless Prevent and Reduce Homelessness: Including but not limited to (in alphabetical
 Population: order, not in order of priority):

Description: The shelter system in Portland is Description: Prevent individuals and HIGH PRIORITY
beyond capacity. Staff and local organizations families from becoming homeless and • Behavioral Health Services
struggle to deal with overflow strategies to meet entering into the shelter system. Rapidly • Emergency services to prevent
increasing need. Data from 2019 showed that 79% rehouse those who enter the shelter homelessness
of the shelter consumers were new consumers, the system. Provide necessary resources to • Housing and Housing Services for long-
average length of stay at the shelter is under 60 assist vulnerable population’s transition term shelter consumers
days. Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing are out of homelessness, including housing • Housing Start up Costs
key components to help reduce shelter usage and opportunities for chronically homeless or • Shelter services
homelessness. Additionally increased case long-term stayers at homeless shelters.
management is needed for those who have mental PRIORITY
illness and substance abuse issues to help them • At risk youth services
navigate the service delivery system. • Food Assistance

Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020 the
Portland City Council identified the goal: Continue
the effort to reduce homelessness, assist people
experiencing homelessness through City, Regional,
and State efforts.
Resource: 2020 City Council Common Goals
2019 Health and Human Services Shelter Report




 UPDATED 9.21.2020


 Page 61
II. SUMMARY OF APPROVED MOTIONS

  • Motion to keep the Social Service Application minimum request at $10,000
 o Passed 14-0, 1 abstained
  • Motion to keep the Community Policing $150,000 set-aside
 o Passed 11-1, 2 abstained
  • Motion to reduce the Construction and Development Application maximum request from
 $250,000 or 30% of the prior years allocation to a flat number of $200,000.
 o Passed 12-1, 1 abstained
  • Motion to keep the Construction and Development Application minimum request at $10,000
 o 14-0, 1 abstained
  • Motion to eliminate the 60% infrastructure cap and reduce the City funding cap from 85% to 80%
 for construction and development programs
 o Passed 14-0, 1 abstained
  • Motion to reduce the City funding cap in social services from 45% to 40%
 o Passed 9-0, 1 abstained
  • Motion to keep penalty points as is
 o Passed 13-0
  • Motion to move park and recreation activities to high priority category and keep all other
 neighborhood investment and infrastructure the same
 o Passed 10-0
  • Motion to remove historic preservation from priority activities list
 o Passed 6-5
  • Motion to rename rental assistance to start up assistance and move from priority to high priority,
 everything else stays the same. Discussion, member clarified calling the activity rental housing
 start up assistance.
 o Passed 11-0
  • Motion to remove façade improvements from priority activities
 o Passed 7-4
  • Motion to remove financial stability services from priority activities
 o Passed 10-1
  • Motion to move job creation from high priority to priority activity
 o Passed 6-5
  • Motion to move microenterprise assistance from high priority to priority activity
 o Passed 8-3
  • Motion to allocate 0 points to non-priority activities, 2 points to priority activities, and 5
 points to high priority activities.
 o Passed 9-1
  • Motion to combine mental health and existing substance abuse disorder activity in to one
 activity, labeled ‘Behavioral Health’, with a designation of high priority
 o Passed 13-0
  • Motion to make ‘housing start up services’ a high priority activity
 o Passed 13-0
  • Motion to change food assistance from high priority to priority activity
 o Passed 13-0
  • Motion to allocate category points in both Social services and Development as follows:




 Page 62
 o 30 points - Goal, Priority Impact Level & Community Need
 o 30 points - Guiding principles
 o 25 points - Capacity to deliver
 o 15 points – Collaboration
 o Passed 11-0
• Motion to allocate Goal, Priority Impact Level, & Community Need sub-categories points, in
 both Social Services and Development Activities, as follows:
 o 15 points - Goal
 o 10 points - Community need
 o 5 points - Priority
 o Passed 9-2
• Motion to remove Guiding principles sub-category consistency with city goals, plans, and
 initiative (4 points) and include this subcategory with the Goal, Priority Impact Level and
 Community Need, Goal Subcategory
 o Passed 10-0
• Motion for to allocate measurable community impact, diversity and inclusiveness, Priority to
 lower income as follows in social service
 o Measurable Community Impact 10
 o Diversity and Inclusiveness 10
 o Priority to Lower Incomes 10
 o Passed 7-3
• Motion for to allocate measurable community impact, diversity and inclusiveness, Priority to
 lower income as follows in Development
 o Measurable Community Impact 10
 o Diversity and Inclusiveness 5
 o Priority to Lower Incomes 5
 o Location 5
 o Sustainability 5
 o Passed 9-1
• Motion to allocate Capacity to deliver subcategory point distribution as follows:
 o 5- Financial need
 o 5- Leveraged funding
 o 5- Experience Providing Service
 o 5- Readiness to Proceed
 o 5- Financial Stability
 o Passed 9-1
• Motion to create a single scoring line ‘Partnership/Collaboration’ with a maximum of 15
 points.
 o Passed 9-0, 1 abstention
• Motion to expand page limit to 8 pages for the collaboration section for both narrative and
 supporting materials
 o Passed 10-0
• Motion new applicants be required to score a minimum of 75 points to be considered for the
 set-aside.
 o Passed 10-0




 Page 63
2021 ADDENDUM TO 2020 CDBG PRIORITY TASK FORCE REPORT


CONTEXT

The 2020 CDBG Priority Task Force presented its final report at the Housing Committee’s Oct 14th 2020 meeting.
The committee delayed action and directed staff to request a one-year extension, which HUD granted. The task
force reconvened Aug 4 2021 to review its report before resubmitting to the now combined 2021 Housing and
Economic Development Committee.

Three items of interest were (a) the City Manager’s 2020 recommended amendments to the Task Force report, (b)
additional community feedback that the Housing & Community Development Department has gathered via online
survey with specific questions targeting task force recommendations, and (c) the Racial Equity Steering Committee’s
report currently under review by the council and staff.

The task force also discussed several timely topics in the context of its prior recommendations, such as the
termination of covid emergency measures, new federal funds available, the loss of emergency day shelter, and
changes to the emergency food service model.

RECOMMENDATION

After review the task force stands by its 2020 report as consistent with all of the above, and would like to offer one
additional recommendation.

Given ongoing work in alternative crisis response, and rapidly evolving understanding of best practices in this field,
the task force recommends an adjustment to the wording of the community policing set-aside to allow the department
flexibility throughout the upcoming 5-year plan.


 ■ $150,000 set-aside for Community Policing, or another alternative response program the department
 manages – non-competitive.


This way the Portland Police Department may allocate its alternative response set-aside based on unfolding data,
whether continuing the current model, or applying under another program it manages internally, in collaboration with
other city departments, or subcontracted to an outside organization.




 Page 64
Community Development Block Grant Analysis
Trends in Portland CDBG Applications, 2016-2026
Author: James Parkington
Date: January 22, 2026
Client: City of Portland, Housing & Economic Development Department.



Table of Contents
 • Executive Summary
 • Introduction & Context
 • Social Services Analysis
 • Construction & Development Analysis
 • Comparative Insights
 • Decade in Review
 • Limitations
 • Conclusion



Executive Summary
Over the past decade, Portland's CDBG program has received 294 applications from organizations seeking funding for
housing, homelessness services, and neighborhood improvements. Those organizations requested $27.3M in total but
received only $16.7M, meaning $10.6M in community need went unmet, a gap that persisted year after year and
that strengthens Portland's case for larger federal allocations. Understanding what drives that gap, whether
community interest has held steady, whether the applicant pool remains diverse, and whether the scoring system
eﬀectively distinguishes strong proposals from weaker ones, informs both the upcoming Consolidated Plan and
guidance for future applicants.

Social Services applications comprised 208 of the total submissions, with 136 receiving funding for a 65.4% success
rate. The category attracted sustained organizational engagement, with 44 unique applicants during the historical
period and 33 during the recent period, though overall application volume has declined roughly 18% from historical
peaks, a trend worth watching even if it reﬂects natural variation rather than waning interest. Preble Street has been
the most active participant by far, submitting 33 applications and winning funding 85% of the time, though their
recent years have seen more mixed results, with funding success dropping from consistent full awards to partial
outcomes in 2023-26, even as newer organizations like Hope Acts have found consistent success and broadened the
applicant pool. Priority distribution concentrated heavily on ANGHP (Addressing Needs of Growing Homeless Population),
which accounted for 67.1% of recent Social Services applications, up from roughly half in earlier years, a shift that
reﬂects genuine community crisis but also creates portfolio risk if federal homelessness funding priorities change.

Construction applications totaled 86 submissions, with 55 funded (64.0% success rate), demonstrating a more project-
driven application pattern with City departments accounting for signiﬁcant infrastructure work. Volume stayed
stable, averaging about 7-8 applications annually, with Neighborhood Investment representing 71.0% of recent
priorities. Average Construction request sizes grew 66% over the decade, likely reﬂecting inﬂation in materials and
labor, whereas Social Services requests stayed essentially ﬂat, a divergence that matters for future applicants
calibrating their asks and for the Consolidated Plan process when setting category allocations.

Even among applications that do receive funding, the full requested amount isn't guaranteed. Approximately half of
funded applications received full awards, with the remainder facing systematic proration averaging 10-15% below
requested amounts, meaning organizations should budget conservatively and anticipate potential reductions even for
successful proposals.

Funding rates have climbed in Construction compared to earlier years, though Social Services saw a modest decline,
whether because more money became available or because applicants got better at writing proposals. Throughout the
decade, organizations have kept coming back to the CDBG program, shifting their focus as community needs
changed. Homelessness services, in particular, now dominate the priority mix in ways they didn't ten years ago.
Scoring component analysis reveals that funded applications score highest on Priority Impact and Guiding
Principles, with smaller gaps on Capacity to Deliver and Partnership Collaboration.




 Page 65
Introduction & Context
CDBG Program Background
The Community Development Block Grant program, known as CDBG, channels federal dollars from HUD to cities
like Portland. The money is meant to beneﬁt low and moderate income residents through housing, job training,
infrastructure, and social services. Portland receives annual HUD allocations (typically ranging from $600,000 to $700,000)
that are distributed through a competitive application process. Organizations submit proposals addressing one of four
priority categories:

 • ANGHP: Addressing Needs of Growing Homeless Population
 • EO: Economic Opportunity
 • HA: Housing Availability
 • NI: Neighborhood Investment

A review committee scores each application on four dimensions: Priority Impact, Guiding Principles alignment,
Capacity to Deliver, and Partnership Collaboration. Incomplete applications or concerns about an organization's
track record can result in point deductions, and the ﬁnal score guides funding decisions. These ﬁndings will inform
Portland's Consolidated Plan, the ﬁve-year strategic document required by HUD that guides how CDBG and related
funds are allocated.

Client Questions
Rowen, our contact at the Housing & Economic Development Department, asked for analysis addressing four
questions:

 1. Whether community organizations have maintained consistent interest in the CDBG program over time,
 meaning whether application volume has remained stable or shown concerning trends
 2. Whether a diverse range of organizations participate, or whether the program has become dominated by a
 small number of recurring applicants
 3. How funding request patterns have evolved, and whether scoring eﬀectively diﬀerentiates between
 applications
 4. How the recent review period compares to historical patterns, providing context for program planning

Data & Methodology
This analysis draws on 294 grant applications spanning ﬁscal years 2016-17 through 2025-26. The dataset was
manually compiled from two source ﬁles, with historical data ( 2016-17 through 2021-22) merged with recent data
(2022-23 through 2025-26) and cleaned to ensure consistent formatting. Each record contains application metadata
(organization, program name, ﬁscal year), ﬁnancial information (funding request, ﬁnal award), scoring details (component scores,
deductions, totals), and categorical classiﬁcations ( type, priority).

The recent period encompasses 104 applications from 2022-23 through 2025-26, whereas the historical baseline
comprises 190 applications from 2016-17 through 2021-22. This structure supports both cross-sectional analysis of
current patterns and longitudinal comparison across the full decade. The following sections examine Social Services
and Construction applications separately, as Rowen requested, before synthesizing cross-category insights in the
Comparative Insights and Decade in Review sections.




 Page 66
Social Services Analysis
Analysis 1: Application Volume Trends




Figure 1: Social Services applications ranged from 14 to 28 annually, with funding rates generally exceeding 60%.

Application volume for Social Services programs varied moderately across the decade, providing the ﬁrst indicator
of whether community organizations have maintained consistent interest in the CDBG program. The historical period
averaged approximately 22.5 applications annually, with peaks in 2018-19 ( totaling 28 applications) and 2017-18
(totaling 25 applications), whereas the recent period showed somewhat lower volume, averaging 18.3 applications per
year. The 2023-24 ﬁscal year recorded just 14 submissions (the lowest in the review period), though this rebounded to 23
applications in 2025-26.

Funding rates stayed consistently strong throughout the observation period, with recent years achieving 60.3%
success compared to the historical period's 68.1%. That 18% drop in application volume paired with a nearly 8
percentage point decline in funding rates raises questions about whether potential applicants are self-selecting out
because they perceive the program as too competitive, or whether the decline simply reﬂects natural variation in
community organization capacity. The 2023-24 low of just 14 applications followed by a rebound to 23 in 2025-26
suggests the latter may be more likely, but program administrators should monitor whether the applicant pool
continues narrowing. The scoring analysis and organizational breakdown that follow help explain what
distinguishes funded from unfunded applications within this competitive landscape.

Analysis 2: Score Distributions




Figure 2: Social Services score distributions show similar central tendency between periods, with means of 87.7 (recent) and 86.0
(historical).


 Page 67
Application volume holding steady is encouraging, but volume alone doesn't indicate whether the program attracts
quality proposals. Examining how scores distribute across applications helps address this, and scoring patterns for
Social Services applications turn out to be remarkably consistent across the decade. Recent period scores ranged
from 69.6 to 96.5, with a mean of 87.7, whereas historical scores spanned 0.0 to 96.9, with a mean of 86.0. The
historical period includes several outliers with scores near zero, likely representing incomplete applications or
signiﬁcant scoring concerns that were subsequently addressed in program administration. Setting aside these
anomalies, the score distributions show substantial spread ( roughly 27 points from lowest to highest in the recent period),
providing evaluators with meaningful variation to inform funding decisions. Both periods show roughly normal
distributions centered in the mid-to-high 80s, indicating that most applicants demonstrated solid understanding of
program requirements. The slight increase in recent mean scores ( up 1.7 points) may reﬂect improved technical
assistance to applicants, or strengthened organizational capacity among recurring participants.




Figure 2b: Year-by-year score distributions conﬁrm consistent evaluation standards, with medians holding in the 85-93 range throughout
the decade.

That consistency holds up when examined year by year rather than just as period averages. Median scores ranged
from 84.7 (in 2025-26) to 93.1 (in 2021-22), with most years falling in the upper 80s to low 90s. The historical period
produced 10 applications scoring below 70, whereas the recent period saw just 2, suggesting that whatever caused
those early outliers has largely been addressed. For applicants, this stability means proposals can be benchmarked
against historical patterns with conﬁdence, in that an application scoring in the mid-80s today faces roughly the same
competitive position it would have faced ﬁve years ago. For program administrators, the consistent spread conﬁrms
that the scoring rubric produces meaningful diﬀerentiation rather than clustering applications around a single value.
This stability becomes particularly relevant in the organizational learning analysis, where we examine whether
repeat applicants have improved their scores over time.

Analysis 3: Organization Participation




Figure 3: Preble Street leads with 33 applications and an 85% funding rate, followed by Milestone Recovery with 11 applications.

 Page 68
With stable application volume established in Analysis 1 and consistent scoring conﬁrmed above, the question of
organizational diversity becomes central. Rowen asked whether the program is accessible to a broad range of
community organizations or dominated by a small number of recurring applicants. Organizational participation
reveals a tiered structure, with a small group of experienced applicants generating signiﬁcant application volume,
while numerous organizations participate occasionally.

Preble Street submitted 33 applications across the decade (averaging more than three per year) and achieved an 85%
funding rate, demonstrating both consistent engagement and strong application quality. Notably, Preble Street
applied in every ﬁscal year from 2016-17 through 2025-26, providing program continuity across the full observation
period. Milestone Recovery followed with 11 applications and a 91% success rate, with applications concentrated in
the historical period (2016-2021). Catholic Charities Maine submitted 11 applications with a notably lower 36%
funding rate, though their participation spanned all ten years of the decade.

44 unique organizations applied during the historical period versus 33 during the recent period, though this
comparison requires caution since the historical period spans six years versus four for the recent period. Adjusting for
duration suggests roughly comparable organizational diversity, and new entrants during the recent period include
Hope Acts, Greater Portland Family Promise, and Through These Doors, indicating the program continues
attracting new participants even as established organizations maintain strong presence.

Wayside Food Program achieved 100% funding success across 10 applications, suggesting either exceptional
application quality or strong program-mission alignment. The contrast with Catholic Charities Maine's 36% rate
(despite similar application volume) shows that organizational experience alone doesn't guarantee funding success, and
underscores that the scoring patterns observed in Analysis 2 translate into meaningful diﬀerences in funding
outcomes.

Year-by-Year Patterns

That contrast between Wayside's full funding record and Catholic Charities Maine's struggles suggests the aggregate
counts may be hiding something, in that summary statistics can't distinguish between organizations achieving success
through steady, year-after-year engagement versus those riding a roller coaster of fully-funded years followed by
complete rejections. Breaking down each organization's funding requests by year, with bar colors indicating whether
applications received funding, brings these underlying patterns into focus and helps explain why two organizations
with similar application counts can end up with such diﬀerent outcomes.




 Page 69
Figure 3b: Request sizes and funding success varied substantially across organizations and years, with bar colors indicating funding rate
(red for unfunded, orange for low partial, yellow for partial, green for high, and blue for full funding).

Catholic Charities Maine turns out to be a story of extreme volatility rather than consistent struggle, with six years
showing red bars (meaning none of their applications were funded that year) and four years showing blue (meaning all were
funded), and remarkably nothing in between. Their request sizes ranged from $51K to $143K, which falls squarely
within normal Social Services ranges, meaning the issue isn't that they're asking for too much but rather that
something about their applications resonates strongly in certain years while missing the mark entirely in others.
Wayside Food Program could hardly be more diﬀerent, with blue bars appearing every single year for a decade
running because every application they submitted received full funding. Their requests stayed modest throughout,
between $29K and $40K, but the consistency itself seems to matter as much as the dollar amounts, suggesting that
organizations with stable, well-aligned programming may fare better than those pursuing more ambitious or variable
initiatives.

Preble Street's panel adds another dimension to this picture, because their 85% aggregate success rate masks a story
of two distinct periods. Through most of the historical period they earned blue bars year after year, applying
consistently with requests between $29K and $44K and building the track record that made them the program's most
proliﬁc participant. But the last three years look markedly diﬀerent, with 2023-24 showing an orange bar ( just 33% of
applications funded), followed by yellow in 2024-25 (67%) and again in 2025-26 (50%). Whether this recent softening
reﬂects changing program priorities, intensiﬁed competition from newer organizations, or shifts in Preble Street's
own programming remains an open question, though the pattern warrants attention given the organization's historical
role in the program.

The "Other" panel, which aggregates the many smaller applicants who don't appear individually, shows participation
distributed throughout the decade rather than clustered in particular periods, meaning organizations beyond the top
ﬁfteen have found consistent entry points into the program over the years. Among the newer entrants who do appear
individually, Hope Acts oﬀers an encouraging trajectory, progressing from an initial red bar in 2020-21 ( when their ﬁrst
application went unfunded) to consistent blue bars in every subsequent year as they found their footing with the program.
Greater Portland Family Promise has been fully funded in all ﬁve years since joining the applicant pool in 2021-22,
demonstrating that newer organizations can achieve consistent success when their programming aligns well with
community priorities. Taken together, these patterns suggest a program that remains accessible to new participants
while sustaining engagement from established ones, which bodes well for the diversity of the applicant pool going
forward. Whether year-over-year engagement translates into scoring advantages becomes relevant in the
organizational learning analysis.

Analysis 4: Funding Requests & Scoring




Figure 4: Most Social Services applications request under $150K, with concentrations in higher score ranges.

The wide variation in funding success rates observed in Analysis 3 prompted a closer look at request sizes,
addressing a question Rowen had posed about whether larger funding requests might be penalized regardless of
merit. Social Services applications clustered primarily in request ranges below $150,000, with 6 applications
requesting less than $50,000 while scoring in the 80-89 range, and 13 applications in the same request tier achieving
scores above 90.

Larger requests (exceeding $150,000) showed more variable scoring outcomes, in that several high-dollar applications
scored well, though the concentration is notably thinner than for modest requests. This pattern may reﬂect evaluator
skepticism toward ambitious funding requests, or simply that organizations with larger operational needs face more
 Page 70
complex capacity assessments. The 90+ score range contained applications across all request tiers, conﬁrming that
funding amount alone doesn't determine scoring outcomes, a ﬁnding that reinforces the Analysis 2 observation that
scoring diﬀerentiates eﬀectively regardless of project scale.




Figure 4b: Funded and unfunded applications separate primarily by score, not request size, though some overlap exists in the 70-92 range.

The heatmap's binned view obscures individual application patterns, so examining each application as a separate
point helps clarify the relationship between request size and funding outcomes. The scatter plot reveals that funded
applications (green) averaged 90.0 points compared to 84.3 for unfunded (orange), a gap of nearly 6 points that
explains most funding decisions. Request amounts themselves show almost no relationship with scores overall ( r =
-0.11), meaning organizations asking for $200,000 weren't systematically penalized relative to those requesting
$25,000. That said, within the funded group, larger requests did correlate with somewhat lower scores ( r = -0.40),
hinting that ambitious budget requests face slightly higher quality thresholds. The practical takeaway for applicants is
that proposal quality matters far more than budget size, though organizations pursuing larger awards should expect
to demonstrate correspondingly stronger cases for their capacity and impact. Whether typical request sizes have
changed over time is examined in the Decade in Review, where Social Services requests prove remarkably stable
across the full ten years.

Analysis 5: Priority Categories




Figure 5: ANGHP dominates Social Services priorities, accounting for 67.1% of recent applications.

Having established that application size doesn't determine scoring outcomes, the next logical dimension to examine is
the type of community need being addressed. Organizations must select a priority category when applying, and if
certain priorities correlate with funding success, that pattern could reveal biases in the evaluation process or shifts in
community conditions. Priority category distribution has also changed substantially over the decade, telling a story
about how Portland's challenges have evolved. ANGHP now represents 49 of 73 recent Social Services applications
(67.1%), whereas Economic Opportunity accounts for 17 applications (23.3%). Neighborhood Investment and

 Page 71
Housing Availability received minimal Social Services applications in the recent period.

This concentration reﬂects Portland's escalating homelessness challenges, with community organizations realigning
their programs to address immediate needs. The historical period showed greater priority diversity, with EO
maintaining stronger representation. The shift toward ANGHP doesn't indicate declining interest in economic
development so much as organizations' responsiveness to community conditions and funding priorities. When
combined with the organizational patterns from Analysis 3, this suggests that experienced applicants like Preble
Street have pivoted their programming to address homelessness, contributing to both the priority concentration and
the high funding rates observed earlier. That said, concentrating two-thirds of Social Services funding in a single
priority category creates vulnerability if federal homelessness funding priorities shift or if HUD reallocates CDBG
resources toward other community development goals, and the Consolidated Plan process may want to consider
whether maintaining capacity in EO and other priorities serves Portland's long-term interests even when immediate
homelessness needs feel most pressing.




Figure 5b: ANGHP applications achieve the highest funding rate (75.9%) and the tightest score distributions, whereas EO and NI show
wider spreads and lower success rates.

The distribution shift toward ANGHP raises a natural question about whether diﬀerent priorities face diﬀerent
scoring thresholds for funding. If ANGHP applications were funded at lower scores than EO applications, that would
suggest the evaluation process favors homelessness-related programming regardless of quality. The data tell a more
nuanced story. ANGHP applications actually score highest on average, with funded proposals averaging 91.7 points
compared to 89.0 for EO and 73.9 for NI. The funding rate diﬀerences, namely 75.9% for ANGHP versus 50.8% for
EO and 44.0% for NI, appear to reﬂect application quality rather than evaluator bias. EO applications show the
widest score gap between funded and unfunded outcomes ( 8.8 points), suggesting that economic development
proposals vary more in quality than homelessness services applications. The NI category's lower scores and funding
rates likely reﬂect that most neighborhood investment projects align better with the Construction category, leaving
Social Services NI applications as something of a mismatch for the program's evaluation criteria.




