Portland’s police union and a local auto magnate are bankrolling a plan to divert some money from a voter-approved tax designed to help the city adapt to climate change to pay for more police officers.

“I love Portland and believe deeply in its future,” said Jeff Swickard, the car dealership owner who recently purchased the U.S. Bancorp Tower, colloquially known as “Big Pink.” “Strengthening public safety reaffirms our city’s core values of community and compassion.”

Swickard and the Portland Police Association — the union representing rank-and-file Portland officers — have each contributed $25,000 toward the political action committee supporting the measure.

The initiative would amend the city’s charter to require that there are no fewer than one police officer per 500 Portland residents. According to the petitioners, Portland would need to hire around 400 new officers to meet that threshold.

According to current Portland Police Bureau data, the city currently has 877 officer positions, which is roughly one officer per 725 residents. Currently, 65 of those positions are vacant.

The petitioners propose funding the new police positions with an already adopted city tax, the Portland Clean Energy Fund. The measure suggests taking 25% of PCEF’s annual revenue, which is roughly $200 million, to hire hundreds of officers.

PCEF is a 1% tax on large retail businesses in Portland aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The money goes toward a range of climate-related initiatives, like retrofitting homes for energy efficiency and job training for people in energy fields. Willamette Week reported on the ballot proposal earlier this week.

The tax was passed by voters in 2018, with the specific purpose to pay for clean energy projects and job training. A formal investment plan for the fund codified this requirement in 2023, laying out the specific types of programs that the spending can be used for. Public safety is not included.

PCEF has outperformed. Initial estimates calculated the fund would raise $40 million to $60 million each year. The tax surcharge is instead generating about $200 million annually. Politicians have looked to tap into that excess money for years, floating different proposals — some successful — to reroute the funding to fill budget gaps.

What to know about Portland’s Parks Levy ballot measure

In a press release announcing the proposal, petitioners point to a recent report penned by a group of business leaders convened by Gov. Tina Kotek. That report, published in August, recommended overhauling PCEF to allow any excess revenue to go toward the city’s general fund, allowing other city departments to use it.

“This initiative guarantees a portion of those funds will be used for police and public safety,” reads the press release.

Petitions want to pose their proposal to voters in November 2026. To do so, they must collect at least 40,437 signatures by July 6.

The Portland Police Bureau has long struggled to hire and retain new officers. Police Chief Bob Day has pointed to recent retirement waves, a long training period, and recruiting challenges as barriers to that work. It’s not a challenge unique to Portland. Police departments across the country have struggled to recruit.

PPA President Aaron Schmautz has long advocated for more police officers in Portland.

“This initiative is critical to give Portlanders the number of police they need and the safety they deserve,” he wrote in a statement. “More officers isn’t the only solution for a safer Portland, but it’s a long overdue ingredient.”

PPA has had a rocky record advocating for ballot measures. Last year, a union-backed ballot petition that would have reduced the powers of a new police oversight board failed to qualify for the November 2025 ballot.

Portlanders Juanita Swartwood and Bob Simril are the proposal’s chief petitioners. Each have dabbled in Oregon politics. Swartwood is a former city employee who led a petition in 2023 to recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. That initiative died after the Oregon Legislature took similar action last year.

Simril unsuccessfully ran for Portland City Council last year. In a candidate questionnaire with OPB/The Oregonian/OregonLive, Simril supported maintaining the PCEF fund as-is. “We can use these funds creatively for air filters, CO2 sensors in underserved communities, and add trees, sunscreens, water features, and fresh water stations in parks and public spaces citywide,” Simril wrote.

On the campaign trail and in office, the majority of Portland city councilors have pledged to keep PCEF from being used beyond its stated purpose.

Portland’s parks levy passage favored in early returns on election night

In a statement shared with OPB, Councilor Candace Avalos called the public safety proposal a “slap in the face.”

“If the PPA and their wealthy backers want to put up a ballot measure to fund more police positions, they can do so without raiding a program that’s helping protect vulnerable communities from climate change,” she said.

Councilor Steve Novick previously supported an unsuccessful plan to increase the PCEF tax and use the extra revenue to bolster the city’s general fund. On Thursday, Novick said he had questions for the petitioners and the police union.

“The question I would ask is — what do you want us to cut? Do you want us to eliminate all the funding that goes to community groups for climate projects? Do you want us to cut funding for various city bureaus?” Novick wrote in an email to OPB. “I agree we need more police, but PCEF is not a ‘free’ pot of money. It’s all been allocated. If they’re going to do this they should explain what choices they think we should make.”

Mayor Keith Wilson has said in the past that he doesn’t want to use PCEF for anything beyond climate change initiatives. He suggested the same in a statement emailed to OPB Thursday.

“We’re asking two separate questions,” Wilson said. “What is the future of our clean energy ambitions? What will it take to reach our public safety goals? We have to be successful at both, and I’m concerned about pitting these issues against each other.”

Criticism of the proposed ballot measure has also come from groups that led the campaign to create PCEF in 2018, like the Coalition of Communities of Color.

“It’s clear that wealthy special interests are behind this measure in yet another attempt to weaken and dismantle progressive initiatives,” wrote Marcus Mundy, director of CCC, in an email to OPB. “We firmly oppose any effort to divert funds away from PCEF’s intended purpose and must stay committed to delivering its promise to serve and center the populations it was designed for.”

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/11/13/portland-ballot-proposal-climate-police/