Portland’s City Council voted to adopt a new detention‑facility impact fee aimed at making operators or property owners cover the city’s costs when detention sites generate predictable public burdens.

The ordinance, added to city code chapter 5.8, passed on second reading after a lengthy exchange among council members. Sponsor Councilor Maria Murillo framed the measure as a Pigouvian fee designed to “compensate for the actual costs to the city and the community springing from the operation of a detention facility,” including episodic costs such as traffic management, environmental monitoring and policing.

The measure drew divided views on the dais. Supporters said the fee gives the city a way to recover expenses now borne by neighbors and taxpayers. Councilor Green said the ordinance “establishes a fair and predictable framework for addressing the public costs that are not internalized by market activity.” Murillo’s office also filed a FAQ and clarified the policy applies broadly to detention facilities, not only the McAdam Building.

Opponents raised practical concerns about launching a new regulatory program. Councilor Clark said he worried about the administration’s costs to stand up the program and whether the city had the staffing capacity to implement the fee. Councilor Novick warned the fee risks penalizing private property owners for protest activity that triggers overtime policing; Murillo and other backers countered that the ordinance focuses on the land use and predictable burdens it causes, not on protest activity per se.

The ordinance directs the city administrator to develop (via rulemaking) the methodology for annual fees, nuisance‑based charges for discrete incidents, and prioritization of how collected funds will be used. Several councilors requested rulemaking return to council with opportunities for public input and suggested the administration include guidance about how revenue priorities—such as assistance to households or small businesses—would be set. City legal staff confirmed the nuisance provisions would allow instance‑by‑instance billing when a facility’s operations generate discrete, recoverable costs.

Roll call: the ordinance passed with 9 yes votes, 2 no votes and 1 absent. Implementation steps, including administrative rulemaking and a council review during rule development, were projected by sponsors to begin promptly.

What’s next: staff will begin the rulemaking process called for in the ordinance and return to council for review and public input on the methodology for calculating fees and allocating revenue.