 Page 72
Analysis 6: Scoring Component Eﬀectiveness




Figure 6: Mean component scores reveal which evaluation dimensions best diﬀerentiate funded from unfunded applications.

The 27-point score spread observed in Analysis 2 invites a deeper look at what drives the diﬀerences between high
and low performers. Rowen speciﬁcally asked whether the scoring categories are eﬀective at diﬀerentiating
applications, and breaking down total scores into their four components addresses this directly. Comparing mean
scores between funded and unfunded applications reveals where successful proposals distinguish themselves:

 • Priority Impact shows the largest diﬀerential (Δ=+2.9 points), suggesting evaluators weight community
 alignment heavily when making funding decisions
 • Guiding Principles and Capacity to Deliver show moderate diﬀerentials (Δ=+2.1 to +2.5 points)
 • Partnership Collaboration shows the smallest gap (Δ=+1.6 points)

This pattern suggests that applicants seeking to improve their competitiveness should focus ﬁrst on demonstrating
strong alignment with priority goals and clear organizational capacity, which helps explain why organizations like
Preble Street and Wayside Food Program achieved the high funding rates noted in Analysis 3. Partnership scores,
while contributing to overall totals, appear less decisive in funding outcomes, which may warrant attention during
rubric review if the intent is for all four components to carry similar weight. Given the ANGHP concentration
observed in Analysis 5, the strength of Priority Impact particularly aligns with expectations, as organizations
demonstrating clear alignment with homelessness response emerge as stronger candidates.

Social Services Synthesis
Social Services applications reﬂect a mature, engaged applicant community where experienced organizations like
Preble Street provide program continuity while newer entrants expand the participant base. Scoring consistency
across periods suggests stable evaluation standards, and the component breakdown shows Priority Impact and
Guiding Principles producing the largest gaps between funded and unfunded applications. The pronounced shift
toward homelessness-related priorities reﬂects community needs rather than program limitations, though it raises
questions about whether other priority areas receive suﬃcient attention, a theme explored further in the Conclusion.
The Construction analysis that follows reveals contrasting patterns, with municipal applicants and physical
infrastructure creating a distinctly diﬀerent program dynamic.




 Page 73
Construction & Development Analysis
Analysis 1: Application Volume Trends




Figure 1: Construction applications maintained relatively stable volume, with 7-8 applications annually in recent years.

Turning to Construction, the application patterns diﬀer markedly from Social Services, reﬂecting the project-based
nature of capital improvements. Where Social Services showed steady volume with modest recent decline,
Construction exhibited more pronounced variability. The historical period showed a peak in 2020-21 ( recording 17
applications), alongside troughs in 2018-19 and 2019-20 ( just 2-7 applications). Recent years stabilized around 7-8
applications annually, suggesting a predictable pipeline of infrastructure projects.

Funding rates improved dramatically in the recent period, rising to 74.2% from the historical 58.2%, contrasting
sharply with the Social Services decline noted earlier. This 16 percentage point increase may reﬂect better alignment
between applications and available funding, improved application quality, or changes in the competitive landscape,
and the Construction category's smaller applicant pool means individual organizational decisions signiﬁcantly
impact annual volumes, a dynamic that becomes clearer in Analysis 3 when examining which organizations
participate.

Analysis 2: Score Distributions




Figure 2: Construction scores remained consistent, with means of 79.0 (recent) and 79.1 (historical).

The scoring consistency observed in Social Services carries over to Construction, where application scores
distributed nearly identically between periods. Recent scores ranged from 51.8 to 90.4, with a mean of 79.0, whereas
historical scores spanned 53.5 to 95.9, with a mean of 79.1. The virtual equivalence of these means (within 0.1 points)
reﬂects remarkable scoring stability over time.
 Page 74
Construction scores averaged about 8 points lower than Social Services, a notable contrast to the 87-point means
observed in the Social Services analysis. This gap likely reﬂects diﬀerent evaluation considerations for capital
projects versus service programs. Physical improvements involve more complex feasibility assessments, permitting
uncertainties, and cost estimation challenges that may reduce scores in capacity-related dimensions, and the
consistent gap between categories suggests this reﬂects genuine diﬀerences in project complexity rather than
evaluator bias. The scoring component breakdown later in this section examines which speciﬁc dimensions account
for Construction's lower scores.




Figure 2b: Year-by-year score distributions conﬁrm consistent evaluation standards for Construction, with medians holding in the 77-86
range despite greater variability than Social Services.

The year-by-year breakdown reveals more volatility in Construction scoring than Social Services exhibited, with
annual medians ranging from 77.4 (in 2017-18) to 86.0 (in 2021-22). This wider range reﬂects the category's smaller
sample sizes, where a single strong or weak application can shift the year's proﬁle substantially. Low-scoring outliers
appeared throughout the decade, including applications scoring in the 50s in 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2024-25,
typically representing ambitious projects that encountered feasibility concerns. The higher variability compared to
Social Services underscores why capital projects face diﬀerent evaluation dynamics, but the absence of systematic
upward or downward drift conﬁrms that evaluators have maintained consistent standards even as individual years
ﬂuctuate. For organizations considering Construction applications, the decade-long consistency oﬀers reassurance
that strong proposals will face fair evaluation based on demonstrated merit rather than shifting standards, a point
reinforced by the organizational learning analysis later in this report.

Analysis 3: Organization Participation




Figure 3: City departments dominate Construction applications, with Public Works leading at 14 submissions.

The organizational landscape for Construction diﬀers markedly from Social Services, with municipal departments
playing a central role that shapes the category's character. Where Social Services featured Preble Street's nonproﬁt

 Page 75
dominance, Construction shows City of Portland Department of Public Works as the leading applicant, submitting
14 applications and achieving 93% funding success. This reﬂects the city's dual role as both program administrator
and applicant for infrastructure improvements. Other City departments (Parks, Recreation and Facilities) contributed an
additional 12 applications.

Non-governmental applicants included:

 • Port Resources: 8 applications, 62% funded
 • Catherine Morrill Day Nursery: 6 applications, 67% funded
 • Alpha One: 4 applications, 75% funded

The Construction category attracted 25 unique organizations during the historical period versus 14 in the recent
period, though the shorter timeframe explains much of this diﬀerence. Beyond raw counts, the prominence of
municipal applicants creates an unusual dynamic, with the program administrator competing alongside community
organizations. While this arrangement ensures public infrastructure receives CDBG investment, it may aﬀect
perceptions of program accessibility among potential applicants, and the concentration also helps explain the funding
rate improvement noted in Analysis 1, as municipal applicants with established capacity tend to submit well-
prepared applications.

Year-by-Year Patterns

The aggregate ﬁgures above show Port Resources at 62% funding success and Catherine Morrill Day Nursery at
67%, but these summary rates leave open the question of whether their unfunded applications clustered in particular
years or spread evenly across the decade. Breaking down each organization's activity by year brings the underlying
patterns into focus, revealing why some organizations struggle to achieve consistent results while municipal
departments maintain strong track records throughout.




Figure 3b: Request sizes and funding success varied substantially across organizations and years, with bar colors indicating funding rate
(red for unfunded, orange for low partial, yellow for partial, green for high, and blue for full funding).

The City of Portland Department of Public Works panel demonstrates that municipal departments can succeed
across a remarkably wide range of project scales, with requests ranging from just $13.5K in 2016-17 all the way up
to $340K in 2022-23. Most years show blue bars indicating full funding, meaning the department has learned how to
navigate the application process eﬀectively regardless of whether they're pursuing modest accessibility improvements
or major infrastructure projects. The one yellow bar in 2020-21 ( when 67% of their requests were funded) stands out
 Page 76
precisely because it's such an exception to their otherwise consistent success. Parks & Recreation follows a similar
trajectory with requests spanning $41K to $248K, reinforcing that the institutional knowledge municipal departments
bring to the application process translates into reliable outcomes even when project scales vary substantially from
year to year.

Catherine Morrill Day Nursery tells a more complicated story, one where request size appears to inﬂuence
outcomes in ways that aren't entirely predictable. Their two largest requests ( $234K in 2016-17 and $235K in 2017-18)
produced opposite results, with the ﬁrst going completely unfunded while the second received full funding despite
being nearly identical in size. When they scaled back to more modest requests in the $45K-$68K range in 2020-21
and 2022-23, every application succeeded. But their 2025-26 application at $155K returned to red, suggesting that
something about larger capital requests from this organization introduces uncertainty that smaller projects don't face,
whether that reﬂects capacity concerns, competition for limited construction funds, or simply the inherent
unpredictability of infrastructure project evaluation.

Port Resources shows perhaps the clearest evolution over time, beginning with an unfunded $79K application in
2017-18 before ﬁnding a formula that worked. Their subsequent applications stayed in the $12K-$32K range and
achieved consistent blue bars through 2022-23, suggesting they had identiﬁed a sweet spot for their organization
within the program. But recent applications in 2023-24 and 2025-26 returned to red despite maintaining those
modest request sizes, indicating that factors beyond scale have begun aﬀecting their outcomes in ways the earlier
pattern didn't predict. The "Other" panel, aggregating smaller applicants who don't appear individually, conﬁrms that
participation from community organizations spans the full decade, meaning the municipal concentration visible in the
top panels hasn't precluded entry for nonproﬁts with appropriately-scaled capital projects. This sustained diversity of
applicants suggests that Construction funding remains accessible to organizations beyond City departments, even as
those departments account for the category's highest volume and success rates.

Analysis 4: Funding Requests & Scoring




Figure 4: Construction requests skew larger, with concentrations in the $150K+ range.

Given that municipal departments dominate Construction applications, examining whether these better-resourced
organizations also request larger awards seems warranted. The data conﬁrm that Construction funding requests
diﬀer substantially from Social Services, reﬂecting both capital project costs and the diﬀerent organizational proﬁle
identiﬁed in Analysis 3. Where Social Services clustered below $150,000, the Construction heatmap shows
concentration in larger request tiers, with multiple applications seeking more than $150,000. Projects scoring in the
80-89 range spanned all request sizes, meaning well-designed smaller projects can compete eﬀectively against major
infrastructure proposals.

The 90+ score range contained relatively few Construction applications in the recent period, consistent with the
lower overall scoring proﬁle noted in Analysis 2. Applications requesting under $50,000 were relatively uncommon,
suggesting most construction needs require substantial investment to achieve meaningful impact, and this larger scale
of requests contributes to the funding gap patterns examined in the Decade in Review section.




 Page 77
Figure 4b: Funded and unfunded Construction applications separate clearly by score, with a 12.5-point gap between group means.

The scatter plot sharpens the heatmap's message considerably. Funded applications (green) clustered in the 80-90
score range with a mean of 82.4, whereas unfunded applications (orange) fell mostly between 50 and 75, averaging
just 69.9. This 12.5-point gap between funded and unfunded means is substantially wider than the 6-point gap
observed in Social Services, suggesting Construction evaluations produce clearer diﬀerentiation between strong and
weak proposals. Request size had essentially no bearing on outcomes, with funded applications ranging from $15,000
to $340,000 across the full score range. For organizations considering Construction applications, the takeaway
mirrors Social Services but with even sharper emphasis, namely that proposal quality determines success while
budget ambition does not penalize otherwise strong applications. The Decade in Review reveals that Construction
request sizes have grown substantially over the decade, likely reﬂecting inﬂation in materials and labor costs.

Analysis 5: Priority Categories




Figure 5: Neighborhood Investment dominates Construction, with 71.0% of recent applications.

Construction tells a diﬀerent story than Social Services. Rather than clustering around ANGHP, applications here
concentrated overwhelmingly on Neighborhood Investment, which accounted for 22 of 31 recent submissions
(71.0%). Housing Availability represented 5 applications (16.1%), with Economic Opportunity at 4 applications
(12.9%). No Construction applications addressed ANGHP priorities in the recent period, presenting a stark contrast
to the 67% ANGHP concentration observed in Social Services.

This makes sense given the category's focus on physical improvements. Sidewalk repairs, playground upgrades, and
facility renovations align naturally with Neighborhood Investment goals. Housing Availability projects typically
involve renovation or accessibility improvements to residential facilities, whereas EO construction often supports
childcare or job training facilities. The absence of ANGHP construction suggests that Portland's homelessness
response has concentrated on service provision rather than capital projects, a pattern worth noting for future
Consolidated Plan discussions.

 Page 78
Figure 5b: Neighborhood Investment applications show the clearest score separation between funded and unfunded outcomes, with
Housing Availability achieving the highest funding rate.

Given that Construction applications concentrate so heavily on Neighborhood Investment, examining whether
diﬀerent priorities face diﬀerent scoring thresholds matters for understanding program dynamics. NI applications
(which dominate the category at 56 total) averaged 82.9 for funded proposals versus 70.6 for unfunded, a 12.3-point gap
that mirrors the category-wide pattern noted in Figure 4b. Housing Availability achieved the highest funding rate at
71.4% with a 14.8-point gap between funded (85.7) and unfunded (70.9), suggesting that housing-focused capital
projects face rigorous but fair evaluation. Economic Opportunity construction showed more modest diﬀerentiation
(8.6 points) with 53.8% success. The lone ANGHP construction application went unfunded at 78.2 points, a score that
would typically succeed in other priorities, reinforcing that homelessness-related capital projects may not align well
with Construction evaluation criteria, and perhaps explaining why organizations have channeled homeless response
through Social Services programming instead.

Analysis 6: Scoring Component Eﬀectiveness




Figure 6: Construction applications show similar scoring patterns, with Priority Impact and Guiding Principles diﬀerentiating funded
from unfunded proposals.

The Social Services scoring breakdown revealed Priority Impact as the key diﬀerentiator, but Construction projects
involve greater complexity in permitting, contractor management, and cost estimation, suggesting that Capacity to
Deliver might carry more weight. In practice, Construction applications show Priority Impact and Guiding
Principles as nearly tied for strongest discriminator between funded and unfunded proposals, both with diﬀerentials
around Δ=+3.7 points, indicating that successful capital projects demonstrate clear alignment with community
development goals and program principles. Capacity to Deliver shows a meaningful gap as well (Δ=+2.3 points),
reﬂecting the heightened scrutiny applied to organizations undertaking physical improvements that require
permitting, contractor management, and cost estimation, and helping explain the lower average scores noted in
Analysis 2.

 Page 79
Partnership Collaboration again shows the smallest diﬀerential, suggesting that while collaborative relationships
support applications, they are less decisive than demonstrated capacity and priority alignment. This ﬁnding echoes
the Social Services pattern, and taken together, suggests that across both categories, applicants should prioritize
demonstrating priority alignment and organizational readiness. For organizations pursuing Construction funding
speciﬁcally, investing in feasibility documentation and clear project timelines appears more impactful than expanding
partnership networks.

Construction Synthesis
Construction shows stable but distinct patterns from Social Services. Municipal departments serve as major
applicants, creating infrastructure investment alongside community organization projects, and scoring proﬁles run
slightly lower but remain consistent over time, with the component breakdown revealing that Capacity to Deliver
receives particular weight for capital projects. The improved recent funding rate suggests either better-calibrated
requests or increased funding availability, and priority concentration on Neighborhood Investment reﬂects the
category's inherent focus on physical community improvements. The Comparative Insights section that follows
synthesizes these category-level ﬁndings, while the Decade in Review examines dollar-denominated funding patterns
that span both categories.




 Page 80
Comparative Insights
Having examined Social Services and Construction independently through six parallel analyses each, synthesizing
ﬁndings across categories illuminates broader program dynamics and addresses how the two funding streams interact.
The patterns documented above, from Preble Street's dominance in Social Services to Public Works' prominence in
Construction, from the ANGHP priority concentration to Neighborhood Investment's stability, combine to paint a
comprehensive picture of CDBG program activity.

Category Distinctions
Social Services and Construction applications serve diﬀerent community functions, and attract diﬀerent
organizational types. Social Services dominated overall volume, with 208 of 294 applications (70.7%), whereas
Construction contributed 86 applications (29.3%). This ratio held steady across both periods, suggesting established
patterns in how organizations engage with each funding stream.

Funding request sizes diﬀered substantially between categories:

 Category Average Request Typical Range
Social Services ~$84,000 Under $150K
Construction ~$114,000 $50K-$250K

Despite larger individual requests, Construction's smaller application volume meant Social Services still represented
the majority of total funding demand. This size diﬀerential becomes relevant in the Funding Flow Analysis, where
dollar-denominated analysis reveals the cumulative funding gap, and the request trends analysis shows that
Construction requests have grown 66% over the decade while Social Services requests remained ﬂat.

Organizational Concentration
Both categories showed some organizational concentration, though patterns diﬀered in ways that reﬂect their distinct
characters. Social Services' top ﬁve applicants accounted for approximately 36% of category applications, whereas
Construction's top ﬁve accounted for roughly 51%. The presence of municipal departments in Construction's top
applicants, as noted in that category's Analysis 3, explains much of this concentration.

New organizational entry appeared somewhat easier in Social Services, possibly because service programs can
launch with smaller initial requests. Construction projects often require signiﬁcant organizational capacity and
matching funds, creating higher barriers for new applicants. The Organizational Learning analysis ﬁnds that
experience has minimal eﬀect on scores, meaning newcomers with strong proposals can compete eﬀectively against
established applicants.

Scoring Relationships
Score distributions revealed consistent category-level diﬀerences, with Social Services averaging about 8 points
higher than Construction, as documented in each category's Analysis 2. This gap persisted across both periods,
suggesting systematic diﬀerences in how evaluators assess service programs versus physical projects, with the
Analysis 6 scoring breakdowns revealing that Capacity to Deliver accounts for much of this diﬀerence. Whether
this reﬂects category-appropriate standards or warrants recalibration is worth considering in the Consolidated Plan
review process.

Within categories, the range from lowest to highest scores exceeded 40 points in both categories, providing
substantial spread for funding decisions and addressing Rowen's question about whether scoring produces meaningful
diﬀerentiation. The request-score scatter plots in each category visualize this diﬀerentiation clearly, with funded
applications clustering 6 points higher in Social Services and 12.5 points higher in Construction than their
unfunded counterparts. Neither category showed concerning patterns like score clustering that might indicate
evaluation diﬃculties.




 Page 81
Decade in Review
The preceding category-speciﬁc analyses established that both Social Services and Construction maintain healthy
application volumes, consistent scoring patterns, and diverse organizational participation. Several ﬁndings,
particularly the 35% unfunded rate and the contrast between categories, raised questions that beneﬁt from a decade-
long perspective. This section provides the longitudinal synthesis that Rowen requested as a stretch goal, and
introduces dollar-denominated analysis that translates the funding rates documented earlier into concrete measures of
unmet community need.

Application Volume Evolution
The ten-year view reveals a CDBG program with sustained community engagement. Total annual applications ranged
from 23 to 37, with no clear directional trend. The 2017-18 and 2020-21 ﬁscal years tied for peak volume ( each
totaling 37 applications), with the latter possibly reﬂecting pandemic-era community needs, whereas 2023-24 saw the
lowest recent volume (just 23 applications).

Normalizing for ﬁscal year duration, the recent period averaged 26 applications annually, versus 31.7 for the
historical period. This 18% decline is worth monitoring, though it may simply reﬂect natural variation rather than
waning program interest. One possible explanation is that strong funding rates in recent years discourage
organizations with weaker proposals from applying, though the stable scoring patterns observed in both category
analyses neither conﬁrm nor refute this hypothesis.

Funding Rate Trajectory
The decade-long view shows overall funding rates holding essentially steady, building on the category-speciﬁc rates
documented in each Analysis 1. The recent period achieved 64.4% overall funding rate, versus 65.3% historically,
meaning the program has maintained consistent approval rates even as the underlying category dynamics shifted
considerably, particularly the priority distributions toward homelessness services. Construction improved
substantially (rising from 58.2% to 74.2%) whereas Social Services declined (from 68.1% to 60.3%), with these oﬀsetting
trends producing the overall stability. This pattern aligns with the organizational dynamics noted in each category's
Analysis 3, where Construction's municipal applicants demonstrated particularly strong proposal quality.

What this means for applicants depends on which category they're pursuing. Social Services organizations now face a
more competitive environment than earlier in the decade, with roughly three in ﬁve applications receiving funding
compared to roughly two in three historically, whereas Construction applicants enjoy substantially better odds than
before. For the program as a whole, the roughly two-in-three overall approval rate compares favorably to many
competitive grant programs, though favorable approval odds don't necessarily translate to full funding, as the
Proration Patterns analysis reveals.

Funding Flow Analysis




Figure 7a: The cumulative gap between funding requests and awards totals $10.6M over the decade, documenting persistent unmet
community need.

The funding rates documented in each Analysis 1 show that roughly 35% of applications go unfunded each year, but
what does this mean in dollar terms? Translating approval rates into actual funding amounts reveals the magnitude of
 Page 82
unmet community need in terms the Consolidated Plan process requires. Organizations requested a cumulative
$27.3M over the decade, whereas the program awarded $16.7M, resulting in a $10.6M funding gap. This gap
persisted across all ten ﬁscal years, ranging from under $100K in lower-demand years to nearly $1.9M during peak
demand periods, and the funding gap serves as evidence for HUD allocation requests, with documented unmet need
supporting arguments for increased federal investment. For the Consolidated Plan process, this analysis
demonstrates that community organizations consistently identify more development opportunities than available
funding can support, meaning the program operates under persistent demand pressure rather than struggling to
identify worthy projects. When combined with the high quality of applications observed in the scoring analyses, this
gap represents genuine community need rather than speculative or poorly-conceived proposals.




Figure 7b: Social Services request sizes remained ﬂat over the decade (+0.2%), whereas Construction requests grew substantially
(+66.5%).

The total-dollar view above reveals aggregate demand, but Rowen also asked how individual funding requests have
evolved over time. Breaking down average request sizes by year and category tells two distinctly diﬀerent stories.
Social Services applications have held remarkably steady, averaging around $84,000 throughout the decade with no
meaningful trend in either direction, suggesting that organizations have calibrated their asks to available funding
levels and program norms. Construction applications tell a diﬀerent story entirely, with average requests climbing
from roughly $95,000 in 2016-17 to $158,000 in 2025-26, a 66.5% increase that likely reﬂects inﬂation in materials
and labor costs rather than expanding project ambitions. The request-score analyses in each category section
established that larger requests don't face scoring penalties, so organizations can adjust their asks upward without
disadvantaging their applications. For program planning purposes, this divergence matters because it suggests Social
Services allocations may stretch roughly as far as they did a decade ago, whereas Construction funding buys
progressively less infrastructure improvement each year. Organizations pursuing capital projects in future cycles
should anticipate needing larger requests than historical averages might suggest, and the Consolidated Plan process
may want to account for construction cost inﬂation when setting category allocations.




 Page 83
Proration Patterns




Figure 8: Approximately half of funded applications receive full awards, while the remainder face systematic proration.

The $10.6M funding gap raises an obvious follow-up about how the program reconciles approved applications with
limited funds. The answer is proration, wherein awards are reduced proportionally so more applicants receive partial
funding rather than fewer receiving full amounts. Examining how awards compare to requests at the individual
application level reveals patterns that directly inform applicant planning. Among 190 funded applications, roughly
half received their full requested amount, whereas the remainder received partial awards. Proration rates ranged
from 27% to 100% of requested funding, with clustering around 85-95% during systematic proration years when the
program applied uniform cuts across all awards.

This pattern oﬀers practical guidance for applicants, meaning organizations should budget conservatively and
anticipate potential 10-15% reductions even for successful applications. The proration distribution also suggests that
evaluators rarely fund low-scoring applications at reduced rates, instead applying cuts proportionally across approved
projects when demand exceeds supply, an approach that rewards the strong applications identiﬁed through the
scoring component analyses while ensuring more organizations receive some support. What this analysis cannot
address is whether prorated projects complete successfully at the same rate as fully-funded ones, in that a 15%
budget cut might force scope reductions that undermine project goals, or it might simply trim administrative padding
that wouldn't have aﬀected outcomes anyway. Tracking project completion rates against proration levels would help
determine whether the current approach of spreading partial funding across more applicants serves community needs
better than concentrating full funding on fewer projects.

Organizational Learning




Figure 9: Experience explains little score variation (r = 0.20), meaning proposal quality matters more than familiarity with the process.


 Page 84
Given the organizational concentration documented in each category's Analysis 3, it's worth asking whether repeat
applicants gain a scoring advantage over newcomers. If so, the program might inadvertently favor established
organizations regardless of proposal quality. Tracking individual organizations across their application histories
suggests they don't. For organizations with at least ﬁve applications, the correlation between application sequence
number and score is weak (r = 0.20), meaning experience explains only 4% of score variation. Project quality,
organizational capacity, and year-to-year changes in evaluation context appear to matter far more than accumulated
familiarity with the application process.

That said, some organizations do transition from unfunded to funded status over time, with initial rejections
occasionally preceding eventual success. This supports continued outreach to organizations with early rejections,
since an initial setback doesn't preclude future funding. Combined with the organizational diversity observed in both
category analyses, the program appears to remain accessible to newcomers, though success depends primarily on
proposal quality rather than accumulated experience.

Organizational Continuity
The decade shows remarkable organizational continuity, reinforcing the patterns from the Social Services and
Construction organizational analyses. Preble Street applied in every single year from 2016-17 through 2025-26, as
did several other major applicants, and this sustained engagement suggests the CDBG program has become embedded
in organizations' funding strategies rather than serving as an occasional resource.

New organizations continue entering the applicant pool even as established participants maintain presence, resulting
in a balance that supports both program stability and fresh perspectives on community needs. The organizational
learning analysis conﬁrms that experience provides minimal scoring advantage, meaning newcomers with quality
proposals can compete on equal footing.




 Page 85
Limitations
A few factors limit this analysis and point to opportunities for future work:

 • Incomplete Current Data: The 2025-26 ﬁscal year data remains incomplete at the time of analysis, meaning
 ﬁnal funding decisions may diﬀer from current records
 • Scoring Anomalies: Some historical records contained scoring anomalies ( including zero scores) that may
 represent data quality issues rather than actual evaluation outcomes, as noted in the Social Services Analysis
 2 discussion
 • Name Standardization: Organizational name variations across years required manual standardization,
 particularly aﬀecting City departments where naming conventions evolved over the observation period
 • Equal Weighting: The analysis treats all applications equally regardless of program type or scale, meaning a
 supplementary analysis weighting by funding request size might reveal diﬀerent patterns
 • Component Score Gaps: The 2025-26 data contains only aggregate scores without component-level detail,
 limiting the Analysis 6 ﬁndings for that year



Conclusion
Rowen posed four questions about the CDBG program. Here's what the data suggest.

Regarding sustained interest: Community engagement with the CDBG program continues, though the 18% decline
in application volume from historical peaks warrants attention. Whether this reﬂects natural variation, self-selection
by organizations perceiving the program as too competitive, or other factors remains unclear, but the 2023-24 low of
just 14 Social Services applications suggests the applicant pool may be narrowing. The Analysis 1 ﬁndings for both
categories conﬁrm the program remains a viable funding source for organizations that do apply, and the rebound to
23 applications in 2025-26 oﬀers some reassurance.

On organizational diversity: The applicant pool includes both established repeat participants and newer entrants.
Concentration exists, particularly around Preble Street in Social Services and City departments in Construction,
with the latter raising questions about the dual role of municipal entities as both program administrators and major
applicants. The scoring data suggest this hasn't disadvantaged community organizations, in that proposal quality
rather than applicant type determines outcomes, but the perception of fair competition matters for encouraging new
applicants. Preble Street's recent shift from consistent full funding to mixed outcomes in 2023-26 may signal
changing program dynamics, intensiﬁed competition, or shifts in their programming, and bears watching given their
historical role as the program's most proliﬁc participant. The 76 unique organizations across the decade reﬂect
meaningful diversity, and experience provides minimal scoring advantage, meaning newcomers with strong proposals
can compete eﬀectively.

For funding trends: Request sizes tell divergent stories across categories. Social Services requests stayed essentially
ﬂat over the decade, averaging around $84,000 throughout, whereas Construction requests grew 66%, likely
reﬂecting inﬂation in materials and labor costs. This divergence means Social Services allocations stretch roughly as
far as they did ten years ago, whereas Construction funding buys progressively less infrastructure each year, and
Construction applicants should expect to need larger asks than historical averages suggest. The request-score
analyses conﬁrm that request size itself doesn't determine funding outcomes, meaning organizations shouldn't shy
away from appropriate budget requests, though the proration patterns suggest they should budget conservatively
given that partial awards typically run 10-15% below requested amounts and can reach as high as 73% in extreme
cases. The $10.6M cumulative funding gap documents persistent unmet need across all request sizes, providing
evidence for HUD allocation requests that represents real proposals from capable organizations rather than
speculative demand. As for what determines success, the Analysis 6 scoring component breakdown reveals Priority
Impact and Guiding Principles as producing the largest gaps between funded and unfunded proposals, whereas
Partnership Collaboration contributes less to funding decisions, a gap that may warrant attention if the rubric
intends all four components to carry similar weight.

Comparing periods: The recent data shows evolution rather than disruption, though the nature of that evolution
diﬀers by category. Social Services saw declining application volume and funding rates alongside a dramatic
concentration of applications in ANGHP, raising questions about both the breadth of the applicant pool and the
program's portfolio balance across priorities. The 67% concentration in a single priority reﬂects genuine community
crisis, but it also creates vulnerability if federal funding priorities shift, and the Consolidated Plan process may want
to consider whether dedicated set-asides for EO and other categories would help maintain capacity across the full
range of community development needs. Construction showed the opposite pattern, with improved funding rates but
substantially higher request sizes that reﬂect a decade of cost inﬂation. Throughout both categories, scoring patterns
remained consistent, meaning the evaluation system itself has been stable even as the applications it evaluates have
shifted.

 Page 86
2025 City of Portland
  Community Survey
 Findings Report


 Presented to the City of
 Portland, Maine

 March 2026




Page 87
 Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................... i


Section 1: Charts and Graphs ................................................. 1


Section 2: Benchmarking Analysis ..................................... 33


Section 3: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis ................. 44


Section 4: Tabular Data.......................................................... 51


Section 5: Survey Instrument..............................................113




 Page 88
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Executive Summary




ETC Institute (2026) Page i
 Page 89
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 Purpose
 ETC Institute administered a survey to residents of the City of Portland between December 2025 and
 January 2026. The purpose of this survey was to gather input from residents in order to shape City
 programs, services, and long-term investments so they better reflect the needs and priorities of the
 community. This is the first community survey ETC Institute has administered for the City of Portland.

 Methodology
 The six-page survey, cover letter, and postage-paid return envelope were mailed to a random sample of
 households in the City of Portland. The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey and encouraged
 residents to either return their survey by mail or complete the survey online.
 Approximately ten days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent follow-up messages to the
 households that received the survey to encourage participation. The messages contained a link to the
 online version of the survey to make it easy for residents to complete. To prevent people who were not
 residents of the City from participating, everyone who completed the survey online was required to
 enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute then matched the addresses that
 were entered online with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the
 address from a survey completed online did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the
 online survey was not counted.
 The goal was to obtain a total of 1,100 completed surveys from residents of the City of Portland. This
 goal was met, with a total of 1,112 residents completing the survey. The overall residents for the sample
 of 1,112 households have a
 precision of at least +/‐
 2.9% at the 95% level of
 confidence.

 Location of Respondents.
 To better understand how
 well services are being
 delivered in different parts
 of the City, the home
 address of survey respond
 ents was geocoded. The
 map to the right shows the
 physical distribution of
 respondents to the survey
 based on the location of
 their home.

ETC Institute (2026) Page ii


 Page 90
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 The percentage of “don’t know” responses has been excluded from many of the graphs shown in this
 report to facilitate valid comparisons of the results from the City of Portland with the results from
 other communities in ETC Institute’s DirectionFinder® database. Since the number of “don’t know”
 responses often reflects the utilization and awareness of city services, the percentage of “don’t know”
 responses has been provided in the tabular data section of this report. When the “don’t know”
 responses have been excluded, the text of this report will indicate that the responses have been
 excluded with the phrase “who had an opinion.”

 This report contains:
 • an executive summary of the survey methodology and major findings
 • charts showing the overall results for most questions on the survey
 • benchmarking analysis showing how the City of Portland compares to other communities regionally
 and nationally
 • Importance-Satisfaction analysis that outlines priorities for investment
 • tabular data showing the overall results of the survey
 • a copy of the cover letter and survey instrument



 Overall Perceptions of the City
 More than three-fourths (77%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, were “very satisfied”
 or “satisfied” with shopping and dining opportunities in Portland; 75% were satisfied with the
 quality of life in their neighborhood; 74% were satisfied with the overall quality/variety of shopping
 and dining opportunities, and 66% were satisfied with Portland as a place to live.

 Overall Satisfaction with City Services
 The categories of City services that had the highest levels of satisfaction, based upon the combined
 percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion,
 were: the quality of the Portland Jetport (81%), the quality of public safety services (72%), the
 quality of solid waste services (71%), the quality of customer service from City employees (67%),
 and the quality of winter snow plowing and removal (63%).

 Based on the sum of their top three choices, the City services that respondents indicated should
 receive the most emphasis over the next two years were: 1) maintenance of city streets,
 sidewalks, and infrastructure, 2) flow of traffic/ease of getting around within the City, and
 3) quality of social services provided by the City.




ETC Institute (2026) Page iii


 Page 91
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 Satisfaction with Specific City Services

 Public Safety. The highest levels of satisfaction with public safety services, based upon the
 combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an
 opinion, were: professionalism of fire/EMS first responders (88%), how quickly fire services
 responds to emergencies (86%), how quickly EMS services responds to emergencies (83%), the
 quality of fire protection (83%), and the quality of emergency medical/ambulance services (81%).

 Based on the sum of their top three choices, the public safety services that respondents indicated
 should receive the most emphasis over the next two years were: 1) the City’s efforts to prevent
 crime, 2) the enforcement of local traffic laws, and 3) the quality of police community programs
 and outreach. Additionally, 71% of residents indicated their level of trust in Portland’s Police
 Department is “high” (27%) or “somewhat high” (44%).

 Perceptions of Safety in Various Situations. The highest levels of satisfaction with perceptions of
 safety in Portland, based upon the combined percentage of “very safe” and “safe” responses
 among residents who had an opinion, were: in neighborhoods during the day (87%), in
 neighborhoods at night (67%), and in commercial and retail areas (65%).

 Trash and Recycling Services. The highest levels of satisfaction with trash and recycling services,
 based upon the combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents
 who had an opinion, were: curbside recycling services (80%), overall quality of trash collection
 services (77%), holiday tree collection services (72%), and the quality of composting drop-off
 locations (62%).

 Maintenance and Public Works. The highest levels of satisfaction with maintenance and public
 works, based upon the combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among
 residents who had an opinion, were: snow removal on major City streets (66%), the condition of
 public buildings and facilities (61%), the condition of street signs and traffic signals (55%), tree
 trimming along streets and public areas (53%), and snow removal on neighborhood streets (52%).

 Based on the sum of their top three choices, the maintenance and public works services that
 respondents indicated should receive the most emphasis over the next two years were: 1)
 cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, 2) condition of sidewalks, and 3) condition of
 major City streets.

 Transportation and Mobility. The highest levels of satisfaction with transportation and mobility,
 based upon the combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents
 who had an opinion, were: ease of using the Portland Jetport (84%), facilities and amenities at the
 Jetport (72%), ease of getting around the City by walking (65%), availability of neighborhood
 sidewalks (65%), and availability of sidewalks throughout the City (58%).
ETC Institute (2026) Page iv


 Page 92
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 Based on the sum of their top three choices, the transportation and mobility services that
 respondents indicated should receive the most emphasis over the next two years were: 1)
 availability of public parking, 2) ease of getting around the City by public transportation, and 3)
 accessibility of streets and sidewalks for people with disabilities.

 Parks and Recreation. The highest levels of satisfaction with parks and recreation services, based
 upon the combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who
 had an opinion, were: the quality of Merrill Auditorium (83%), the quality of multi-use trails (75%),
 the quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium (70%), connectivity of local trails and parks (67%), condition of
 outdoor athletic fields (62%), and condition of public playgrounds (60%).

 Based on the sum of their top three choices, the parks and recreation services that respondents
 indicated should receive the most emphasis over the next two years were: 1) the quality of major
 City parks, 2) the quality of community and neighborhood parks, and 3) connectivity of local trails
 and parks.

 Economic Development. The highest levels of satisfaction with economic development, based
 upon the combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who
 had an opinion, were: availability of places to shop, dine, or get services in neighborhoods (67%),
 how active and inviting businesses are (61%), and variety of local businesses in the area (60%).

 Communication and Transparency. The highest levels of satisfaction with City Communication,
 based upon the combined percentage of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents
 who had an opinion, were: availability of information in an understandable language (79%), the
 City’s use of digital tools (54%), availability of information about City news, programs and services
 (53%), and usefulness of information on the City’s website (48%).

 Customer Service. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents indicated they had interacted with
 the City during the past year. Of those, 81% who had an opinion were “very satisfied” or “satisfied”
 with the level of courtesy they received from City employees, and 77% who had an opinion were
 “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the technical competence and knowledge of City employees.




ETC Institute (2026) Page v


 Page 93
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 Other Findings

  Forty percent (40%) of respondents, who had an opinion, indicated their level of trust in the City of
 Portland’s local government is “high” or “somewhat high;” 34% indicated it is “somewhat low,”
 and 26% indicated their trust in the City’s local government is “low.”

  Thirty-five percent (35%) of respondents, who had an opinion, strongly agreed or agreed with the
 statement, “My household’s overall quality of life is improving;” 48% disagreed, and 17% strongly
 disagreed with this statement.

  More than half of the respondents surveyed (58%) indicated the City’s website is their primary
 source of information about City issues, services, and events; 46% indicated it is the newspaper,
 and 36% indicated the local TV news is their primary source of information.

 Based on the sum of respondents’ top three choices, the most preferred methods of receiving
 information about the City were: 1) the City’s website, 2) newspaper, and 3) the weekly
 eNewsletter.

  Respondents were asked to indicate what issues they think will be the most significant over the
 next five years. Based on the sum of their top three choices, the most significant issues were: 1)
 homelessness, 2) housing, and 3) property tax rate and budget.




ETC Institute (2026) Page vi


 Page 94
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 How the City of Portland Compares to Other Communities Nationally

 The City of Portland rated above the National Average in 32 of the 54 areas that were assessed. The City
 rated significantly higher than the National Average (5% or more above) in 27 of these areas. The table
 below shows how the City of Portland compares to the National Average:
 Service Portland U.S. Difference Category
 Quality of customer service from City employees 66.8% 38.0% 28.8% City Services
 Curbside recycling services 80.3% 52.6% 27.7% Trash and Recycling Services
 Quality of solid waste services 70.6% 50.1% 20.5% City Services
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 83.2% 63.6% 19.6% Public Safety Services
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 85.8% 66.4% 19.4% Public Safety Services
 City's recognition of diversity in the community 64.0% 47.6% 16.4% Perceptions of the Community
 Overall quality of trash collection services 76.6% 60.8% 15.8% Trash and Recycling Services
 Quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 80.6% 65.2% 15.4% Public Safety Services
 Recycling drop-off services 59.8% 44.7% 15.1% Trash and Recycling Services
 Quality of fire protection 82.9% 68.0% 14.9% Public Safety Services
 In your neighborhood during the day 87.0% 72.3% 14.7% Perceptions of Safety
 Quality of public parks 62.8% 48.3% 14.5% City Services
 Snow removal on major City streets 65.7% 51.9% 13.8% Maintenance and Public Works
 Quality of public safety services 72.0% 58.8% 13.2% City Services
 Quality of local police services 60.6% 49.0% 11.6% Public Safety Services
 As a place to live 65.9% 54.7% 11.2% Perceptions of the Community
 Communication by the City with the community 48.2% 37.2% 11.0% City Services
 In your neighborhood at night 67.0% 56.2% 10.8% Perceptions of Safety
 Fall/Spring leaf & yard waste collection services 58.7% 48.5% 10.2% Trash and Recycling Services
 How quickly police respond to requests for services 61.7% 51.7% 10.0% Public Safety Services
 Condition of public buildings and facilities 61.4% 51.5% 9.9% Maintenance and Public Works
 Quality of stormwater management/flood control 57.6% 48.5% 9.1% City Services
 Availability of information about City news, programs and services 52.6% 44.1% 8.5% Communication and Transparency
 In commercial and retail areas 65.4% 57.2% 8.2% Perceptions of Safety
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 52.0% 44.2% 7.8% Maintenance and Public Works
 Quality of public transportation within the city 44.3% 38.6% 5.7% City Services
 Usefulness of information on the City's website 48.1% 42.4% 5.7% Communication and Transparency
 Quality of services provided by the City 47.1% 42.9% 4.2% Perceptions of the Community
 Quality of police community programs and outreach 45.9% 42.1% 3.8% Public Safety Services
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 46.9% 43.2% 3.7% Maintenance and Public Works
 Efforts to keep you informed about local issues 45.4% 42.0% 3.4% Communication and Transparency
 Condition of street signs and traffic signals 54.6% 54.4% 0.2% Maintenance and Public Works
 Overall feeling of safety in the City 57.0% 57.3% -0.3% Perceptions of Safety
 The City's use of social media 41.1% 42.0% -0.9% Communication and Transparency
 Adequacy of street lighting 51.1% 52.4% -1.3% Maintenance and Public Works
 Local-access television station 38.0% 41.1% -3.1% Communication and Transparency
 Timeliness of information provided by the City 38.9% 42.3% -3.4% Communication and Transparency
 Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage 36.1% 40.2% -4.1% Maintenance and Public Works
 Level of public involvement in local decision making 27.8% 34.7% -6.9% Communication and Transparency
 In the city's downtown area 43.4% 51.0% -7.6% Perceptions of Safety
 As a place to retire 38.6% 47.3% -8.7% Perceptions of the Community
 As a place to raise a family 47.8% 56.7% -8.9% Perceptions of the Community
 Flow of traffic/ease of getting around within City 34.1% 43.2% -9.1% City Services
 Condition of major City streets 33.7% 43.5% -9.8% Maintenance and Public Works
 Ease of getting around the city by public transportation 28.8% 38.6% -9.8% Transportation and Mobility
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 36.4% 46.6% -10.2% Public Safety Services
 In city parks 41.7% 52.4% -10.7% Perceptions of Safety
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 34.2% 45.7% -11.5% Maintenance and Public Works
 Maintenance of city streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure 25.4% 37.5% -12.1% City Services
 Value received for City taxes and fees 20.5% 32.7% -12.2% Perceptions of the Community
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 33.8% 49.2% -15.4% Maintenance and Public Works
 Condition of sidewalks 25.2% 42.8% -17.6% Maintenance and Public Works
 The City's efforts to prevent crime 26.0% 46.0% -20.0% Public Safety Services
 Accessibility of streets and sidewalks for people with disabilities 21.5% 46.2% -24.7% Transportation and Mobility

ETC Institute (2026) Page vii


 Page 95
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 How the City of Portland Compares to Other Communities in the Region

 The City of Portland rated above the Northeast Regional Average in 33 of the 54 areas that were assessed.
 The City rated significantly higher than the Northeast Regional Average (5% or more above) in 22 of these
 areas. The table below shows how the City of Portland compares to the Northeast Regional Average:
 Northeast
 Service Portland Region Difference Category
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 83.2% 52.5% 30.7% Public Safety Services
 Quality of customer service from City employees 66.8% 36.9% 29.9% City Services
 Quality of solid waste services 70.6% 45.5% 25.1% City Services
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 85.8% 60.9% 24.9% Public Safety Services
 Curbside recycling services 80.3% 56.6% 23.7% Trash and Recycling Services
 Quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 80.6% 58.4% 22.2% Public Safety Services
 Quality of fire protection 82.9% 66.2% 16.7% Public Safety Services
 Quality of public parks 62.8% 46.2% 16.6% City Services
 In your neighborhood during the day 87.0% 71.5% 15.5% Perceptions of Safety
 Overall quality of trash collection services 76.6% 61.5% 15.1% Trash and Recycling Services
 As a place to live 65.9% 51.9% 14.0% Perceptions of the Community
 Quality of public safety services 72.0% 58.2% 13.8% City Services
 Quality of local police services 60.6% 48.1% 12.5% Public Safety Services
 City's recognition of diversity in the community 64.0% 51.9% 12.1% Perceptions of the Community
 Quality of stormwater management/flood control 57.6% 45.9% 11.7% City Services
 Communication by the City with the community 48.2% 36.8% 11.4% City Services
 How quickly police respond to requests for services 61.7% 51.4% 10.3% Public Safety Services
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 46.9% 37.1% 9.8% Maintenance and Public Works
 Snow removal on major City streets 65.7% 56.4% 9.3% Maintenance and Public Works
 Condition of public buildings and facilities 61.4% 53.3% 8.1% Maintenance and Public Works
 In your neighborhood at night 67.0% 59.4% 7.6% Perceptions of Safety
 Fall/Spring leaf & yard waste collection services 58.7% 51.7% 7.0% Trash and Recycling Services
 Availability of information about City news, programs and services 52.6% 47.8% 4.8% Communication and Transparency
 Quality of police community programs and outreach 45.9% 42.0% 3.9% Public Safety Services
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 52.0% 48.2% 3.8% Maintenance and Public Works
 Recycling drop-off services 59.8% 56.1% 3.7% Trash and Recycling Services
 Quality of services provided by the City 47.1% 43.8% 3.3% Perceptions of the Community
 Usefulness of information on the City's website 48.1% 45.3% 2.8% Communication and Transparency
 In commercial and retail areas 65.4% 63.3% 2.1% Perceptions of Safety
 Adequacy of street lighting 51.1% 49.0% 2.1% Maintenance and Public Works
 Quality of public transportation within the city 44.3% 42.3% 2.0% City Services
 Condition of street signs and traffic signals 54.6% 52.9% 1.7% Maintenance and Public Works
 Efforts to keep you informed about local issues 45.4% 45.3% 0.1% Communication and Transparency
 Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage 36.1% 37.5% -1.4% Maintenance and Public Works
 Timeliness of information provided by the City 38.9% 41.3% -2.4% Communication and Transparency
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 36.4% 39.8% -3.4% Public Safety Services
 The City's use of social media 41.1% 45.7% -4.6% Communication and Transparency
 As a place to retire 38.6% 43.9% -5.3% Perceptions of the Community
 Overall feeling of safety in the City 57.0% 62.7% -5.7% Perceptions of Safety
 Condition of major City streets 33.7% 41.0% -7.3% Maintenance and Public Works
 Value received for City taxes and fees 20.5% 29.0% -8.5% Perceptions of the Community
 Maintenance of city streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure 25.4% 33.9% -8.5% City Services
 As a place to raise a family 47.8% 57.1% -9.3% Perceptions of the Community
 Flow of traffic/ease of getting around within City 34.1% 43.6% -9.5% City Services
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 34.2% 43.9% -9.7% Maintenance and Public Works
 Local-access television station 38.0% 49.7% -11.7% Communication and Transparency
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 33.8% 45.8% -12.0% Maintenance and Public Works
 In city parks 41.7% 53.8% -12.1% Perceptions of Safety
 In the city's downtown area 43.4% 55.6% -12.2% Perceptions of Safety
 Ease of getting around the city by public transportation 28.8% 42.3% -13.5% Transportation and Mobility
 Condition of sidewalks 25.2% 39.4% -14.2% Maintenance and Public Works
 Level of public involvement in local decision making 27.8% 42.1% -14.3% Communication and Transparency
 The City's efforts to prevent crime 26.0% 43.0% -17.0% Public Safety Services
 Accessibility of streets and sidewalks for people with disabilities 21.5% 44.5% -23.0% Transportation and Mobility

ETC Institute (2026) Page viii


 Page 96
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 Executive Summary

 Investment Priorities

 To ensure the City continues to deliver a high quality of services to residents, ETC Institute recommends the
 City emphasize the following areas.
 • Major Categories of City Services. The chart below shows the Importance-Satisfaction Analysis for the
 thirteen City services analyzed. Based on the results of this analysis, four services that are
 recommended as the top priorities for investment over the next two years in order to raise the City’s
 overall satisfaction rating are:

  Overall maintenance of city streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure
  Overall flow of traffic and ease of getting around within the city
  Overall quality of social services provided by the City
  Overall quality of public transportation within the city




ETC Institute (2026) Page ix


 Page 97
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 1 Charts and Graphs




ETC Institute (2026) Page 1
 Page 98
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q1. Overall Satisfaction With City Services
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)


 Quality of the Portland Jetport 32% 49% 15% 3%


 Quality of public safety services 23% 49% 19% 9%

 Quality of solid waste services 22% 49% 15% 15%

 Quality of customer service from City employees 21% 46% 24% 10%

 Quality of winter snow plowing and removal 18% 46% 16% 21%

 Quality of public parks 15% 48% 16% 21%

 Quality of stormwater management/flood control 13% 45% 31% 11%

 Communication by the City with the community 8% 40% 34% 18%

 Quality of public transportation within the city 10% 34% 28% 28%

 Flow of traffic/ease of getting around within City 3% 31% 25% 41%

 Quality of social services provided by the City 8% 22% 40% 31%

 Quality of community engagement by City officials 3% 25% 40% 31%
  Maintenance of city of
 Maintenance streets, sidewalks,
 city streets, and and
 infrastructure
 sidewalks, infras 3% 23% 24% 50%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)

ETC Institute (2026) Page 2
 Page 99
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Q2. City Services That Should Receive the Most Emphasis
 Over the Next Two Years
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices


 Maintenance
 Maintenance of city of city streets,
 streets, sidewalks,
 sidewalks,  and and infras
 infrastructure 59%
 Flow of traffic/ease of getting around within City 43%
 Quality of social services provided by the City 30%
 Quality of public transportation within the city 29%
 Quality of public parks 25%
 Communication by the City with the community 19%
 Quality of community engagement by City officials 19%
 Quality of public safety services 18%
 Quality of winter snow plowing and removal 18%
 Quality of solid waste services 10%
 Quality of customer service from City employees 6%
 Quality of stormwater management/flood control 5%
 Quality of the Portland Jetport 2%
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice

ETC Institute (2026) Page 3
 Page 100
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Q3. Satisfaction With Items That Influence Perceptions
 of Portland as a Community
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)


 Shopping & dining opportunities in Portland 34% 43% 15% 8%
 Quality of life in your neighborhood 31% 45% 13% 12%
 Quality/variety of shopping & dining opportunities 31% 44% 16% 10%
 Portland as a place to live 25% 41% 17% 17%
 Portland as a welcoming community 21% 44% 24% 11%
 City's recognition of diversity in the community 21% 43% 27% 9%
 Quality of life in the city 16% 46% 21% 18%
 Portland as a place to raise a family 18% 29% 26% 26%
 Quality of services provided by the City 7% 40% 33% 20%
 Portland as a place to retire 15% 24% 24% 37%
 How easy it is to access City programs and service 6% 32% 44% 19%
 Overall direction in which the city is moving 4% 19% 28% 49%
 Value received for City taxes and fees 3% 17% 26% 54%
 How fairly City resources are allocated 2% 13% 37% 49%
 Availability of affordable housing options 3% 6% 15% 75%
 Affordability of living in Portland 2% 6% 16% 76%
 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)

ETC Institute (2026) Page 4
 Page 101
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q4. Trust in the City of Portland’s Local Government
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)




 35%



 5%


 34%
 26%




 High Somewhat high Somewhat low Low



ETC Institute (2026) Page 5
 Page 102
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q5. To what extent do you agree with the following statement?
 “My household’s overall quality of life is improving.”
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)




 32%



 3%


 48% 17%




 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree


ETC Institute (2026) Page 6
 Page 103
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q6. Perceptions of Safety in the Following Situations
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)




 In your neighborhood during the day 48% 40% 9% 4%



 In your neighborhood at night 26% 41% 18% 15%



 In commercial and retail areas 19% 46% 20% 14%



 Overall feeling of safety in the city 14% 43% 20% 23%



 In Portland's downtown area 11% 33% 22% 34%



 In city parks 10% 32% 23% 35%


 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Safe (5) Safe (4) Neutral (3) Unsafe (2/1)


ETC Institute (2026) Page 7
 Page 104
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q7. Satisfaction With Public Safety Services
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)



 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 44% 44% 11% 1%




 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 37% 49% 13% 1%




 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 36% 48% 16% 1%




 Quality of fire protection 33% 50% 16% 2%



 Quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 32% 49% 18% 2%



  Quality of of
 Quality  service when
 service calling
 when 911911
 calling  with an an
 with emergency
 emerge 32% 41% 22% 5%

 Professionalism of police officers 30% 40% 18% 11%

 How quickly police respond to requests for service 21% 40% 26% 13%

 Quality of local police services 21% 40% 26% 14%

 Quality of police community programs and outreach 18% 28% 36% 18%

 Enforcement of local traffic laws 7% 30% 23% 40%

 The City's efforts to prevent crime 5% 21% 32% 43%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)



ETC Institute (2026) Page 8
 Page 105
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q8. Public Safety Services That Should Receive the Most
 Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices

 The City's efforts to prevent crime 63%

 Enforcement of local traffic laws 46%

 Quality of police community programs and outreach 37%

 Quality of local police services 26%

 How quickly police respond to requests for service 17%

 Professionalism of police officers 16%

 Quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 12%

 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 9%

 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 6%

 Quality of fire protection 6%
 Quality of service
 Quality when
 of service calling
 when 911911
 calling  with an an
 with emergency
 emerge 6%

 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 2%

 0% 20% 40% 60%

 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice


ETC Institute (2026) Page 9
 Page 106
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q9. Trust in Portland’s Police Department
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)




 27%


 44%

 11%


 18%




 High Somewhat high Somewhat low Low



ETC Institute (2026) Page 10
 Page 107
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q10. Satisfaction With Trash and Recycling
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)



 Curbside recycling services 34% 46% 12% 8%


 Overall quality of trash collection services 31% 46% 14% 10%


 Holiday tree collection services 25% 47% 25% 3%




 Quality of composting drop-off locations 24% 38% 29% 9%


 Riverside Recycling drop-off services 22% 38% 26% 15%


 Fall/Spring leaf & yard waste collection services 20% 39% 28% 13%


 Purple/City trash bag program 14% 25% 19% 43%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)



ETC Institute (2026) Page 11
 Page 108
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q11. Satisfaction With Maintenance and Public Works
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)


 Snow removal on major City streets 15% 51% 20% 14%

 Condition of public buildings and facilities 8% 54% 31% 8%

 Condition of street signs and traffic signals 7% 47% 27% 18%

 Tree trimming along streets and public areas 9% 45% 31% 16%

 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 11% 42% 22% 26%

 Adequacy of street lighting 7% 45% 20% 29%

 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 7% 40% 22% 31%

 Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage 6% 30% 28% 36%

 Condition of pavement markings on streets 4% 31% 33% 33%

 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 4% 30% 21% 45%

 Condition of major City streets 3% 31% 27% 39%

 Snow removal on sidewalks 6% 25% 25% 44%

 Condition of sidewalks 2% 23% 24% 51%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)


ETC Institute (2026) Page 12
 Page 109
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q12. Maintenance and Public Works Services That Should
 Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices


 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 44%
 Condition of sidewalks 39%
 Condition of major City streets 31%
 Snow removal on sidewalks 29%
 Adequacy of street lighting 26%
 Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage 25%
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 18%
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 18%
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 12%
 Condition of street signs and traffic signals 9%
 Snow removal on major City streets 8%
 Tree trimming along streets and public areas 7%
 Condition of public buildings and facilities 7%
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice

ETC Institute (2026) Page 13
 Page 110
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q13. Satisfaction With Transportation and Mobility
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)


 Ease of using the Portland Jetport 40% 45% 12% 4%

 Facilities and amenities at the Jetport 26% 46% 23% 5%

 Ease of getting around the city by walking 15% 50% 19% 16%

 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 17% 47% 15% 20%

 Availability of sidewalks throughout the city 10% 47% 22% 20%

 Ease of getting around the city by car 10% 44% 27% 20%

 Accessibility
 Accessibility of public of public for
 buildings  buildings
 peoplefor people
 with with 7%
 disabilities 34% 44% 16%

 Availability of effective way finding and signage 6% 34% 40% 19%

 Ease of getting around the city by bicycle 6% 26% 32% 37%
 Ease of getting
 Ease around
 of getting the city
 around  thebycity
 public transportation
 by public transpor 5% 24% 30% 41%

 Availability of public parking 6% 16% 21% 57%

 Accessibility
  Accessibility of streets and of  streets for
 sidewalks  andpeople
 sidewalks
 withfor people 4%
 disabilities 18% 31% 48%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)


ETC Institute (2026) Page 14
 Page 111
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q14. Transportation and Mobility Services That Should
 Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices


 Availability of public parking 47%
 Ease of getting
 Ease around
 of getting the city
 around  thebycity
 public transportation
 by public transpor 40%
 Accessibility of Accessibility
 streets and sidewalks
 of streetsfor
 andpeople withfor
 sidewalks  disabilities
 people 35%

 Ease of getting around the city by bicycle 30%

 Ease of getting around the city by walking 28%

 Ease of getting around the city by car 21%

 Availability of sidewalks throughout the city 19%

 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 12%

 Availability of effective way finding and signage 11%

 Accessibility
 Accessibility of public of public for
 buildings buildings
 peoplefor people
 with with
 disabilities 10%

 Facilities and amenities at the Jetport 5%

 Ease of using the Portland Jetport 5%
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice

ETC Institute (2026) Page 15
 Page 112
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q15. Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)


 Quality of Merrill Auditorium 32% 51% 15% 2%
 Quality of multi-use trails 24% 51% 14% 11%
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 18% 52% 25% 6%
 Connectivity of local trails and parks 17% 50% 21% 12%
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields 9% 53% 29% 9%
 Condition of public playgrounds 11% 50% 28% 12%
 Quality of community and neighborhood parks 10% 49% 22% 19%
 Quality of major City parks 14% 45% 16% 26%
 Quality of City special events 12% 45% 34% 9%
 Adult Sports Leagues/Adult recreation programs 13% 43% 38% 7%
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 11% 42% 42% 6%
 Quality of the James
 Quality A. Banks,
 of the Sr.Banks,
 James A. Portland  ExpositionExposi
 Sr. Portland Bldg. 10% 43% 37% 11%
  Tennis amenities  and condition
 Tennis amenities of tennis &ofpickleball
 and condition courts
 tennis and pickl 12% 41% 42% 6%
 Youth recreation programs 9% 34% 50% 7%
 After-school childcare program 12% 26% 51% 12%
 Condition of  indoor  recreational facilities/community centers
 Condition of indoor recreational facilities/commun 6% 31% 49% 15%
 Aquatic programs 7% 23% 42% 29%
 Senior programs 7% 20% 55% 18%
 Condition of aquatic facilities 5% 14% 41% 41%
 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)

ETC Institute (2026) Page 16
 Page 113
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Q16. Parks and Recreation Services That Should Receive
 the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices

 Quality of major City parks 35%
 Quality of community and neighborhood parks 30%
 Connectivity of local trails and parks 28%
 Quality of multi-use trails 20%
 After-school childcare program 20%
 Condition of public playgrounds 18%
 Condition of aquatic facilities 14%
 Youth recreation programs 11%
 Senior programs 11%
 Aquatic programs 10%
 Condition Condition
 of indoor recreational facilities/community
 of indoor recreational centers
 facilities/commun 10%
 Quality of City special events 8%
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields 6%
 Adult Sports Leagues/Adult recreation programs 5%
 Tennis amenities
 Tennis and condition
 amenities  and of tennis &
 condition pickleball
 of tennis andcourts
 pickl 3%
 Quality ofQuality
 the James A.James
 of the  Banks,A.Sr.Banks,
 Portland  Exposition
 Sr. Portland Bldg.
 Exposi 3%
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 2%
 Quality of Merrill Auditorium 2%
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 1%
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice

ETC Institute (2026) Page 17
 Page 114
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q17. Satisfaction With Economic Development
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)



 Availability of places to shop, dine, or get services
 Availability of places to shop, dine,
 in your or get servi
 neighborhood 23% 44% 19% 14%



 How active and inviting businesses are 14% 46% 27% 13%



 Variety of local businesses in your area 17% 42% 22% 19%


 Condition and appearance of local shopping and
 Condition and appearance of local shopping and
 business bus
 areas 11% 45% 24% 20%



 Overall strength of the local economy 5% 27% 33% 36%



 Availability of good jobs in Portland 3% 22% 35% 40%


 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)

ETC Institute (2026) Page 18
 Page 115
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q18. Satisfaction With Communication and Transparency
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don't know”)


 Availability of information
 Availability in a language
 of information I understand
 in a language I unders 45% 35% 19% 2%




 The City's use of digital tools 12% 42% 33% 13%

 Availability of information about City news, programs
 Availability of information about City and
 news, progr
 services 10% 42% 30% 18%

 Usefulness of information on the City's website 6% 42% 34% 18%

 Efforts to keep you informed about local issues 9% 36% 28% 27%

 The City's use of social media 8% 34% 46% 13%

 Timeliness of information provided by the City 6% 33% 36% 25%

 Local-access television station 8% 30% 49% 14%

 Level
 Level of of public
 public involvement
 involvement in in local
 local decision
 decision maki 4%
 making 24% 31% 41%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)

ETC Institute (2026) Page 19
 Page 116
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q19. Primary Sources of Information About City Issues,
 Services, and Events
 by percentage of respondents (multiple selections could be made)


 City's website 58%

 Newspaper 46%

 Local TV news 36%

 Weekly eNewsletter 28%

 Facebook 26%

 Radio 20%

 Instagram 19%

 NextDoor 15%

 Local Access Cable 4%

 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%



ETC Institute (2026) Page 20
 Page 117
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Q20. Most Preferred Methods of Receiving Information
 About the City
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices



 City's website 56%

 Newspaper 39%

 Weekly eNewsletter 35%

 Local TV news 29%

 Facebook 21%

 Instagram 19%

 Radio 18%

 NextDoor 7%

 Local Access Cable 4%

 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice

ETC Institute (2026) Page 21
 Page 118
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




  Q21. Have you interacted with the City during the past year?
 by percentage of respondents




 67%




 33%




 Yes No




ETC Institute (2026) Page 22
 Page 119
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Q21a. Satisfaction with Quality of Customer Service
 from City Employees
 by percentage of respondents who interacted with the City during the past year (excluding “don't know”)




 Level of courtesy you received 42% 39% 13% 6%




 Technical
 Technical competence
 competence and
 and knowledge
 knowledge ofof Cityemployees
 City employe 40% 37% 15% 8%




 Overall
 Overall satisfaction
 satisfaction with
 with customer
 customer service
 service experie
 experience 38% 38% 14% 10%




 How easy the department was to contact 28% 47% 14% 11%



 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (2/1)


ETC Institute (2026) Page 23
 Page 120
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Q22. Issues That Residents Think Will be the Most
 Significant Over the Next 5 Years
 by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices


 Homelessness 63%

 Housing 57%

 Property Tax Rate & Budget 40%

 Substance Use & Mental Health 31%

 Public Safety & Crime 23%

 Jobs & Economic Opportunity 23%

 Transportation & Mobility 13%

 Climate Change 12%

 Immigrant Support & Equity 11%

 Trust/Transparency in Local Government 8%

 Public Parks & Recreation Facilities 6%

 Public Health 5%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice

ETC Institute (2026) Page 24
 Page 121
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q23. Demographics: Approximately how many years
 have you lived in Portland?
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “not provided”)




 20%

 19%
 15%




 46%




 Less than 5 years 5 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years




ETC Institute (2026) Page 25
 Page 122
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q24. Demographics: Ages of Household Members
 by percentage of persons in the household




 37%
 12%

 5%
 6%

 10%
 30%




 Ages 5 and under Ages 6 to 19 Ages 20 to 44
 Ages 45 to 64 Ages 65 to 74 Ages 75+




ETC Institute (2026) Page 26
 Page 123
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q25. Demographics: Do you own or rent your
 current residence?
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “not provided”)




 56%




 44%




 Own Rent

 0.5% selected “other”

ETC Institute (2026) Page 27
 Page 124
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q26. Demographics: Age of Respondent
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “not provided”)




 21%


 20% 19%




 20% 20%




 Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+




ETC Institute (2026) Page 28
 Page 125
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q27. Demographics: Race/Ethnicity
 by percentage of respondents (multiple selections could be made)




 White 80%


 Black or African American 9%


 Asian or Asian Indian 3%


 Hispanic or Latino 3%


 American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4%
 0%


 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1%
 0%


 Other 1%

 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



ETC Institute (2026) Page 29
 Page 126
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q28. Demographics: Gender
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “prefer not to answer”)




 49%




 1%




 50%




 Male Female Non-Binary/Gender Non-Conforming


 0.2% self-identified as transgender man
 0.1% self-identified as transgender woman
 0.1% self-identified as other

ETC Institute (2026) Page 30
 Page 127
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q29. Demographics: Total Household Income
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “not provided”)




 21%


 24% 12%




 25%
 18%




 Under $30,000 $30K-$59,999 $60K-$99,999 $100K-$129,999 $130K+




ETC Institute (2026) Page 31
 Page 128
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q30. Demographics: Current Employment Status
 by percentage of respondents (excluding “not provided”)




 60%




 4%
 11%
 1%
 25%




 Employed outside home Employed in the home/have a home-based business Student
 Retired Not currently employed outside home




ETC Institute (2026) Page 32
 Page 129
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 2 Benchmarking
 Analysis




ETC Institute (2026) Page 33
 Page 130
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




  Benchmarking Analysis
 Overview
 ETC Institute's DirectionFinder® program was originally developed in 1999 to help community leaders
 across the United States use statistically valid community survey data as a tool for making better
 decisions. Since November 1999, the survey has been administered in more than 1,000 cities and
 counties in 49 states.

 This report contains benchmarking data from two sources. The first source is from a national survey that
 was administered by ETC Institute during the summer of 2025 to a random sample of residents in the
 continental United States. The second source is from a regional survey administered to a random sample
 of residents in the Northeast Region of the United States during the summer of 2025. The states that
 make up the Northeast Region are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
 Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York.

 The “U.S. Average” shown in the charts reflects the overall results of ETC Institute’s national survey of
 residents; the “Northeast Regional Average” shown in the charts reflects the results of the regional
 survey of residents in the Northeast Region.




ETC Institute (2026) Page 34
 Page 131
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 National Benchmarks
 Note: The benchmarking data contained in this report is protected
 intellectual property. Any reproduction of the benchmarking
 information in this report by persons or organizations not directly
 affiliated with Portland, Maine is not authorized without written
 consent from ETC Institute.




ETC Institute (2026) Page 35
 Page 132
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Satisfaction With City Services
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding “don't know”)

 72.0%
 Quality of public safety services 58.2%
 58.8%
 70.6%
 Quality of solid waste services 45.5%
 50.1%
 66.8%
 Quality of customer service from City employees 36.9%
 38.0%
 62.8%
 Quality of public parks 46.2%
 48.3%
 57.6%
 Quality of stormwater management/flood control 45.9%
 48.5%
 48.2%
 Communication by the City with the community 36.8%
 37.2%
 44.3%
 Quality of public transportation within the city 42.3%
 38.6%
 34.1%
 Flow of traffic/ease of getting around within City 43.6%
 43.2%
 25.4%
 Maintenance of city streets,
 Maintenance sidewalks,
 of city streets, and infrastructure
 sidewalks, and infras 33.9%
 37.5%
 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 36
 Page 133
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Satisfaction With Items That Influence Perceptions
 of the Community
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding “don't know”)


 65.9%
 As a place to live 51.9%
 54.7%

 64.0%
 City's recognition of diversity in the community 51.9%
 47.6%

 47.8%
 As a place to raise a family 57.1%
 56.7%

 47.1%
 Quality of services provided by the City 43.8%
 42.9%

 38.6%
 As a place to retire 43.9%
 47.3%

 20.5%
 Value received for City taxes and fees 29.0%
 32.7%

 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 37
 Page 134
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Perceptions of Safety in the Following Situatiobns
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very safe" and 1 was "very unsafe" (excluding don't knows)



 87.0%
 In your neighborhood during the day 71.5%
 72.3%
 67.0%
 In your neighborhood at night 59.4%
 56.2%
 65.4%
 In commercial and retail areas 63.3%
 57.2%
 57.0%
 Overall feeling of safety in the City 62.7%
 57.3%
 43.4%
 In the city's downtown area 55.6%
 51.0%
 41.7%
 In city parks 53.8%
 52.4%
 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 38
 Page 135
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Satisfaction With Public Safety Services
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding “don't know”)


 85.8%
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 60.9%
 66.4%
 83.2%
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 52.5%
 63.6%
 82.9%
 Quality of fire protection 66.2%
 68.0%
 80.6%
 Quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 58.4%
 65.2%
 61.7%
 How quickly police respond to requests for service 51.4%
 51.7%
 60.6%
 Quality of local police services 48.1%
 49.0%
 45.9%
 Quality of police community programs and outreach 42.0%
 42.1%
 36.4%
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 39.8%
 46.6%
 26.0%
 The City's efforts to prevent crime 43.0%
 46.0%
 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 39
 Page 136
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



 Satisfaction With Trash and Recycling Services
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows)



 80.3%
 Curbside recycling services 56.6%
 52.6%

 76.6%
 Overall quality of trash collection services 61.5%
 60.8%

 59.8%
 Recycling drop-off services 56.1%
 44.7%

 58.7%
 Fall/Spring leaf & yard waste collection services 51.7%
 48.5%

 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

 Portland Northeast Region U.S.


ETC Institute (2026) Page 40
 Page 137
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Satisfaction With Maintenance and Public Works
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows)

 65.7%
 Snow removal on major City streets 56.4%
 51.9%
 61.4%
 Condition of public buildings and facilities 53.3%
 51.5%
 54.6%
 Condition of street signs and traffic signals 52.9%
 54.4%
 52.0%
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 48.2%
 44.2%
 51.1%
 Adequacy of street lighting 49.0%
 52.4%
 46.9%
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 37.1%
 43.2%
 36.1%
 Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage 37.5%
 40.2%
 34.2%
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 43.9%
 45.7%
 33.8%
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 45.8%
 49.2%
 33.7%
 Condition of major City streets 41.0%
 43.5%
 25.2%
 Condition of sidewalks 39.4%
 42.8%
 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 41
 Page 138
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Satisfaction With Transportation and Mobility
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows)




 28.8%


 Ease of getting
 Ease around
 of getting the city
 around theby  public
 city transportation
 by public transpor 42.3%



 38.6%




 21.5%


 Accessibility of
 Accessibility ofstreets
 streetsand
 andsidewalks
 sidewalksfor
 forpeople
 people 44.5%
 with disabilities

 46.2%



 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 42
 Page 139
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Satisfaction With Communication and Transparency
 Portland vs. Northeast Region vs. the U.S.
 by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale
 where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows)


 Availability of information about City news, programs 52.6%
 Availability of information about City news, progr
 and services 47.8%
 44.1%
 48.1%
 Usefulness of information on the City's website 45.3%
 42.4%
 45.4%
 Efforts to keep you informed about local issues 45.3%
 42.0%
 41.1%
 The City's use of social media 45.7%
 42.0%
 38.9%
 Timeliness of information provided by the City 41.3%
 42.3%
 38.0%
 Local-access television station 49.7%
 41.1%
 27.8%
 Level ofof
 Level public involvement
 public inin
 involvement  local decision
 local decisionmaking
 maki 42.1%
 34.7%

 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
 Portland Northeast Region U.S.

ETC Institute (2026) Page 43
 Page 140
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 3 Importance-Satisfaction
 Analysis




ETC Institute (2026) Page 44
 Page 141
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




  Importance-Satisfaction Analysis
 Importance-Satisfaction Matrix Analysis

 The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that public agencies will maximize overall
 customer satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those areas where the level of satisfaction is
 relatively low, and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. ETC Institute developed an
 Importance-Satisfaction Matrix to display the perceived importance of major services that were assessed
 on the survey against the perceived quality of service delivery. The two axes on the matrix represent
 Satisfaction (vertical) and relative Importance (horizontal).

 The I-S (Importance-Satisfaction) matrix should be interpreted as follows.

  Continued Emphasis (above average importance and above average satisfaction). This area
 shows where the City is meeting customer expectations. Items in this area have a significant
 impact on the customer’s overall level of satisfaction. The City should maintain (or slightly
 increase) emphasis on items in this area.

  Exceeding Expectations (below average importance and above average satisfaction). This area
 shows where the City is performing significantly better than customers expect the City to
 perform. Items in this area do not significantly affect the overall level of satisfaction that
 residents have with City services. The City should maintain (or slightly decrease) emphasis on
 items in this area.

  Opportunities for Improvement (above average importance and below average satisfaction).
 This area shows where the City is not performing as well as residents expect the City to perform.
 This area has a significant impact on customer satisfaction, and the City should DEFINITELY
 increase emphasis on items in this area.

  Less Important (below average importance and below average satisfaction). This area shows
 where the City is not performing well relative to its performance in other areas; however, this
 area is generally considered to be less important to residents. This area does not significantly
 affect overall satisfaction with City services because the items are less important to residents.
 The agency should maintain current levels of emphasis on items in this area.

 Matrix charts showing the results for the City of Portland are provided on the following pages.




ETC Institute (2026) Page 45
 Page 142
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
 -Major Categories of City Services-
 Exceeded Expectations Overall quality of the Portland Continued Emphasis
 ,
 lower importance/higher Satisfaction Jetport higher importance/higher Satisfaction



 Overall quality of public safety services
 Overall quality of solid waste services, ,
 Overall quality of customer service you receive from City employees
 ,
 Overall quality of winter snow plowing and removal , ,Overall quality of public parks



 Very Satisfied
 ,
 Overall quality of stormwater management/flood control




 Overall communication by the City with the community ,
 , Overall quality of public transportation within the city

 Overall flow of traffic and ease of getting around within the City
 ,
 Overall quality of community engagement by City officials , , Overall quality of social services provided by the City
 Overall maintenance of city streets, sidewalks, and
 Less Important infrastructure ,
 Opportunities for Improvement
 lower importance/lower Satisfaction higher importance/lower Satisfaction

 Very Important

ETC Institute (2026) Page 46
 Page 143
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
 -Public Safety-
 Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
 lower importance/higher Satisfaction higher importance/higher Satisfaction




 How quickly EMS
 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders, ,
 services responds
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies to emergencies
 , ,
 Overall quality of fire protection
 Overall quality of emergency medical/ambulance services ,



 Very Satisfied
 Quality of service when calling 911 with an emergency
 ,
 Professionalism of police officers ,
 How quickly police respond to requests for services , ,Overall quality of local police services

 Quality of police community programs and outreach
 ,

 , Enforcement of local traffic laws

 The City's efforts to prevent crime ,
 Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
 lower importance/lower Satisfaction higher importance/lower Satisfaction

 Very Important

ETC Institute (2026) Page 47
 Page 144
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
 -Maintenance and Public Works-
 Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
 lower importance/higher Satisfaction higher importance/higher Satisfaction




 Snow removal on major City streets ,
 Condition of public buildings and facilities ,



 Very Satisfied
 Condition of street signs and traffic signals
 Tree trimming along streets and public areas ,,
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets , ,Adequacy of street lighting
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood ,


 Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage

 , , Condition of major City streets
 Condition of pavement markings on streets , ,  Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, and
 ,
 Snow removal on sidewalks
 public spaces

 , Condition of sidewalks




 Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
 lower importance/lower Satisfaction higher importance/lower Satisfaction

 Very Important

ETC Institute (2026) Page 48
 Page 145
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
 -Transportation and Mobility-
 Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
 lower importance/higher Satisfaction higher importance/higher Satisfaction

 Ease of using the Portland Jetport ,

 Facilities and amenities at the Jetport ,
 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood , ,Ease of getting around the city by walking



 Very Satisfied
 Availability of sidewalks throughout the city ,
 ,Ease of getting around the city by car

 Availability of effective way finding and signage ,,
 Accessibility of public buildings for people with disabilities


 ,Ease of getting around  the city by bicycle
 , Ease of getting around the city by public
 transportation
 ,Availability
 ,Accessibility of streets of public parking
 and sidewalks for people
 with disabilities




 Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
 lower importance/lower Satisfaction higher importance/lower Satisfaction


 Very Important
ETC Institute (2026) Page 49
 Page 146
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
 -Parks and Recreation-
 Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
 lower importance/higher Satisfaction higher importance/higher Satisfaction



 Quality of Merrill Auditorium ,
 ,Quality of multi-use trails
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium ,
 ,Connectivity of local trails and parks



 Very Satisfied
 ,
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields
 ,
 Quality of community and neighborhood parks
 Quality of City special events , ,
 Quality of major City parks
 , ,
 Condition of public playgrounds
 Adult Sports Leagues/Adult recreation programs
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena
 ,,,
 Quality of James A. Banks, Sr. Tennis
 Portland Exposition Building amenities
 Youth recreation programs ,
 ,
 Condition of indoor recreational facilities/community centers , After-school childcare program
 Aquatic programs ,
 Senior programs ,


 , Condition of aquatic facilities

 Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
 lower importance/lower Satisfaction higher importance/lower Satisfaction

 Very Important

ETC Institute (2026) Page 50
 Page 147
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 4 Tabular Data




ETC Institute (2026) Page 51
 Page 148
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q1. Overall Satisfaction with City Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a
scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q1-1. Overall communication
by City with the community 7.6% 39.1% 33.1% 12.6% 4.5% 3.1%

Q1-2. Overall flow of traffic &
ease of getting around within
City 3.2% 30.6% 24.5% 29.9% 11.2% 0.6%

Q1-3. Overall maintenance of
City streets, sidewalks, &
infrastructure 2.8% 22.6% 24.1% 35.8% 14.5% 0.3%

Q1-4. Overall quality of
community engagement by
City officials 3.1% 23.0% 36.7% 19.3% 9.3% 8.5%

Q1-5. Overall quality of
customer service you receive
from City employees 19.1% 41.6% 21.4% 6.5% 2.3% 9.1%

Q1-6. Overall quality of
public parks 14.2% 47.1% 15.8% 13.9% 6.6% 2.3%

Q1-7. Overall quality of
public safety services (police,
fire, EMS) 20.7% 45.1% 17.3% 6.1% 2.2% 8.5%

Q1-8. Overall quality of
public transportation within
City (bus, rail, ferry) 8.3% 28.7% 23.3% 16.2% 7.0% 16.5%

Q1-9. Overall quality of
social services provided by
City 5.3% 15.2% 28.2% 12.9% 8.5% 29.9%

Q1-10. Overall quality of
solid waste services (trash,
recycling, yard waste) 20.4% 46.7% 13.8% 10.9% 3.1% 5.0%

Q1-11. Overall quality of
stormwater management/
flood control 11.2% 38.1% 26.6% 6.6% 3.1% 14.3%


ETC Institute (2026) Page 52
 Page 149
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q1. Overall Satisfaction with City Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a
scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q1-12. Overall quality of
Portland Jetport 29.9% 45.9% 14.2% 2.4% 0.7% 6.8%

Q1-13. Overall quality of
winter snow plowing & removal 17.4% 45.0% 15.4% 15.6% 5.3% 1.4%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 53
 Page 150
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q1. Overall Satisfaction with City Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a
scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q1-1. Overall
communication by City
with the community 7.8% 40.4% 34.2% 13.0% 4.6%

Q1-2. Overall flow of
traffic & ease of getting
around within City 3.3% 30.8% 24.6% 30.0% 11.3%

Q1-3. Overall
maintenance of City
streets, sidewalks, &
infrastructure 2.8% 22.6% 24.2% 35.9% 14.5%

Q1-4. Overall quality of
community engagement
by City officials 3.4% 25.2% 40.1% 21.1% 10.1%

Q1-5. Overall quality of
customer service you
receive from City
employees 21.0% 45.8% 23.5% 7.1% 2.6%

Q1-6. Overall quality of
public parks 14.5% 48.3% 16.2% 14.3% 6.7%

Q1-7. Overall quality of
public safety services
(police, fire, EMS) 22.6% 49.4% 18.9% 6.7% 2.5%

Q1-8. Overall quality of
public transportation
within City (bus, rail, ferry) 9.9% 34.4% 27.9% 19.4% 8.4%

Q1-9. Overall quality of
social services provided
by City 7.6% 21.7% 40.3% 18.3% 12.2%

Q1-10. Overall quality of
solid waste services (trash,
recycling, yard waste) 21.5% 49.1% 14.6% 11.5% 3.3%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 54
 Page 151
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q1. Overall Satisfaction with City Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a
scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q1-11. Overall quality of
stormwater management/
flood control 13.1% 44.5% 31.1% 7.7% 3.7%

Q1-12. Overall quality of
Portland Jetport 32.1% 49.2% 15.3% 2.6% 0.8%

Q1-13. Overall quality of
winter snow plowing &
removal 17.6% 45.6% 15.6% 15.8% 5.4%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 55
 Page 152
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q2. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 1 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q2. Top choice Number Percent
 Overall communication by City with the community 60 5.4 %
 Overall flow of traffic & ease of getting around within City 207 18.6 %
 Overall maintenance of City streets, sidewalks, &
 infrastructure 291 26.2 %
 Overall quality of community engagement by City
 officials 52 4.7 %
 Overall quality of customer service you receive from
 City employees 8 0.7 %
 Overall quality of public parks 75 6.7 %
 Overall quality of public safety services (police, fire,
 EMS) 48 4.3 %
 Overall quality of public transportation within City (bus,
 rail, ferry) 125 11.2 %
 Overall quality of social services provided by City 129 11.6 %
 Overall quality of solid waste services (trash, recycling,
 yard waste) 30 2.7 %
 Overall quality of stormwater management/flood control 6 0.5 %
 Overall quality of Portland Jetport 5 0.4 %
 Overall quality of winter snow plowing & removal 47 4.2 %
 None chosen 29 2.6 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 56
 Page 153
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q2. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 1 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q2. 2nd choice Number Percent
 Overall communication by City with the community 67 6.0 %
 Overall flow of traffic & ease of getting around within City 155 13.9 %
 Overall maintenance of City streets, sidewalks, &
 infrastructure 225 20.2 %
 Overall quality of community engagement by City
 officials 62 5.6 %
 Overall quality of customer service you receive from
 City employees 23 2.1 %
 Overall quality of public parks 99 8.9 %
 Overall quality of public safety services (police, fire,
 EMS) 78 7.0 %
 Overall quality of public transportation within City (bus,
 rail, ferry) 116 10.4 %
 Overall quality of social services provided by City 91 8.2 %
 Overall quality of solid waste services (trash, recycling,
 yard waste) 39 3.5 %
 Overall quality of stormwater management/flood control 19 1.7 %
 Overall quality of Portland Jetport 13 1.2 %
 Overall quality of winter snow plowing & removal 66 5.9 %
 None chosen 59 5.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 57
 Page 154
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q2. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 1 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q2. 3rd choice Number Percent
 Overall communication by City with the community 81 7.3 %
 Overall flow of traffic & ease of getting around within City 117 10.5 %
 Overall maintenance of City streets, sidewalks, &
 infrastructure 143 12.9 %
 Overall quality of community engagement by City
 officials 91 8.2 %
 Overall quality of customer service you receive from
 City employees 34 3.1 %
 Overall quality of public parks 109 9.8 %
 Overall quality of public safety services (police, fire,
 EMS) 76 6.8 %
 Overall quality of public transportation within City (bus,
 rail, ferry) 87 7.8 %
 Overall quality of social services provided by City 110 9.9 %
 Overall quality of solid waste services (trash, recycling,
 yard waste) 44 4.0 %
 Overall quality of stormwater management/flood control 28 2.5 %
 Overall quality of Portland Jetport 8 0.7 %
 Overall quality of winter snow plowing & removal 83 7.5 %
 None chosen 101 9.1 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 58
 Page 155
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES
Q2. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 1 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years? (top 3)

 Q2. Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent
 Overall communication by City with the community 208 18.7 %
 Overall flow of traffic & ease of getting around within City 479 43.1 %
 Overall maintenance of City streets, sidewalks, &
 infrastructure 659 59.3 %
 Overall quality of community engagement by City
 officials 205 18.4 %
 Overall quality of customer service you receive from
 City employees 65 5.8 %
 Overall quality of public parks 283 25.4 %
 Overall quality of public safety services (police, fire,
 EMS) 202 18.2 %
 Overall quality of public transportation within City (bus,
 rail, ferry) 328 29.5 %
 Overall quality of social services provided by City 330 29.7 %
 Overall quality of solid waste services (trash, recycling,
 yard waste) 113 10.2 %
 Overall quality of stormwater management/flood control 53 4.8 %
 Overall quality of Portland Jetport 26 2.3 %
 Overall quality of winter snow plowing & removal 196 17.6 %
 None chosen 29 2.6 %
 Total 3176




ETC Institute (2026) Page 59
 Page 156
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q3. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following items that may influence your perception of
Portland as a community using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very
Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q3-1. Availability of
affordable housing options 3.1% 5.6% 14.2% 31.1% 38.9% 7.1%

Q3-2. How easy it is to
access City programs &
services 4.5% 24.8% 34.5% 11.5% 3.1% 21.6%

Q3-3. How fairly City
resources are allocated 1.7% 9.4% 27.3% 21.1% 15.4% 25.0%

Q3-4. Overall affordability of
living in Portland 2.0% 5.9% 15.9% 35.3% 39.6% 1.3%

Q3-5. Overall quality & variety
of shopping & dining
opportunities 30.4% 43.1% 15.6% 7.2% 2.4% 1.3%

Q3-6. Overall quality of life in
City 15.6% 45.1% 20.2% 12.9% 4.9% 1.3%

Q3-7. Overall quality of life in
your neighborhood 30.4% 44.2% 13.0% 8.5% 2.9% 0.9%

Q3-8. Overall quality of
services provided by City of
Portland 6.5% 37.9% 31.2% 14.2% 4.3% 5.9%

Q3-9. Overall value you
receive for City of Portland
taxes & fees 3.1% 16.0% 23.9% 26.8% 23.7% 6.5%

Q3-10. Shopping & dining
opportunities in Portland 33.3% 42.7% 14.6% 5.9% 2.0% 1.5%

Q3-11. City of Portland as a
place to live 24.6% 40.2% 16.7% 12.1% 4.7% 1.6%

Q3-12. City of Portland as a
place to raise a family 15.6% 24.9% 22.1% 14.7% 7.5% 15.3%


ETC Institute (2026) Page 60
 Page 157
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q3. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following items that may influence your perception of
Portland as a community using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very
Dissatisfied."

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q3-13. City of Portland as a
place to retire 12.4% 19.3% 19.8% 16.5% 14.2% 17.8%

Q3-14. City of Portland as a
welcoming community 20.6% 42.9% 22.7% 6.2% 4.2% 3.4%

Q3-15. City's recognition of
diversity in my community 19.7% 39.5% 24.7% 5.0% 3.5% 7.6%

Q3-16. Overall direction in
which City is moving 4.1% 17.7% 26.4% 26.9% 19.9% 4.9%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 61
 Page 158
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report



WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q3. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following items that may influence your perception of
Portland as a community using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very
Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q3-1. Availability of
affordable housing options 3.3% 6.0% 15.3% 33.5% 41.9%

Q3-2. How easy it is to
access City programs &
services 5.7% 31.7% 44.0% 14.7% 3.9%

Q3-3. How fairly City
resources are allocated 2.3% 12.6% 36.5% 28.2% 20.5%

Q3-4. Overall affordability
of living in Portland 2.0% 6.0% 16.1% 35.7% 40.1%

Q3-5. Overall quality &
variety of shopping & dining
opportunities 30.8% 43.6% 15.8% 7.3% 2.5%

Q3-6. Overall quality of
life in City 15.8% 45.6% 20.5% 13.1% 5.0%

Q3-7. Overall quality of
life in your neighborhood 30.7% 44.6% 13.2% 8.6% 2.9%

Q3-8. Overall quality of
services provided by City
of Portland 6.9% 40.2% 33.2% 15.1% 4.6%

Q3-9. Overall value you
receive for City of
Portland taxes & fees 3.4% 17.1% 25.6% 28.7% 25.3%

Q3-10. Shopping & dining
opportunities in Portland 33.8% 43.4% 14.8% 6.0% 2.0%

Q3-11. City of Portland as
a place to live 25.0% 40.9% 17.0% 12.3% 4.8%

Q3-12. City of Portland as
a place to raise a family 18.4% 29.4% 26.1% 17.3% 8.8%

Q3-13. City of Portland as
a place to retire 15.1% 23.5% 24.1% 20.0% 17.3%



ETC Institute (2026) Page 62
 Page 159
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q3. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following items that may influence your perception of
Portland as a community using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very
Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q3-14. City of Portland as
a welcoming community 21.3% 44.4% 23.5% 6.4% 4.4%

Q3-15. City's recognition
of diversity in my
community 21.3% 42.7% 26.8% 5.4% 3.8%

Q3-16. Overall direction in
which City is moving 4.4% 18.6% 27.8% 28.3% 20.9%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 63
 Page 160
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q4. Would you say your trust in the City of Portland's Local Government is...

 Q4. Level of your trust in Portland's local
 government Number Percent
 High 53 4.8 %
 Somewhat high 361 32.5 %
 Somewhat low 345 31.0 %
 Low 271 24.4 %
 Don't know 82 7.4 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q4. Would you say your trust in the City of Portland's Local Government is... (without "don't know")

 Q4. Level of your trust in Portland's local
 government Number Percent
 High 53 5.1 %
 Somewhat high 361 35.0 %
 Somewhat low 345 33.5 %
 Low 271 26.3 %
 Total 1030 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 64
 Page 161
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q5. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: "My household's overall quality of life is
improving?"

 Q5. My household's overall quality of life is
 improving Number Percent
 Strongly agree 33 3.0 %
 Agree 328 29.5 %
 Disagree 481 43.3 %
 Strongly disagree 167 15.0 %
 Don't know 103 9.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q5. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: "My household's overall quality of life is
improving?" (without "don't know")

 Q5. My household's overall quality of life is
 improving Number Percent
 Strongly agree 33 3.3 %
 Agree 328 32.5 %
 Disagree 481 47.7 %
 Strongly disagree 167 16.6 %
 Total 1009 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 65
 Page 162
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q6. Safety. Using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Safe" and 1 means "Very Unsafe," please rate how
safe you feel in the following situations.

(N=1112)

 Very safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very unsafe Don't know
Q6-1. Overall feeling of
safety in City 13.7% 43.1% 19.6% 18.3% 4.9% 0.4%

Q6-2. In City parks 9.5% 31.0% 22.8% 21.9% 11.9% 2.9%

Q6-3. In commercial & retail
areas 19.0% 46.0% 20.1% 11.4% 2.8% 0.6%

Q6-4. In Portland's
Downtown area 10.7% 32.4% 22.0% 23.6% 10.6% 0.7%

Q6-5. In your neighborhood
at night 25.7% 41.1% 17.8% 10.7% 4.3% 0.4%

Q6-6. In your neighborhood
during the day 47.3% 39.3% 8.9% 3.2% 0.8% 0.4%




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q6. Safety. Using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Safe" and 1 means "Very Unsafe," please rate how
safe you feel in the following situations. (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very unsafe
Q6-1. Overall feeling of safety in City 13.7% 43.3% 19.7% 18.4% 4.9%

Q6-2. In City parks 9.8% 31.9% 23.4% 22.6% 12.2%

Q6-3. In commercial & retail areas 19.1% 46.3% 20.3% 11.5% 2.8%

Q6-4. In Portland's Downtown area 10.8% 32.6% 22.2% 23.7% 10.7%

Q6-5. In your neighborhood at night 25.8% 41.2% 17.9% 10.7% 4.3%

Q6-6. In your neighborhood during the
day 47.5% 39.5% 8.9% 3.3% 0.8%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 66
 Page 163
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q7. Public Safety Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to 1,
where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q7-1. Enforcement of local
traffic laws 6.4% 27.3% 21.5% 20.9% 16.5% 7.5%

Q7-2. How quickly EMS
services responds to
emergencies 23.1% 31.0% 10.1% 0.7% 0.1% 35.0%

Q7-3. How quickly fire
services responds to
emergencies 24.8% 32.6% 8.5% 0.8% 0.1% 33.2%

Q7-4. How quickly police
respond to requests for
services 14.6% 27.6% 17.4% 5.9% 2.7% 31.7%

Q7-5. Overall quality of
emergency medical/
ambulance services 20.6% 31.1% 11.4% 0.8% 0.3% 35.8%

Q7-6. Overall quality of fire
protection 23.2% 35.1% 10.9% 0.7% 0.4% 29.7%

Q7-7. Overall quality of local
police services 16.3% 30.7% 20.0% 6.5% 4.0% 22.6%

Q7-8. Professionalism of fire/
EMS first responders 30.8% 31.4% 7.8% 0.9% 0.0% 29.0%

Q7-9. Professionalism of
police officers 23.5% 31.2% 14.2% 5.4% 3.3% 22.4%

Q7-10. Quality of police
community programs &
outreach 10.7% 16.2% 21.1% 7.0% 3.6% 41.4%

Q7-11. Quality of service
when calling 911 with an
emergency 18.5% 23.8% 12.8% 2.1% 0.8% 42.0%

Q7-12. City's efforts to
prevent crime 3.9% 17.6% 26.1% 21.0% 14.4% 17.1%



ETC Institute (2026) Page 67
 Page 164
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q7. Public Safety Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to 1,
where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q7-1. Enforcement of
local traffic laws 6.9% 29.5% 23.2% 22.5% 17.8%

Q7-2. How quickly EMS
services responds to
emergencies 35.5% 47.7% 15.5% 1.1% 0.1%

Q7-3. How quickly fire
services responds to
emergencies 37.1% 48.7% 12.8% 1.2% 0.1%

Q7-4. How quickly police
respond to requests for
services 21.3% 40.4% 25.6% 8.7% 4.0%

Q7-5. Overall quality of
emergency medical/
ambulance services 32.1% 48.5% 17.8% 1.3% 0.4%

Q7-6. Overall quality of
fire protection 33.0% 49.9% 15.5% 1.0% 0.6%

Q7-7. Overall quality of
local police services 21.0% 39.6% 25.8% 8.4% 5.2%

Q7-8. Professionalism of
fire/EMS first responders 43.5% 44.2% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0%

Q7-9. Professionalism of
police officers 30.2% 40.2% 18.3% 7.0% 4.3%

Q7-10. Quality of police
community programs &
outreach 18.3% 27.6% 36.0% 12.0% 6.1%

Q7-11. Quality of service
when calling 911 with an
emergency 31.9% 41.1% 22.0% 3.6% 1.4%

Q7-12. City's efforts to
prevent crime 4.7% 21.3% 31.5% 25.3% 17.4%


ETC Institute (2026) Page 68
 Page 165
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q8. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 7 above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
from City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q8. Top choice Number Percent
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 283 25.4 %
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 36 3.2 %
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 10 0.9 %
 How quickly police respond to requests for services 33 3.0 %
 Overall quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 36 3.2 %
 Overall quality of fire protection 7 0.6 %
 Overall quality of local police services 57 5.1 %
 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 3 0.3 %
 Professionalism of police officers 40 3.6 %
 Quality of police community programs & outreach 82 7.4 %
 Quality of service when calling 911 with an emergency 14 1.3 %
 City's efforts to prevent crime 418 37.6 %
 None chosen 93 8.4 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




Q8. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 7 above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
from City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q8. 2nd choice Number Percent
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 165 14.8 %
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 32 2.9 %
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 30 2.7 %
 How quickly police respond to requests for services 77 6.9 %
 Overall quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 41 3.7 %
 Overall quality of fire protection 29 2.6 %
 Overall quality of local police services 117 10.5 %
 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 8 0.7 %
 Professionalism of police officers 68 6.1 %
 Quality of police community programs & outreach 150 13.5 %
 Quality of service when calling 911 with an emergency 22 2.0 %
 City's efforts to prevent crime 179 16.1 %
 None chosen 194 17.4 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 69
 Page 166
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q8. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 7 above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
from City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q8. 3rd choice Number Percent
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 67 6.0 %
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 32 2.9 %
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 30 2.7 %
 How quickly police respond to requests for services 75 6.7 %
 Overall quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 55 4.9 %
 Overall quality of fire protection 33 3.0 %
 Overall quality of local police services 120 10.8 %
 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 9 0.8 %
 Professionalism of police officers 69 6.2 %
 Quality of police community programs & outreach 176 15.8 %
 Quality of service when calling 911 with an emergency 28 2.5 %
 City's efforts to prevent crime 103 9.3 %
 None chosen 315 28.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES
Q8. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 7 above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
from City leaders over the next TWO years? (top 3)

 Q8. Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent
 Enforcement of local traffic laws 515 46.3 %
 How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 100 9.0 %
 How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 70 6.3 %
 How quickly police respond to requests for services 185 16.6 %
 Overall quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 132 11.9 %
 Overall quality of fire protection 69 6.2 %
 Overall quality of local police services 294 26.4 %
 Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 20 1.8 %
 Professionalism of police officers 177 15.9 %
 Quality of police community programs & outreach 408 36.7 %
 Quality of service when calling 911 with an emergency 64 5.8 %
 City's efforts to prevent crime 700 62.9 %
 None chosen 93 8.4 %
 Total 2827




ETC Institute (2026) Page 70
 Page 167
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q9. Would you say your trust in Portland's Police Department is...

 Q9. Level of your trust in Portland's Police
 Department Number Percent
 High 255 22.9 %
 Somewhat high 425 38.2 %
 Somewhat low 172 15.5 %
 Low 104 9.4 %
 Don't know 156 14.0 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q9. Would you say your trust in Portland's Police Department is... (without "don't know")

 Q9. Level of your trust in Portland's Police
 Department Number Percent
 High 255 26.7 %
 Somewhat high 425 44.5 %
 Somewhat low 172 18.0 %
 Low 104 10.9 %
 Total 956 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 71
 Page 168
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q10. Trash and Recycling. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to 1,
where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q10-1. Overall quality of
trash collection services 29.0% 43.1% 12.8% 6.8% 2.4% 5.9%

Q10-2. Curbside recycling
services 31.8% 42.9% 11.3% 5.4% 1.6% 6.9%

Q10-3. Purple/City trash bag
program 12.4% 23.0% 17.0% 19.7% 19.2% 8.6%

Q10-4. Riverside Recycling
drop-off services 16.6% 28.0% 19.2% 7.9% 2.9% 25.4%

Q10-5. Fall/Spring leaf & yard
waste collection services 14.9% 29.1% 21.0% 8.0% 2.0% 25.0%

Q10-6. Holiday tree
collection services 17.0% 31.1% 16.6% 1.3% 0.8% 33.1%

Q10-7. Quality of composting
drop-off locations 14.6% 23.6% 18.1% 3.7% 1.6% 38.5%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 72
 Page 169
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q10. Trash and Recycling. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to 1,
where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q10-1. Overall quality of
trash collection services 30.8% 45.8% 13.6% 7.3% 2.6%

Q10-2. Curbside recycling
services 34.2% 46.1% 12.2% 5.8% 1.7%

Q10-3. Purple/City trash
bag program 13.6% 25.2% 18.6% 21.6% 21.1%

Q10-4. Riverside
Recycling drop-off
services 22.3% 37.5% 25.7% 10.6% 3.9%

Q10-5. Fall/Spring leaf &
yard waste collection
services 19.9% 38.8% 27.9% 10.7% 2.6%

Q10-6. Holiday tree
collection services 25.4% 46.5% 24.9% 2.0% 1.2%

Q10-7. Quality of
composting drop-off
locations 23.7% 38.3% 29.4% 6.0% 2.6%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 73
 Page 170
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q11. Maintenance and Public Works. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of
5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q11-1. Adequacy of street
lighting 6.5% 43.6% 19.2% 21.1% 7.6% 2.0%

Q11-2. Cleanliness of streets,
sidewalks, & public spaces 4.1% 29.2% 20.7% 33.4% 11.4% 1.2%

Q11-3. Condition of major
City streets 2.9% 30.3% 27.0% 27.3% 10.9% 1.6%

Q11-4. Condition of streets in
your neighborhood 6.9% 39.4% 22.1% 22.0% 8.4% 1.2%

Q11-5. Condition of
pavement markings on streets 3.3% 29.4% 31.3% 23.1% 8.6% 4.2%

Q11-6. Condition of sidewalks 2.3% 22.4% 23.8% 34.1% 15.6% 1.8%

Q11-7. Condition of street
signs & traffic signals 7.1% 46.6% 26.9% 13.3% 4.3% 1.8%

Q11-8. Condition of public
buildings & facilities 7.3% 50.6% 29.0% 5.6% 1.9% 5.7%

Q11-9. Tree trimming along
streets & public areas 7.9% 41.2% 28.2% 11.3% 3.5% 7.8%

Q11-10. Condition of bike
lanes, paths & signage 5.2% 26.9% 25.1% 20.7% 11.2% 10.9%

Q11-11. Snow removal on
major City streets 14.1% 49.9% 19.8% 10.4% 3.1% 2.6%

Q11-12. Snow removal on
neighborhood streets 10.1% 39.9% 20.9% 18.3% 7.0% 3.8%

Q11-13. Snow removal on
sidewalks 5.7% 23.2% 23.8% 25.3% 16.9% 5.1%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 74
 Page 171
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q11. Maintenance and Public Works. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of
5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q11-1. Adequacy of
street lighting 6.6% 44.5% 19.5% 21.6% 7.8%

Q11-2. Cleanliness of
streets, sidewalks, & public
spaces 4.2% 29.6% 20.9% 33.8% 11.6%

Q11-3. Condition of major
City streets 2.9% 30.8% 27.4% 27.8% 11.1%

Q11-4. Condition of
streets in your
neighborhood 7.0% 39.9% 22.4% 22.3% 8.5%

Q11-5. Condition of
pavement markings on
streets 3.5% 30.7% 32.7% 24.1% 9.0%

Q11-6. Condition of
sidewalks 2.4% 22.8% 24.3% 34.7% 15.8%

Q11-7. Condition of street
signs & traffic signals 7.2% 47.4% 27.4% 13.6% 4.4%

Q11-8. Condition of public
buildings & facilities 7.7% 53.7% 30.7% 5.9% 2.0%

Q11-9. Tree trimming
along streets & public areas 8.6% 44.7% 30.6% 12.3% 3.8%

Q11-10. Condition of bike
lanes, paths & signage 5.9% 30.2% 28.2% 23.2% 12.6%

Q11-11. Snow removal on
major City streets 14.5% 51.2% 20.3% 10.7% 3.2%

Q11-12. Snow removal on
neighborhood streets 10.5% 41.5% 21.7% 19.1% 7.3%

Q11-13. Snow removal on
sidewalks 6.0% 24.5% 25.1% 26.6% 17.8%


ETC Institute (2026) Page 75
 Page 172
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q12. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 11 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q12. Top choice Number Percent
 Adequacy of street lighting 137 12.3 %
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 253 22.8 %
 Condition of major City streets 153 13.8 %
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 66 5.9 %
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 25 2.2 %
 Condition of sidewalks 123 11.1 %
 Condition of street signs & traffic signals 20 1.8 %
 Condition of public buildings & facilities 9 0.8 %
 Tree trimming along streets & public areas 14 1.3 %
 Condition of bike lanes, paths & signage 105 9.4 %
 Snow removal on major City streets 12 1.1 %
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 45 4.0 %
 Snow removal on sidewalks 101 9.1 %
 None chosen 49 4.4 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




Q12. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 11 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q12. 2nd choice Number Percent
 Adequacy of street lighting 82 7.4 %
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 129 11.6 %
 Condition of major City streets 113 10.2 %
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 81 7.3 %
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 48 4.3 %
 Condition of sidewalks 176 15.8 %
 Condition of street signs & traffic signals 31 2.8 %
 Condition of public buildings & facilities 23 2.1 %
 Tree trimming along streets & public areas 33 3.0 %
 Condition of bike lanes, paths & signage 84 7.6 %
 Snow removal on major City streets 36 3.2 %
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 71 6.4 %
 Snow removal on sidewalks 111 10.0 %
 None chosen 94 8.5 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 76
 Page 173
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q12. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 11 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q12. 3rd choice Number Percent
 Adequacy of street lighting 75 6.7 %
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 102 9.2 %
 Condition of major City streets 80 7.2 %
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 58 5.2 %
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 56 5.0 %
 Condition of sidewalks 130 11.7 %
 Condition of street signs & traffic signals 51 4.6 %
 Condition of public buildings & facilities 46 4.1 %
 Tree trimming along streets & public areas 33 3.0 %
 Condition of bike lanes, paths & signage 87 7.8 %
 Snow removal on major City streets 44 4.0 %
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 79 7.1 %
 Snow removal on sidewalks 110 9.9 %
 None chosen 161 14.5 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q12. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 11 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years? (top 3)

 Q12. Top choice Number Percent
 Adequacy of street lighting 294 26.4 %
 Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, & public spaces 484 43.5 %
 Condition of major City streets 346 31.1 %
 Condition of streets in your neighborhood 205 18.4 %
 Condition of pavement markings on streets 129 11.6 %
 Condition of sidewalks 429 38.6 %
 Condition of street signs & traffic signals 102 9.2 %
 Condition of public buildings & facilities 78 7.0 %
 Tree trimming along streets & public areas 80 7.2 %
 Condition of bike lanes, paths & signage 276 24.8 %
 Snow removal on major City streets 92 8.3 %
 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 195 17.5 %
 Snow removal on sidewalks 322 29.0 %
 None chosen 49 4.4 %
 Total 3081




ETC Institute (2026) Page 77
 Page 174
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q13. Transportation and Mobility. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5
to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q13-1. Accessibility of
streets & sidewalks for people
with disabilities 2.4% 12.6% 21.6% 22.5% 10.8% 30.1%

Q13-2. Accessibility of public
buildings for people with
disabilities 4.2% 19.3% 25.1% 7.0% 1.9% 42.4%

Q13-3. Ease of getting
around City by car 9.3% 42.3% 26.3% 15.3% 3.9% 3.0%

Q13-4. Ease of getting
around City by public
transportation 3.2% 16.5% 20.6% 19.1% 9.3% 31.3%

Q13-5. Ease of getting
around City by bicycle 4.0% 18.1% 22.8% 18.7% 7.1% 29.3%

Q13-6. Ease of getting
around City by walking 14.7% 48.5% 18.5% 12.5% 2.6% 3.2%

Q13-7. Ease of using
Portland Jetport 36.1% 40.5% 10.4% 2.9% 0.8% 9.4%

Q13-8. Availability of
sidewalks throughout City 10.1% 45.8% 21.2% 16.2% 3.4% 3.3%

Q13-9. Availability of
sidewalks in my neighborhood 16.9% 46.0% 14.6% 13.8% 5.8% 2.9%

Q13-10. Availability of public
parking 6.1% 15.3% 19.9% 28.1% 26.1% 4.6%

Q13-11. Availability of
effective way finding & signage 5.7% 30.7% 35.7% 12.8% 4.6% 10.6%

Q13-12. Facilities & amenities
at Jetport 22.8% 40.3% 20.1% 3.6% 0.5% 12.8%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 78
 Page 175
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q13. Transportation and Mobility. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5
to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q13-1. Accessibility of
streets & sidewalks for
people with disabilities 3.5% 18.0% 30.9% 32.2% 15.4%

Q13-2. Accessibility of
public buildings for people
with disabilities 7.3% 33.6% 43.6% 12.2% 3.3%

Q13-3. Ease of getting
around City by car 9.5% 43.6% 27.2% 15.8% 4.0%

Q13-4. Ease of getting
around City by public
transportation 4.7% 24.1% 30.0% 27.7% 13.5%

Q13-5. Ease of getting
around City by bicycle 5.7% 25.6% 32.2% 26.5% 10.1%

Q13-6. Ease of getting
around City by walking 15.1% 50.1% 19.1% 12.9% 2.7%

Q13-7. Ease of using
Portland Jetport 39.8% 44.6% 11.5% 3.2% 0.9%

Q13-8. Availability of
sidewalks throughout City 10.4% 47.3% 22.0% 16.7% 3.5%

Q13-9. Availability of
sidewalks in my
neighborhood 17.4% 47.3% 15.0% 14.3% 6.0%

Q13-10. Availability of
public parking 6.4% 16.0% 20.8% 29.4% 27.3%

Q13-11. Availability of
effective way finding &
signage 6.3% 34.3% 39.9% 14.3% 5.1%

Q13-12. Facilities &
amenities at Jetport 26.1% 46.2% 23.0% 4.1% 0.6%


ETC Institute (2026) Page 79
 Page 176
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q14. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 13 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q14. Top choice Number Percent
 Accessibility of streets & sidewalks for people with
 disabilities 182 16.4 %
 Accessibility of public buildings for people with disabilities 13 1.2 %
 Ease of getting around City by car 92 8.3 %
 Ease of getting around City by public transportation 173 15.6 %
 Ease of getting around City by bicycle 116 10.4 %
 Ease of getting around City by walking 79 7.1 %
 Ease of using Portland Jetport 18 1.6 %
 Availability of sidewalks throughout City 46 4.1 %
 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 31 2.8 %
 Availability of public parking 265 23.8 %
 Availability of effective way finding & signage 15 1.3 %
 Facilities & amenities at Jetport 12 1.1 %
 None chosen 70 6.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




Q14. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 13 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q14. 2nd choice Number Percent
 Accessibility of streets & sidewalks for people with
 disabilities 97 8.7 %
 Accessibility of public buildings for people with disabilities 62 5.6 %
 Ease of getting around City by car 85 7.6 %
 Ease of getting around City by public transportation 147 13.2 %
 Ease of getting around City by bicycle 134 12.1 %
 Ease of getting around City by walking 107 9.6 %
 Ease of using Portland Jetport 18 1.6 %
 Availability of sidewalks throughout City 76 6.8 %
 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 51 4.6 %
 Availability of public parking 147 13.2 %
 Availability of effective way finding & signage 38 3.4 %
 Facilities & amenities at Jetport 16 1.4 %
 None chosen 134 12.1 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 80
 Page 177
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q14. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 13 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q14. 3rd choice Number Percent
 Accessibility of streets & sidewalks for people with
 disabilities 105 9.4 %
 Accessibility of public buildings for people with disabilities 40 3.6 %
 Ease of getting around City by car 57 5.1 %
 Ease of getting around City by public transportation 126 11.3 %
 Ease of getting around City by bicycle 82 7.4 %
 Ease of getting around City by walking 124 11.2 %
 Ease of using Portland Jetport 15 1.3 %
 Availability of sidewalks throughout City 89 8.0 %
 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 53 4.8 %
 Availability of public parking 115 10.3 %
 Availability of effective way finding & signage 73 6.6 %
 Facilities & amenities at Jetport 29 2.6 %
 None chosen 204 18.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES
Q14. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 13 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years? (top 3)

 Q14. Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent
 Accessibility of streets & sidewalks for people with
 disabilities 384 34.5 %
 Accessibility of public buildings for people with disabilities 115 10.3 %
 Ease of getting around City by car 234 21.0 %
 Ease of getting around City by public transportation 446 40.1 %
 Ease of getting around City by bicycle 332 29.9 %
 Ease of getting around City by walking 310 27.9 %
 Ease of using Portland Jetport 51 4.6 %
 Availability of sidewalks throughout City 211 19.0 %
 Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 135 12.1 %
 Availability of public parking 527 47.4 %
 Availability of effective way finding & signage 126 11.3 %
 Facilities & amenities at Jetport 57 5.1 %
 None chosen 70 6.3 %
 Total 2998




ETC Institute (2026) Page 81
 Page 178
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q15. Parks and Recreation Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. Using a scale of
5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with
each of the services/programs listed below.

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q15-1. Adult Sports Leagues/
adult recreation programs 6.6% 21.4% 18.9% 2.8% 0.4% 49.9%

Q15-2. After-school
childcare program 4.2% 9.4% 18.9% 2.8% 1.4% 63.2%

Q15-3. Aquatic programs 3.1% 10.3% 18.9% 8.6% 4.6% 54.5%

Q15-4. Condition of aquatic
facilities 2.1% 6.4% 19.0% 11.4% 7.3% 53.9%

Q15-5. Condition of indoor
recreational facilities/
community centers 2.6% 14.6% 23.3% 6.2% 1.2% 52.2%

Q15-6. Condition of outdoor
athletic fields (baseball,
basketball, soccer) 5.9% 33.3% 18.5% 4.1% 1.2% 37.0%

Q15-7. Condition of public
playgrounds 7.5% 35.2% 19.6% 5.8% 2.5% 29.4%

Q15-8. Connectivity of local
trails & parks 15.2% 43.6% 18.4% 7.6% 2.8% 12.3%

Q15-9. Quality of City special
events (e.g., parades, 4th of
July, festival) 9.3% 36.2% 27.1% 5.1% 2.2% 20.2%

Q15-10. Quality of
community & neighborhood
parks 9.2% 44.7% 19.5% 12.1% 5.1% 9.4%

Q15-11. Quality of Fitzpatrick
Stadium 11.7% 33.9% 16.1% 2.5% 1.2% 34.6%

Q15-12. Quality of major City
parks (Deering Oaks Park,
Payson Park, Eastern Prom) 12.7% 41.8% 15.3% 15.9% 8.2% 6.1%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 82
 Page 179
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q15. Parks and Recreation Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. Using a scale of
5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with
each of the services/programs listed below.

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q15-13. Quality of Merrill
Auditorium 26.7% 42.8% 12.2% 1.5% 0.4% 16.4%

Q15-14. Quality of multi-use
trails (Back Cove Trail,
Eastern Prom Trail, Fore
River Parkway Trail, Bayside
Trail) 21.5% 46.5% 12.9% 6.7% 2.9% 9.5%

Q15-15. Quality of James A.
Banks, Sr. Portland
Exposition Building (also
called Portland Expo) 5.8% 25.6% 22.3% 5.0% 1.3% 40.0%

Q15-16. Quality of Troubh
Ice Arena 5.4% 20.0% 19.9% 2.2% 0.4% 52.2%

Q15-17. Senior programs 2.5% 6.7% 18.5% 3.7% 2.3% 66.2%

Q15-18. Tennis amenities &
condition of tennis & pickleball
courts 5.7% 19.7% 20.2% 2.1% 0.8% 51.5%

Q15-19. Youth recreation
programs 3.6% 12.9% 19.1% 2.0% 0.5% 61.9%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 83
 Page 180
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q15. Parks and Recreation Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. Using a scale of
5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with
each of the services/programs listed below. (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q15-1. Adult Sports
Leagues/adult recreation
programs 13.1% 42.7% 37.7% 5.6% 0.9%

Q15-2. After-school
childcare program 11.5% 25.7% 51.3% 7.6% 3.9%

Q15-3. Aquatic programs 6.9% 22.5% 41.5% 19.0% 10.1%

Q15-4. Condition of
aquatic facilities 4.5% 13.8% 41.1% 24.8% 15.8%

Q15-5. Condition of indoor
recreational facilities/
community centers 5.5% 30.5% 48.7% 13.0% 2.4%

Q15-6. Condition of
outdoor athletic fields
(baseball, basketball,
soccer) 9.4% 52.8% 29.4% 6.6% 1.9%

Q15-7. Condition of public
playgrounds 10.6% 49.8% 27.8% 8.3% 3.6%

Q15-8. Connectivity of
local trails & parks 17.3% 49.7% 21.0% 8.7% 3.2%

Q15-9. Quality of City
special events (e.g.,
parades, 4th of July,
festival) 11.6% 45.3% 33.9% 6.4% 2.7%

Q15-10. Quality of
community & neighborhood
parks 10.1% 49.3% 21.5% 13.4% 5.7%

Q15-11. Quality of
Fitzpatrick Stadium 17.9% 51.9% 24.6% 3.9% 1.8%



ETC Institute (2026) Page 84
 Page 181
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q15. Parks and Recreation Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. Using a scale of
5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with
each of the services/programs listed below. (without "don't know")

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q15-12. Quality of major
City parks (Deering Oaks
Park, Payson Park,
Eastern Prom) 13.5% 44.5% 16.3% 17.0% 8.7%

Q15-13. Quality of Merrill
Auditorium 31.9% 51.2% 14.6% 1.8% 0.4%

Q15-14. Quality of multi-
use trails (Back Cove
Trail, Eastern Prom Trail,
Fore River Parkway Trail,
Bayside Trail) 23.8% 51.4% 14.2% 7.5% 3.2%

Q15-15. Quality of James
A. Banks, Sr. Portland
Exposition Building (also
called Portland Expo) 9.6% 42.7% 37.2% 8.4% 2.1%

Q15-16. Quality of Troubh
Ice Arena 11.3% 41.7% 41.5% 4.7% 0.8%

Q15-17. Senior programs 7.4% 19.9% 54.8% 10.9% 6.9%

Q15-18. Tennis amenities &
condition of tennis &
pickleball courts 11.7% 40.6% 41.7% 4.3% 1.7%

Q15-19. Youth recreation
programs 9.4% 34.0% 50.0% 5.2% 1.4%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 85
 Page 182
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q16. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 15 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q16. Top choice Number Percent
 Adult Sports Leagues/adult recreation programs 21 1.9 %
 After-school childcare program 125 11.2 %
 Aquatic programs 42 3.8 %
 Condition of aquatic facilities 94 8.5 %
 Condition of indoor recreational facilities/community
 centers 30 2.7 %
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields (baseball, basketball,
 soccer) 18 1.6 %
 Condition of public playgrounds 63 5.7 %
 Connectivity of local trails & parks 121 10.9 %
 Quality of City special events (e.g., parades, 4th of July,
 festival) 23 2.1 %
 Quality of community & neighborhood parks 74 6.7 %
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 10 0.9 %
 Quality of major City parks (Deering Oaks Park, Payson
 Park, Eastern Prom) 159 14.3 %
 Quality of Merrill Auditorium 7 0.6 %
 Quality of multi-use trails (Back Cove Trail, Eastern
 Prom Trail, Fore River Parkway Trail, Bayside Trail) 63 5.7 %
 Quality of James A. Banks, Sr. Portland Exposition
 Building (also called Portland Expo) 12 1.1 %
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 7 0.6 %
 Senior programs 35 3.1 %
 Tennis amenities & condition of tennis & pickleball courts 11 1.0 %
 Youth recreation programs 24 2.2 %
 None chosen 173 15.6 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 86
 Page 183
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q16. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 15 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q16. 2nd choice Number Percent
 Adult Sports Leagues/adult recreation programs 15 1.3 %
 After-school childcare program 55 4.9 %
 Aquatic programs 46 4.1 %
 Condition of aquatic facilities 49 4.4 %
 Condition of indoor recreational facilities/community
 centers 37 3.3 %
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields (baseball, basketball,
 soccer) 20 1.8 %
 Condition of public playgrounds 63 5.7 %
 Connectivity of local trails & parks 93 8.4 %
 Quality of City special events (e.g., parades, 4th of July,
 festival) 28 2.5 %
 Quality of community & neighborhood parks 139 12.5 %
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 8 0.7 %
 Quality of major City parks (Deering Oaks Park, Payson
 Park, Eastern Prom) 126 11.3 %
 Quality of Merrill Auditorium 9 0.8 %
 Quality of multi-use trails (Back Cove Trail, Eastern
 Prom Trail, Fore River Parkway Trail, Bayside Trail) 85 7.6 %
 Quality of James A. Banks, Sr. Portland Exposition
 Building (also called Portland Expo) 6 0.5 %
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 2 0.2 %
 Senior programs 36 3.2 %
 Tennis amenities & condition of tennis & pickleball courts 11 1.0 %
 Youth recreation programs 50 4.5 %
 None chosen 234 21.0 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 87
 Page 184
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q16. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 15 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years?

 Q16. 3rd choice Number Percent
 Adult Sports Leagues/adult recreation programs 16 1.4 %
 After-school childcare program 47 4.2 %
 Aquatic programs 23 2.1 %
 Condition of aquatic facilities 16 1.4 %
 Condition of indoor recreational facilities/community
 centers 44 4.0 %
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields (baseball, basketball,
 soccer) 26 2.3 %
 Condition of public playgrounds 71 6.4 %
 Connectivity of local trails & parks 91 8.2 %
 Quality of City special events (e.g., parades, 4th of July,
 festival) 35 3.1 %
 Quality of community & neighborhood parks 121 10.9 %
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 8 0.7 %
 Quality of major City parks (Deering Oaks Park, Payson
 Park, Eastern Prom) 100 9.0 %
 Quality of Merrill Auditorium 7 0.6 %
 Quality of multi-use trails (Back Cove Trail, Eastern
 Prom Trail, Fore River Parkway Trail, Bayside Trail) 79 7.1 %
 Quality of James A. Banks, Sr. Portland Exposition
 Building (also called Portland Expo) 12 1.1 %
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 6 0.5 %
 Senior programs 47 4.2 %
 Tennis amenities & condition of tennis & pickleball courts 15 1.3 %
 Youth recreation programs 49 4.4 %
 None chosen 299 26.9 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 88
 Page 185
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES
Q16. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 15 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from
City leaders over the next TWO years? (top 3)

 Q16. Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent
 Adult Sports Leagues/adult recreation programs 52 4.7 %
 After-school childcare program 227 20.4 %
 Aquatic programs 111 10.0 %
 Condition of aquatic facilities 159 14.3 %
 Condition of indoor recreational facilities/community
 centers 111 10.0 %
 Condition of outdoor athletic fields (baseball, basketball,
 soccer) 64 5.8 %
 Condition of public playgrounds 197 17.7 %
 Connectivity of local trails & parks 305 27.4 %
 Quality of City special events (e.g., parades, 4th of July,
 festival) 86 7.7 %
 Quality of community & neighborhood parks 334 30.0 %
 Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 26 2.3 %
 Quality of major City parks (Deering Oaks Park, Payson
 Park, Eastern Prom) 385 34.6 %
 Quality of Merrill Auditorium 23 2.1 %
 Quality of multi-use trails (Back Cove Trail, Eastern
 Prom Trail, Fore River Parkway Trail, Bayside Trail) 227 20.4 %
 Quality of James A. Banks, Sr. Portland Exposition
 Building (also called Portland Expo) 30 2.7 %
 Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 15 1.3 %
 Senior programs 118 10.6 %
 Tennis amenities & condition of tennis & pickleball courts 37 3.3 %
 Youth recreation programs 123 11.1 %
 None chosen 173 15.6 %
 Total 2803




ETC Institute (2026) Page 89
 Page 186
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q17. Economic Development. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to 1,
where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q17-1. Availability of good
jobs in Portland 2.9% 18.5% 30.1% 24.1% 10.5% 13.8%

Q17-2. Availability of places
to shop, dine, or get services
in your neighborhood 22.8% 42.7% 18.6% 11.4% 2.7% 1.7%

Q17-3. Condition &
appearance of local shopping &
business areas 11.1% 43.9% 23.0% 15.0% 4.9% 2.2%

Q17-4. How active & inviting
businesses are (lighting,
cleanliness, events, etc.) 13.8% 44.7% 25.8% 9.2% 2.9% 3.6%

Q17-5. Overall strength of
local economy (business
openings, jobs, etc.) 4.7% 24.6% 30.1% 23.7% 9.4% 7.5%

Q17-6. Variety of local
businesses (restaurants, shops,
& services) in your area 17.0% 41.6% 21.1% 15.6% 3.0% 1.6%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 90
 Page 187
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q17. Economic Development. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to 1,
where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied." (without "don't know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q17-1. Availability of
good jobs in Portland 3.3% 21.5% 35.0% 28.0% 12.2%

Q17-2. Availability of
places to shop, dine, or get
services in your
neighborhood 23.2% 43.5% 18.9% 11.6% 2.7%

Q17-3. Condition &
appearance of local
shopping & business areas 11.3% 44.9% 23.5% 15.3% 5.0%

Q17-4. How active &
inviting businesses are
(lighting, cleanliness,
events, etc.) 14.4% 46.4% 26.8% 9.5% 3.0%

Q17-5. Overall strength of
local economy (business
openings, jobs, etc.) 5.1% 26.5% 32.6% 25.7% 10.2%

Q17-6. Variety of local
businesses (restaurants,
shops, & services) in your
area 17.3% 42.3% 21.5% 15.9% 3.0%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 91
 Page 188
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q18. Communication & Transparency. Using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means
"Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with each of the services listed below.

(N=1112)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q18-1. Availability of
information about City news,
programs & services 9.6% 39.7% 28.0% 13.5% 3.0% 6.3%

Q18-2. City efforts to keep
you informed about local
issues 8.5% 34.1% 26.4% 20.1% 4.8% 6.1%

Q18-3. Level of public
involvement in local decision
making 3.7% 21.3% 28.0% 24.8% 12.2% 10.0%

Q18-4. Timeliness of
information provided by City 5.0% 29.9% 32.6% 16.9% 5.4% 10.2%

Q18-5. Usefulness of
information on City's website 5.7% 36.7% 29.6% 12.8% 3.3% 12.0%

Q18-6. Local-access
television station (Portland
Media Center) 3.5% 12.6% 20.6% 3.8% 2.0% 57.6%

Q18-7. City's use of social
media 4.8% 21.3% 29.1% 5.9% 2.2% 36.6%

Q18-8. City's use of digital
tools (e.g., 311/See Click Fix,
live-streaming meetings,
online forms, text/email alerts) 9.2% 32.7% 25.5% 7.4% 2.6% 22.6%

Q18-9. Availability of
information in a language I
understand 36.4% 28.3% 15.6% 1.0% 0.4% 18.3%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 92
 Page 189
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q18. Communication & Transparency. Using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means
"Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with each of the services listed below. (without "don't
know")

(N=1112)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q18-1. Availability of
information about City
news, programs & services 10.3% 42.3% 29.8% 14.4% 3.2%

Q18-2. City efforts to
keep you informed about
local issues 9.1% 36.3% 28.2% 21.4% 5.1%

Q18-3. Level of public
involvement in local
decision making 4.1% 23.7% 31.1% 27.6% 13.6%

Q18-4. Timeliness of
information provided by
City 5.6% 33.3% 36.2% 18.8% 6.0%

Q18-5. Usefulness of
information on City's
website 6.4% 41.7% 33.6% 14.5% 3.8%

Q18-6. Local-access
television station (Portland
Media Center) 8.3% 29.7% 48.5% 8.9% 4.7%

Q18-7. City's use of social
media 7.5% 33.6% 46.0% 9.4% 3.5%

Q18-8. City's use of digital
tools (e.g., 311/See Click
Fix, live-streaming
meetings, online forms,
text/email alerts) 11.8% 42.3% 33.0% 9.5% 3.4%

Q18-9. Availability of
information in a language I
understand 44.6% 34.7% 19.1% 1.2% 0.4%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 93
 Page 190
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q19. Which of the following are your primary sources of information about City issues, services, and events?

 Q19. Your primary sources of information about
 City issues, services, & events Number Percent
 City's website 648 58.3 %
 Weekly eNewsletter 306 27.5 %
 Local Access Cable 46 4.1 %
 Instagram 210 18.9 %
 Facebook 286 25.7 %
 NextDoor 164 14.7 %
 Local TV news 398 35.8 %
 Radio 226 20.3 %
 Newspaper 509 45.8 %
 Other 101 9.1 %
 Total 2894




Q19-10. Other

 • by word-of-mouth--this is the only way I find out
 • Citizen run social media. Newspaper has lost its way
 • City alerts
 • City email.
 • City notices for which I am registered
 • Email alert
 • Email alerts
 • emails
 • emails from people who are paying better attention. City councilors social media.
 • emails from recreation department
 • Family
 • Former mayor Cheryl Leeman distributes regular newsletters with Council updates. It's very well done, and often the
 best way for me to stay informed.
 • Friday texts
 • Friends and family
 • Friends, colleagues
 • I get the info from the online news 13
 • In person
 • Information from friends and family
 • Internet
 • LinkedIn




ETC Institute (2026) Page 94
 Page 191
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q19-10. Other

 • listservs
 • Local blogs and other news sources
 • mail
 • mail
 • Mailer from city
 • mail
 • Neighborhood association emails
 • Neighborhood association emails
 • Neighborhood association in west end
 • Neighborhood Association. More city officials should attend these meetings.
 • Neighbors
 • Neighbors
 • Neighbors
 • Neighbors
 • neighbors and friends
 • Neighbors and word of mouth; local email lists.
 • Non-profits
 • Portland Reddit Group, West End News, Bollard etc.
 • Portland me subreddit
 • press releases
 • r/Portland me (reddit)
 • r/Portland me, r/maine, r/maine2
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit
 • Reddit/Twitter/Facebook
 • Reddit, neighbors/community
 • Reddit, other social media
 • Reposting city info on Reddit
 • Social media posts by city council members
 • Special alerts signed up for on city's website.
 • targeted opt-in email alerts from various departments
 • Texts
 • Texts
 • Texts
 • Texts




ETC Institute (2026) Page 95
 Page 192
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 Q19-10. Other

 • Texts
 • Texts
 • Text alerts
 • Text alerts
 • Text alerts
 • Text Blasts
 • Text messages
 • Text messages
 • Text messages from the City
 • text updates
 • text updates
 • Texts
 • Texts
 • Texts
 • Texts
 • Texts
 • The Bollard
 • The cities use of digital tools
 • The city needs to restore RSS feeds for alerts and not rely on social media entirely.
 • TikTok
 • Twitter
 • Weekly text
 • Weekly text newsletter updates
 • West End Neighborhood Association (WENA)
 • When the city send pamphlet to doors
 • Wherever it makes sense at the time
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Word of mouth
 • Work in downtown and bayside area.




ETC Institute (2026) Page 96
 Page 193
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q20. Which THREE sources of information listed in Question 19 are your most PREFERRED methods of
receiving information about the City?

 Q20. Top choice Number Percent
 City's website 276 24.8 %
 Weekly eNewsletter 233 21.0 %
 Local Access Cable 11 1.0 %
 Instagram 73 6.6 %
 Facebook 71 6.4 %
 NextDoor 13 1.2 %
 Local TV news 113 10.2 %
 Radio 42 3.8 %
 Newspaper 145 13.0 %
 None chosen 135 12.1 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




Q20. Which THREE sources of information listed in Question 19 are your most PREFERRED methods of
receiving information about the City?

 Q20. 2nd choice Number Percent
 City's website 196 17.6 %
 Weekly eNewsletter 108 9.7 %
 Local Access Cable 16 1.4 %
 Instagram 88 7.9 %
 Facebook 82 7.4 %
 NextDoor 26 2.3 %
 Local TV news 118 10.6 %
 Radio 79 7.1 %
 Newspaper 163 14.7 %
 None chosen 236 21.2 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 97
 Page 194
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q20. Which THREE sources of information listed in Question 19 are your most PREFERRED methods of
receiving information about the City?

 Q20. 3rd choice Number Percent
 City's website 146 13.1 %
 Weekly eNewsletter 49 4.4 %
 Local Access Cable 15 1.3 %
 Instagram 52 4.7 %
 Facebook 81 7.3 %
 NextDoor 33 3.0 %
 Local TV news 91 8.2 %
 Radio 75 6.7 %
 Newspaper 128 11.5 %
 None chosen 442 39.7 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES
Q20. Which THREE sources of information listed in Question 19 are your most PREFERRED methods of
receiving information about the City? (top 3)

 Q20. Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent
 City's website 618 55.6 %
 Weekly eNewsletter 390 35.1 %
 Local Access Cable 42 3.8 %
 Instagram 213 19.2 %
 Facebook 234 21.0 %
 NextDoor 72 6.5 %
 Local TV news 322 29.0 %
 Radio 196 17.6 %
 Newspaper 436 39.2 %
 None chosen 135 12.1 %
 Total 2658




ETC Institute (2026) Page 98
 Page 195
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q21. Customer Service. Have you interacted with (by phone, on-line, or by visiting) the City during the past
year?

 Q21. Have you interacted with City during past
 year Number Percent
 Yes 746 67.1 %
 No 366 32.9 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




Q21a. Several factors that may influence your perception of the quality of customer service you receive
from City employees are listed below. Please rate your satisfaction with each item.

(N=746)

 Very
 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know
Q21a-1. How easy the
department was to contact 27.6% 46.2% 14.1% 6.6% 3.9% 1.6%

Q21a-2. Level of courtesy
you received 41.4% 38.3% 12.9% 3.5% 1.9% 2.0%

Q21a-3. Technical
competence & knowledge of
City employees who assisted
you 38.9% 36.5% 14.7% 5.4% 2.0% 2.5%

Q21a-4. Overall satisfaction
with your customer service
experience 37.3% 37.9% 14.2% 6.7% 2.9% 0.9%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 99
 Page 196
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




WITHOUT “DON’T KNOW”
Q21a. Several factors that may influence your perception of the quality of customer service you receive
from City employees are listed below. Please rate your satisfaction with each item. (without "don't know")

(N=746)

 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Q21a-1. How easy the
department was to contact 28.1% 47.0% 14.3% 6.7% 4.0%

Q21a-2. Level of courtesy
you received 42.3% 39.1% 13.1% 3.6% 1.9%

Q21a-3. Technical
competence & knowledge
of City employees who
assisted you 39.9% 37.4% 15.1% 5.5% 2.1%

Q21a-4. Overall
satisfaction with your
customer service
experience 37.6% 38.3% 14.3% 6.8% 3.0%




ETC Institute (2026) Page 100
 Page 197
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q22. Listed below are several issues the City of Portland may face over the next 5 years. Which THREE of the
issues listed below do you think will be MOST SIGNIFICANT over the next 5 years?

 Q22. Top choice Number Percent
 Housing 398 35.8 %
 Homelessness 278 25.0 %
 Public Safety & Crime 53 4.8 %
 Substance Use & Mental Health 47 4.2 %
 Transportation & Mobility 20 1.8 %
 Climate Change 22 2.0 %
 Jobs & Economic Opportunity 37 3.3 %
 Public Parks & Recreation Facilities 9 0.8 %
 Immigrant Support & Equity 13 1.2 %
 Public Health 6 0.5 %
 Property Tax Rate & Budget 194 17.4 %
 Trust/Transparency in Local Government 12 1.1 %
 Other 4 0.4 %
 None chosen 19 1.7 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




Q22. Listed below are several issues the City of Portland may face over the next 5 years. Which THREE of the
issues listed below do you think will be MOST SIGNIFICANT over the next 5 years?

 Q22. 2nd choice Number Percent
 Housing 159 14.3 %
 Homelessness 295 26.5 %
 Public Safety & Crime 117 10.5 %
 Substance Use & Mental Health 129 11.6 %
 Transportation & Mobility 47 4.2 %
 Climate Change 46 4.1 %
 Jobs & Economic Opportunity 86 7.7 %
 Public Parks & Recreation Facilities 21 1.9 %
 Immigrant Support & Equity 36 3.2 %
 Public Health 13 1.2 %
 Property Tax Rate & Budget 96 8.6 %
 Trust/Transparency in Local Government 42 3.8 %
 Other 2 0.2 %
 None chosen 23 2.1 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 101
 Page 198
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q22. Listed below are several issues the City of Portland may face over the next 5 years. Which THREE of the
issues listed below do you think will be MOST SIGNIFICANT over the next 5 years?

 Q22. 3rd choice Number Percent
 Housing 79 7.1 %
 Homelessness 125 11.2 %
 Public Safety & Crime 89 8.0 %
 Substance Use & Mental Health 173 15.6 %
 Transportation & Mobility 72 6.5 %
 Climate Change 62 5.6 %
 Jobs & Economic Opportunity 133 12.0 %
 Public Parks & Recreation Facilities 34 3.1 %
 Immigrant Support & Equity 73 6.6 %
 Public Health 35 3.1 %
 Property Tax Rate & Budget 151 13.6 %
 Trust/Transparency in Local Government 39 3.5 %
 Other 10 0.9 %
 None chosen 37 3.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES
Q22. Listed below are several issues the City of Portland may face over the next 5 years. Which THREE of the
issues listed below do you think will be MOST SIGNIFICANT over the next 5 years? (top 3)

 Q22. Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent
 Housing 636 57.2 %
 Homelessness 698 62.8 %
 Public Safety & Crime 259 23.3 %
 Substance Use & Mental Health 349 31.4 %
 Transportation & Mobility 139 12.5 %
 Climate Change 130 11.7 %
 Jobs & Economic Opportunity 256 23.0 %
 Public Parks & Recreation Facilities 64 5.8 %
 Immigrant Support & Equity 122 11.0 %
 Public Health 54 4.9 %
 Property Tax Rate & Budget 441 39.7 %
 Trust/Transparency in Local Government 93 8.4 %
 Other 16 1.4 %
 None chosen 19 1.7 %
 Total 3276




ETC Institute (2026) Page 102
 Page 199
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q22-13. Other

 • Crime. In the past two weeks I have: Been attacked by a transient while walking to Hanaford's; stopped an attack of a
 transient against a transient on Prebble street; witnessed a transient overdose on illegal drugs; witnessed a transient
 drop her pants and defecate on the grass, in broad daylight, in Deering Park; been unable to use the back cove trail
 because it was overrun with transients; witnessed dozens of transients using illegal narcotics in Preble Street. Spouse
 fears to go outside alone because of rampant crime daily in our neighborhood. City Council apparently does not
 understand the lesson behind the Tragedy of the Commons.
 • Education
 • Focus on growing business in spite of the crazy minimum wage, stupid rent control measures, and the insane focus on
 increasing social services
 • Get rid of trash bag purple program
 • Housing market in Portland. Portland is becoming extremely unaffordable to live in. There is no reason a studio apartment
 should be almost $2500
 • needle exchange, stop providing unlimited needles
 • Only provide city services to established residents. People who have established residency, not transients.
 • Overdevelopment, fewer skyscrapers in historic areas.
 • Parking in Portland is horrible . Too expensive and hard to find.
 • Parking!
 • Public parking and/or residential parking
 • Quality of life
 • RAMPANT CRIME
 • Remove illegal immigrants and work with ICE
 • The city needs a cleaner way to collect trash. The purple bags get left out in the open for animals to pick apart and trash
 gets all over the place making our city look dirty. We also need a parking lot at the sports complex!
 • There is absolutely nothing more important to me than getting our street lighted. I have lived all over the world. I have
 never lived in a city as dark as Portland, Maine. Lighted streets are safe streets. Lighted streets keep businesses open later
 at night and keep passersby enjoying the community and restaurants. Please light our streets.




ETC Institute (2026) Page 103
 Page 200
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q23. Approximately how many years have you lived in Portland?

 Q23. How many years have you lived in Portland Number Percent
 Less than 5 years 166 14.9 %
 5-10 years 221 19.9 %
 11-20 years 209 18.8 %
 20+ years 503 45.2 %
 Not provided 13 1.2 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “NOT PROVIDED”
Q23. Approximately how many years have you lived in Portland? (without "not provided")

 Q23. How many years have you lived in Portland Number Percent
 Less than 5 years 166 15.1 %
 5-10 years 221 20.1 %
 11-20 years 209 19.0 %
 20+ years 503 45.8 %
 Total 1099 100.0 %




Q24. Including yourself, how many people from each age group are currently living in your household?

 Mean Sum

number 2.3 2495

5 & under 0.1 126

6-19 0.3 293

20-44 0.8 913

45-64 0.7 744

65-74 0.2 259

75 & older 0.1 160




ETC Institute (2026) Page 104
 Page 201
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q25. Do you own or rent your current residence?

 Q25. Do you own or rent your current residence Number Percent
 Own 619 55.7 %
 Rent 483 43.4 %
 Other 5 0.4 %
 Not provided 5 0.4 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “NOT PROVIDED”
Q25. Do you own or rent your current residence? (without "not provided")

 Q25. Do you own or rent your current residence Number Percent
 Own 619 55.9 %
 Rent 483 43.6 %
 Other 5 0.5 %
 Total 1107 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 105
 Page 202
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q26. What is your age?

 Q26. Your age Number Percent
 18-34 213 19.2 %
 35-44 225 20.2 %
 45-54 223 20.1 %
 55-64 221 19.9 %
 65+ 215 19.3 %
 Not provided 15 1.3 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “NOT PROVIDED”
Q26. What is your age? (without "not provided")

 Q26. Your age Number Percent
 18-34 213 19.4 %
 35-44 225 20.5 %
 45-54 223 20.3 %
 55-64 221 20.1 %
 65+ 215 19.6 %
 Total 1097 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 106
 Page 203
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q27. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity?

 Q27. Your race/ethnicity Number Percent
 Asian or Asian Indian 34 3.1 %
 Black or African American 104 9.4 %
 American Indian or Alaska Native 5 0.4 %
 White 894 80.4 %
 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0.1 %
 Hispanic or Latino 35 3.1 %
 Other 7 0.6 %
 Total 1080




Q27-7. Self-describe your race/ethnicity:

 Q27-7. Self-describe your race/ethnicity Number Percent
 Mixed 3 42.9 %
 Lebanese 1 14.3 %
 Irish 1 14.3 %
 European 1 14.3 %
 Cajun 1 14.3 %
 Total 7 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 107
 Page 204
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q28. Your gender:

 Q28. Your gender Number Percent
 Male 516 46.4 %
 Female 522 46.9 %
 Non-Binary/Gender Non-Conforming 15 1.3 %
 Transgender Man 2 0.2 %
 Transgender Woman 1 0.1 %
 Other 1 0.1 %
 Prefer not to answer 55 4.9 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “PREFER NOT TO ANSWER”
Q28. Your gender: (without "prefer not to answer")

 Q28. Your gender Number Percent
 Male 516 48.8 %
 Female 522 49.4 %
 Non-Binary/Gender Non-Conforming 15 1.4 %
 Transgender Man 2 0.2 %
 Transgender Woman 1 0.1 %
 Other 1 0.1 %
 Total 1057 100.0 %




Q28-7. Self-describe your gender:

 Q27-7. Self-describe your gender Number Percent
 Fluid 1 100.0 %
 Total 1 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 108
 Page 205
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q29. Would you say your total household income is...

 Q29. Your total household income Number Percent
 Under $30K 120 10.8 %
 $30K to $59,999 213 19.2 %
 $60K to $99,999 236 21.2 %
 $100K to $129,999 185 16.6 %
 $130K+ 247 22.2 %
 Not provided 111 10.0 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “NOT PROVIDED”
Q29. Would you say your total household income is... (without "not provided")

 Q29. Your total household income Number Percent
 Under $30K 120 12.0 %
 $30K to $59,999 213 21.3 %
 $60K to $99,999 236 23.6 %
 $100K to $129,999 185 18.5 %
 $130K+ 247 24.7 %
 Total 1001 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 109
 Page 206
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q30. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

 Q30. Your current employment status Number Percent
 Employed outside home 645 58.0 %
 Employed in the home/have a home-based business 117 10.5 %
 Student 8 0.7 %
 Retired 272 24.5 %
 Not currently employed outside home 39 3.5 %
 Not provided 31 2.8 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




WITHOUT “NOT PROVIDED”
Q30. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? (without "not provided")

 Q30. Your current employment status Number Percent
 Employed outside home 645 59.7 %
 Employed in the home/have a home-based business 117 10.8 %
 Student 8 0.7 %
 Retired 272 25.2 %
 Not currently employed outside home 39 3.6 %
 Total 1081 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 110
 Page 207
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q30-1. What is the zip code where you work?

 Q30-1. Zip code of your workplace Number Percent
 4101 246 40.7 %
 4103 104 17.2 %
 4102 92 15.2 %
 4106 28 4.6 %
 4092 20 3.3 %
 4074 14 2.3 %
 4105 8 1.3 %
 4011 7 1.2 %
 4330 7 1.2 %
 4240 7 1.2 %
 4104 6 1.0 %
 4096 5 0.8 %
 4005 5 0.8 %
 4062 5 0.8 %
 4107 4 0.7 %
 4122 4 0.7 %
 4038 3 0.5 %
 4043 2 0.3 %
 4210 2 0.3 %
 3904 2 0.3 %
 3909 2 0.3 %
 4032 2 0.3 %
 4039 2 0.3 %
 30309 1 0.2 %
 36849 1 0.2 %
 2169 1 0.2 %
 4544 1 0.2 %
 3907 1 0.2 %
 4174 1 0.2 %
 4108 1 0.2 %
 20005 1 0.2 %
 1403 1 0.2 %
 4347 1 0.2 %
 4072 1 0.2 %
 4902 1 0.2 %
 4090 1 0.2 %
 4193 1 0.2 %
 4006 1 0.2 %
 4110 1 0.2 %
 2114 1 0.2 %
 2115 1 0.2 %
 3038 1 0.2 %
 12203 1 0.2 %
 4073 1 0.2 %
 4033 1 0.2 %
 2459 1 0.2 %

ETC Institute (2026) Page 111
 Page 208
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




Q30-1. What is the zip code where you work?

 Q30-1. Zip code of your workplace Number Percent
 2108 1 0.2 %
 2142 1 0.2 %
 4841 1 0.2 %
 4260 1 0.2 %
 3079 1 0.2 %
 Total 605 100.0 %




Council District:

 Council District Number Percent
 1 233 21.0 %
 2 201 18.1 %
 3 242 21.8 %
 4 215 19.3 %
 5 221 19.9 %
 Total 1112 100.0 %




ETC Institute (2026) Page 112
 Page 209
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey: Findings Report




 5 Survey Instrument




ETC Institute (2026) Page 113
 Page 210
December 2025
Dear Portland Resident,
The City of Portland is conducting a community survey to hear directly from residents. Your input
could help shape City programs, services, and long-term investments so they better reflect the
needs and priorities of our community.
You can complete the survey online at PortlandCommunitySurvey.org, or by filling out the
enclosed paper survey and returning it in the postage-paid envelope provided. Either way, as a
thank you for completing this survey, you will have the opportunity to enter a drawing to
win one (1) of five (5) $100 prepaid Visa gift cards for fully completing your survey.
The City has partnered with ETC Institute, one of the nation’s leading local government research
firms, to ensure the survey is conducted independently and professionally. ETC will compile and
analyze the results, present them to the City Council, and make the findings publicly available on
the City’s website. Because ETC administers these surveys nationwide, Portland’s results will
also be compared regionally and nationally.
By completing the survey, you are helping shape the future of Portland—making sure the City
government reflects the voices of the people who live here. For additional information about the
Portland Community Survey, please visit portlandmaine.gov/communitysurvey. We greatly
appreciate your participation.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Ryan Murray, Assistant Director of
Community Research at ETC Institute, at (913) 254-4598 or ryan.murray@etcinstitute.com.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective and help make Portland an even better
place to live, work, and play.
Sincerely,




 Mark Dion, Mayor Danielle West, City Manager
 Si desea completar esta encuesta en línea en español, visite PortlandCommunitySurvey.org o llámenos gratis al
 844-811-0411. ¡Gracias!
 Si vous souhaitez répondre à ce sondage en ligne en espagnol, veuillez consulter le site
 PortlandCommunitySurvey.org ou nous appeler gratuitement au 844-393-4437. Merci!
 Se você deseja responder a esta pesquisa online em espanhol, visite PortlandCommunitySurvey.org ou ligue
 gratuitamente para 844-247-8189. Obrigado!
 Haddii aad jeclaan lahayd inaad ku buuxiso sahankan khadka tooska ah ee Isbaanishka fadlan booqo
 PortlandCommunitySurvey.org ama naga soo wac telefoon bilaash ah 866-991-5215. Mahadsanid!
 ‫ ﯾُرﺟﻰ زﯾﺎرة‬،‫ إذا ﻛﻧت ﺗرﻏب ﻓﻲ إﻛﻣﺎل ھذا اﻻﺳﺗﺑﯾﺎن ﻋﺑر اﻹﻧﺗرﻧت ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﺳﺑﺎﻧﯾﺔ‬PortlandCommunitySurvey.org ‫أو اﻻﺗﺻﺎل ﺑﻧﺎ‬
 ‫ ﺷﻛرً ا ﻟك‬.0918-742- 448ً ‫!ﻣﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟرﻗ‬



 Page 211
 2025 City of Portland Community Survey
 The City of Portland is committed to building a strong community. Your open and honest
 feedback on this survey will inform City leaders about your level of satisfaction with the
state of the City and municipal services. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. Alternatively, you
may complete the survey online, at PortlandCommunitySurvey.org.
For additional information about the Portland Community Survey, please visit portlandmaine.gov/communitysurvey.


1. Overall Satisfaction with City Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following
 using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
01. Overall communication by the City with the community 5 4 3 2 1 9
02. Overall flow of traffic and ease of getting around within the City 5 4 3 2 1 9
03. Overall maintenance of city streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure 5 4 3 2 1 9
04. Overall quality of community engagement by City officials 5 4 3 2 1 9
05. Overall quality of customer service you receive from City employees 5 4 3 2 1 9
06. Overall quality of public parks 5 4 3 2 1 9
07. Overall quality of public safety services (police, fire, EMS) 5 4 3 2 1 9
08. Overall quality of public transportation within the city (bus, rail, ferry) 5 4 3 2 1 9
09. Overall quality of social services provided by the City 5 4 3 2 1 9
10. Overall quality of solid waste services (trash, recycling, yard waste) 5 4 3 2 1 9
11. Overall quality of stormwater management/flood control 5 4 3 2 1 9
12. Overall quality of the Portland Jetport 5 4 3 2 1 9
13. Overall quality of winter snow plowing and removal 5 4 3 2 1 9

2. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 1 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
 from City leaders over the next TWO years? [Write in your answers below using the numbers from the
 list in Question 1.]
 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____

3. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following items that may influence your perception
 of Portland as a community using a 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very
 Dissatisfied."
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
01. Availability of affordable housing options 5 4 3 2 1 9
02. How easy it is to access City programs and services 5 4 3 2 1 9
03. How fairly City resources are allocated 5 4 3 2 1 9
04. Overall affordability of living in Portland 5 4 3 2 1 9
05. Overall quality and variety of shopping and dining opportunities 5 4 3 2 1 9
06. Overall quality of life in the city 5 4 3 2 1 9
07. Overall quality of life in your neighborhood 5 4 3 2 1 9
08. Overall quality of services provided by the City of Portland 5 4 3 2 1 9
09. Overall value you receive for City of Portland taxes and fees 5 4 3 2 1 9
10. Shopping and dining opportunities in Portland 5 4 3 2 1 9
11. Portland as a place to live 5 4 3 2 1 9
12. Portland as a place to raise a family 5 4 3 2 1 9
13. Portland as a place to retire 5 4 3 2 1 9
14. Portland as a welcoming community 5 4 3 2 1 9
15. The city's recognition of diversity in my community 5 4 3 2 1 9
16. The overall direction in which the city is moving 5 4 3 2 1 9


©2025 ETC Institute Page 1
 Page 212
4. Would you say your trust in the City of Portland's Local Government is...
 ____(4) High ____(3) Somewhat high ____(2) Somewhat low ____(1) Low ____(9) Don't know

5. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: "My household's overall quality of life
 is improving?"
 ____(4) Strongly agree ____(3) Agree ____(2) Disagree ____(1) Strongly disagree ____(9) Don't know

6. Safety. Using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Safe" and 1 means "Very Unsafe," please rate
 how safe you feel in the following situations.
 How safe do you feel... Very Safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very Unsafe Don't Know
1. Overall feeling of safety in the city 5 4 3 2 1 9
2. In City parks 5 4 3 2 1 9
3. In commercial and retail areas 5 4 3 2 1 9
4. In Portland's downtown area 5 4 3 2 1 9
5. In your neighborhood at night 5 4 3 2 1 9
6. In your neighborhood during the day 5 4 3 2 1 9

7. Public Safety Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5
 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."
 Very Very
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't Know
 Satisfied Dissatisfied
01. Enforcement of local traffic laws 5 4 3 2 1 9
02. How quickly EMS services responds to emergencies 5 4 3 2 1 9
03. How quickly fire services responds to emergencies 5 4 3 2 1 9
04. How quickly police respond to requests for services 5 4 3 2 1 9
05. Overall quality of emergency medical/ambulance services 5 4 3 2 1 9
06. Overall quality of fire protection 5 4 3 2 1 9
07. Overall quality of local police services 5 4 3 2 1 9
08. Professionalism of fire/EMS first responders 5 4 3 2 1 9
09. Professionalism of police officers 5 4 3 2 1 9
10. Quality of police community programs and outreach 5 4 3 2 1 9
11. Quality of service when calling 911 with an emergency 5 4 3 2 1 9
12. The City's efforts to prevent crime 5 4 3 2 1 9

8. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 7 above do you think should receive the MOST
 EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next TWO years? [Write in your answers below using the
 numbers from the list in Question 7.]
 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____

9. Would you say your trust in Portland's Police Department is...
 ____(4) High ____(3) Somewhat high ____(2) Somewhat low ____(1) Low ____(9) Don't know

10. Trash and Recycling. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of 5 to
 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
1. Overall quality of trash collection services 5 4 3 2 1 9
2. Curbside recycling services 5 4 3 2 1 9
3. Purple/City trash bag program 5 4 3 2 1 9
4. Riverside Recycling drop-off services 5 4 3 2 1 9
5. Fall/Spring leaf and yard waste collection services 5 4 3 2 1 9
6. Holiday tree collection services 5 4 3 2 1 9
7. Quality of composting drop-off locations 5 4 3 2 1 9

©2025 ETC Institute Page 2
 Page 213
11. Maintenance and Public Works. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a
 scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."
 Very Very
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't Know
 Satisfied Dissatisfied
01. Adequacy of street lighting 5 4 3 2 1 9
02. Cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, and public spaces 5 4 3 2 1 9
03. Condition of major City streets 5 4 3 2 1 9
04. Condition of streets in your neighborhood 5 4 3 2 1 9
05. Condition of pavement markings on streets 5 4 3 2 1 9
06. Condition of sidewalks 5 4 3 2 1 9
07. Condition of street signs and traffic signals 5 4 3 2 1 9
08. Condition of public buildings and facilities 5 4 3 2 1 9
09. Tree trimming along streets and public areas 5 4 3 2 1 9
10. Condition of bike lanes, paths and signage 5 4 3 2 1 9
11. Snow removal on major City streets 5 4 3 2 1 9
12. Snow removal on neighborhood streets 5 4 3 2 1 9
13. Snow removal on sidewalks 5 4 3 2 1 9

12. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 11 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
 from City leaders over the next TWO years? [Write in your answers below using the numbers from the
 list in Question 11.]
 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____

13. Transportation and Mobility. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale
 of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
01. Accessibility of streets and sidewalks for people with disabilities 5 4 3 2 1 9
02. Accessibility of public buildings for people with disabilities 5 4 3 2 1 9
03. Ease of getting around the city by car 5 4 3 2 1 9
04. Ease of getting around the city by public transportation 5 4 3 2 1 9
05. Ease of getting around the city by bicycle 5 4 3 2 1 9
06. Ease of getting around the city by walking 5 4 3 2 1 9
07. Ease of using the Portland Jetport 5 4 3 2 1 9
08. Availability of sidewalks throughout the city 5 4 3 2 1 9
09. Availability of sidewalks in my neighborhood 5 4 3 2 1 9
10. Availability of public parking 5 4 3 2 1 9
11. Availability of effective way finding and signage 5 4 3 2 1 9
12. Facilities and amenities at the Jetport 5 4 3 2 1 9

14. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 13 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
 from City leaders over the next TWO years? [Write in your answers below using the numbers from the
 list in Question 13.]
 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____




©2025 ETC Institute Page 3
 Page 214
15. Parks and Recreation Services. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. Using a
 scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please rate your
 satisfaction with each of the services/programs listed below.
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
01. Adult Sports Leagues/Adult recreation programs 5 4 3 2 1 9
02. After-school childcare program 5 4 3 2 1 9
03. Aquatic programs 5 4 3 2 1 9
04. Condition of aquatic facilities 5 4 3 2 1 9
05. Condition of indoor recreational facilities/community centers 5 4 3 2 1 9
06. Condition of outdoor athletic fields (baseball, basketball, soccer) 5 4 3 2 1 9
07. Condition of public playgrounds 5 4 3 2 1 9
08. Connectivity of local trails and parks 5 4 3 2 1 9
09. Quality of City special events (e.g., parades, 4th of July, festival) 5 4 3 2 1 9
10. Quality of community and neighborhood parks 5 4 3 2 1 9
11. Quality of Fitzpatrick Stadium 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Quality of major City parks (Deering Oaks Park, Payson Park,
12. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Eastern Prom)
13. Quality of Merrill Auditorium 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Quality of multi-use trails (Back Cove Trail, Eastern Prom Trail,
14. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Fore River Parkway Trail, Bayside Trail)
 Quality of the James A. Banks, Sr. Portland Exposition Building
15. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 (also called the Portland Expo)
16. Quality of Troubh Ice Arena 5 4 3 2 1 9
17. Senior programs 5 4 3 2 1 9
18. Tennis amenities and condition of tennis and pickleball courts 5 4 3 2 1 9
19. Youth recreation programs 5 4 3 2 1 9

16. Which THREE of the items listed in Question 15 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS
 from City leaders over the next TWO years? [Write in your answers below using the numbers from the
 list in Question 15.]
 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____

17. Economic Development. Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale of
 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied."
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
1. Availability of good jobs in Portland 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Availability of places to shop, dine, or get services in your
2. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 neighborhood
3. Condition and appearance of local shopping and business areas 5 4 3 2 1 9
 How active and inviting businesses are (lighting, cleanliness, events,
4. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 etc.)
5. Overall strength of the local economy (business openings, jobs, etc.) 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Variety of local businesses (restaurants, shops, and services) in your
6. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 area




©2025 ETC Institute Page 4
 Page 215
18. Communication & Transparency. Using a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1
 means "Very Dissatisfied," please rate your satisfaction with each of the services listed below.
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
1. Availability of information about City news, programs and services 5 4 3 2 1 9
2. City efforts to keep you informed about local issues 5 4 3 2 1 9
3. Level of public involvement in local decision making 5 4 3 2 1 9
4. Timeliness of information provided by the City 5 4 3 2 1 9
5. Usefulness of information on the City's website 5 4 3 2 1 9
6. Local-access television station (Portland Media Center) 5 4 3 2 1 9
7. The City's use of social media 5 4 3 2 1 9
 The City's use of digital tools (e.g., 311/See Click Fix, live-streaming
8. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 meetings, online forms, text/email alerts)
9. Availability of information in a language I understand 5 4 3 2 1 9

19. Which of the following are your primary sources of information about City issues, services, and
 events? [Check all that apply.]
 ____(01) City's website ____(05) Facebook ____(09) Newspaper
 ____(02) Weekly E-Newsletter ____(06) NextDoor ____(10) Other: _________________________
 ____(03) Local Access Cable ____(07) Local TV News
 ____(04) Instagram ____(08) Radio

20. Which THREE sources of information listed in Question 19 are your most PREFERRED methods
 of receiving information about the City? [Write in your answers below using the numbers from the list
 in Question 19 or circle "NONE."]
 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____ NONE

21. Customer Service. Have you interacted with (by phone, on-line, or by visiting) the City during the
 past year?
 ____(1) Yes [Answer Q21a.] ____(2) No [Skip to Q22.]

 21a. Several factors that may influence your perception of the quality of customer service you
 receive from City employees are listed below. Please rate your satisfaction with each item.
 Very Very Don't
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
 Satisfied Dissatisfied Know
 1. How easy the department was to contact 5 4 3 2 1 9
 2. Level of courtesy you received 5 4 3 2 1 9
 Technical competence and knowledge of City employees
 3. 5 4 3 2 1 9
 who assisted you
 4. Overall satisfaction with your customer service experience 5 4 3 2 1 9

22. Listed below are several issues the City of Portland may face over the next 5 years. Which THREE
 of the issues listed below do you think will be MOST SIGNIFICANT over the next 5 years? [Write
 in your answers using the numbers from the list below.]
 1. Housing 8. Public Parks and Recreation Facilities
 2. Homelessness 9. Immigrant support and equity
 3. Public Safety and Crime 10. Public Health
 4. Substance Use and Mental Health 11. Property Tax Rate and Budget
 5. Transportation and Mobility 12. Trust/Transparency in Local Government
 6. Climate Change 13. Other: _________________________________________
 7. Jobs and Economic Opportunity

 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____


©2025 ETC Institute Page 5
 Page 216
Demographics

23. Approximately how many years have you lived in Portland?
 ____(1) Less than 5 years ____(2) 5-10 years ____(3) 11-20 years ____(4) More than 20 years

24. Including yourself, how many people from each age group are currently living in your household?
 5 and under: ____ 6 to 19: ____ 20 to 44: ____ 45 to 64: ____ 65 to 74: ____ 75 and over: ____

25. Do you own or rent your current residence? ____(1) Own ____(2) Rent ____(3) Other

26. What is your age? ______ years

27. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity?
 ____(01) Asian or Asian Indian ____(05) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
 ____(02) Black or African American ____(06) Hispanic or Latino
 ____(03) American Indian or Alaska Native ____(99) Other: ____________________________________________
 ____(04) White

28. Your gender:
 ____(1) Male ____(5) Transgender woman
 ____(2) Female ____(6) Prefer not to answer
 ____(3) Non-binary/Gender non-conforming ____(7) Other: _____________________________________________
 ____(4) Transgender man

29. Would you say your total household income is...
 ____(1) Under $30,000 ____(3) $60,000 to $99,999 ____(5) $130,000 or more
 ____(2) $30,000 to $59,999 ____(4) $100,000 to $129,999

30. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?
 ____(1) Employed outside the home - (What is the zip code where you work? _____________)
 ____(2) Employed in the home/have a home-based business
 ____(3) Student
 ____(4) Retired
 ____(5) Not currently employed outside the home

31. As a way to say thank you for your time, we will randomly select five survey respondents to
 receive a $100 Visa gift card. Would you be interested in entering the drawing? (Limited to one
 per household. Sent via email.)
 ____(1) Yes [Answer Q31a.] ____(2) No

 31a. Please provide your contact information.

 Name: Phone Number:

 Email Address:

32. [OPTIONAL] If you would be interested in subscribing to the City's weekly e-Newsletter that is
 sent out each Friday, please provide your email address. You can also sign up by visiting
 portlandmaine.gov/stayconnected.

 Email:




©2025 ETC Institute Page 6
 Page 217
 This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time!
 Please return your completed survey in the enclosed postage paid envelope addressed to:
 ETC Institute, 725 W. Frontier Circle, Olathe, KS 66061




©2025 ETC Institute Page 7
 Page 218
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL

Neighborhood Investment & Infrastructure: Create strong, safe, accessible and vibrant Including but not limited to (in
 neighborhoods: alphabetical order, not in order of
Description: Public safety and mobility are key components to priority):
improving the livelihood of Portland neighborhoods. There is a Description: Invest in infrastructure to improve
significant need to build neighborhood sidewalks where none exist, neighborhood assets and build strong, safe, HIGH PRIORITY
improve ADA compliance, and increase access to alternative accessible and vibrant neighborhoods.
 ●​Accessibility/ADA compliance
modes of transportation. Additionally, there is a need to increase Improve accessibility and livability through
 ●​Alternative modes of transportation
resident’s ability to remain or become active and engaged age-friendly designs and ADA compliance. Build
 ●​Community policing
members of their neighborhoods through community based sidewalks and trails to improve connectivity,
 increase the use of bicycles as a mode of ●​Park and Recreation Facilities
services and programs.
 transportation, and redevelop streetscapes to ●​Public infrastructure in
 create shared streets for cars, bikes, and targeted neighborhoods
Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020, the Portland City
Council identified four goals that identified this need: 1) 15 buses pedestrians that integrate with the fabric of the
 neighborhood. Support programs that increase PRIORITY
for 15 minutes: Add 15 buses to our fleet allowing us to reduce
 safety in neighborhoods for residents and visitors. ●​Community centers and
peak hour wait times to an hour to 15 minutes. 2) Light Hybrid rail
 engagement programs
to the eastern waterfront: install hybrid electric rail cars to come
 Invest in programs and services that address the ●​Disability Services
into Portland’s eastern waterfront to reduce traffic. 3) Implement
 specific needs of members of the community. ●​Non-profit rehab
a plan for installation of solar arrays. 4) Increase public transit
 Encourage programs that build a sense of ●​Public infrastructure outside of
infrastructure and capacity in the City. The 2030 Comprehensive
plan lists the following strategy: Full Service City: 2. Provide inclusiveness, safety, and security within targeted neighborhood
services to all residents. Operate City facilities and services in an individual neighborhoods. ●​Senior Services
efficient and effective manner that is responsive to all segments ●​Tree planting
of the community.

Resource:
City of Portland 2019 & 2020 City Council Common Goals. and the
2030 City of Portland Comprehensive Plan




 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ UPDATED 10.05.2021


 Page 219
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL

 Housing Availability: Increase housing availability & affordability: Including but not limited to (in alphabetical order,
 not in order of priority):
Description: In the 2019 Housing report, it was reported Description: Increase housing availability and
that Portland has an affordability gap of $255,796. In affordability to all Portland residents HIGH PRIORITY
addition, there is a lack of affordable rental housing regardless of income, race, ethnicity, and ●​Adaptive reuse for housing
within Portland’s housing supply. The City Council family size. Encourage housing development ●​Construction of new housing (HOME funds
continues to make housing availability and affordability by removing barriers to traditional urban only)
their goal. housing types while ensuring the inclusion of ●​Housing Retention
 workforce and age-friendly housing in ●​Housing Start up Assistance
Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020, the Portland significant development projects. ●​Rehabilitation of existing housing
City Council identified the following goal to address this
need: Increase access to rental and home ownership that
is safe, affordable, and accessible. PRIORITY
 ●​Environmental testing and remediation
Resources: ●​Energy efficiency/weatherization
2030 Workforce Housing Demand Study ●​Fair housing activities
2019 City of Portland Housing Committee, Interim Housing ●​Heating and fuel assistance
Report ●​Legal services Tenant/landlord counseling services
2019 & 2020 City Council Common Goals.




 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ UPDATED 10.05.2021


 Page 220
 NEED Goal PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL

 Economic Opportunity: Create economic opportunities to transition people out of Including but not limited to (in
 poverty: alphabetical order, not in order of
Description: Portland has a well-developed employment priority):
support system with many established providers. However, the Description: Invest in Portland businesses to enable them to
system is fragmented, providers work in silos, there is expand to create jobs. Invest in persons wanting to create
insufficient funding to cover needs of potential workers, and microenterprises. Engage job seekers in a continuum of HIGH PRIORITY
career planning and financial stability are often prioritized less services to increase their professional capacity, financial ●​Career advancement services
than job placement. Employment retention support is scarce stability, and ability to maintain employment. Focus on ●​Education
and turnover results in economic uncertainty for employees difficult to employ populations including homeless, new
 ●​Job training
and higher costs for employers. Americans and single parent head of households. Combine
 resources and build partnerships between public and private ●​GED attainment
 entities to provide opportunities to transition Portland ●​ESL
Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020, the Portland City
 residents out of poverty to sustainable employment and ●​Job
Council identified the following goal: Promote Economic
 financial stability. Creation
Development in the City in a manner that provides for
 ●​Job retention support services
increased property values, diversification across industry
 ●​Childcare vouchers
sectors and high paying jobs. Specifically, as it
relates to HUD programming and objectives, the Council further ●​Housing counseling
identified the need to advance work on the “Minority and ●​Transportation assistance
Women-owned ●​Microenterprise Assistance
Business Development Initiative” and secure City Council
approval to invest CDBG funds in workforce development.

Resources:
Portland Economic Development Vision and Plan Portland
Community Chamber of Commerce: Portland’s Economic
Scorecard 2014-2015 Muskie School of Public Service: The State
of Infant Pre-K Childcare in Portland, Maine 2015 GPCOG
2014-2018 Economic Development
Action Plan




 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ UPDATED 10.05.2021


 Page 221
 NEED GOAL PRIORITY IMPACT LEVEL

Address the Needs for Growing Homeless Population: Prevent and Reduce Homelessness: Including but not limited to (in alphabetical order, not
 in order of priority):
 Description: The shelter system in Portland is beyond capacity.
 Staff and local organizations struggle to deal with overflow Description: Prevent individuals and HIGH PRIORITY
 strategies to meet increasing need. Data from 2019 showed families from becoming homeless and ●​Behavioral Health Services
 that 79% of the shelter consumers were new consumers, the entering into the shelter system. Rapidly ●​Emergency services to prevent
 average length of stay at the shelter is under 60 days. rehouse those who enter the shelter homelessness
 Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing are key system. Provide necessary resources to ●​Food Assistance
 components to help reduce shelter usage and homelessness. assist vulnerable populations transition ●​Housing and Housing Services for long- term
 Additionally increased case management is needed for those out of homelessness, including housing shelter consumers
 who have mental illness and substance abuse issues to help opportunities for chronically homeless or ●​Housing Startup Services
 them navigate the service delivery system. long-term stayers at homeless shelters. ●​Shelter services

 Basis for Relative priority: In 2019 & 2020 the Portland City PRIORITY
 Council identified the goal: Continue the effort to reduce ●​At risk youth services
 homelessness, assist people experiencing homelessness
 through City, Regional, and State efforts.
 Resource: 2020 City Council Common Goals
 20Health and Human Services Shelter Report




 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ UPDATED 10.05.2021


 Page 222