portland maine city council – Kate Sykes for District Five

The District Five Insider is a newsletter about the big decisions making their way through the City Council, what they mean for District Five, and how you can get involved. Enter your email and click subscribe to receive this newsletter in your mailbox.

Friday, March 13, 2026

2025 Annual Report to Constituents

Dear neighbors,

Over the past year we’ve worked together to tackle major challenges facing Portland, from housing and street safety to strengthening our local economy and public institutions.

When you elected me, I promised to fight for housing that Portlanders can afford, public safety rooted in care, living wages, and a local government accountable to the people it serves. With your help, we made meaningful progress on many of these goals in 2025.

Residents like you organized, canvassed, spoke out, and stepped up to serve on boards and commissions, helping move important policy changes forward. Together we delivered real wins for working families while also laying the groundwork for long-term solutions to our most challenging issues.

Meaningful policy change rarely happens in a single vote or a single year. It requires sustained effort in building coalitions, strengthening institutions, and putting the pieces in place for long-term change. This report highlights some of what we accomplished together this year and the work we’ve done to set Portland on a stronger path for the future.

As I share this update, I also want you to know that I will not be seeking re-election to the City Council when my current term concludes. I feel proud of the progress we’ve made together and confident about the direction we’ve set.

I still have eight months left in my term, and there is plenty more work to do. One of the most important efforts now underway is the Social Housing Task Force, which is halfway through its year-long charge to develop a plan for permanently affordable, publicly owned housing in Portland. This work has the potential to shape our city for generations, and it will be essential that the momentum we’ve built continues. That will be my primary focus for the remainder of my term.

Thank you for the trust you placed in me and for everything you have done to help move our city forward.

-Kate

2025 Annual Report Final Download

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Notice: Under Maine law, documents – including e-mails and text messages – in the possession of public officials or city employees about government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised that what is written in a text message or e-mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested.

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Explainer: What’s Actually Happening with Nonprofit Property Tax Exemptions in Portland?

Over the past several weeks, a number of Portland nonprofits have received notices from the City Assessor’s Office indicating that their municipal property tax exemption has been revoked.

Understandably, this has created anxiety, frustration, and confusion.

I’ve fielded calls from nonprofit leaders who feel blindsided and politically targeted. Some have said to me, “The last time something like this happened was during the LePage years. We expect this from the right, not from the left. What gives?” I even received calls from state legislators who didn’t realize that municipal property tax exemptions are governed by state law.

This tells me there’s a real gap in public understanding about what’s happening here.

So, why are some nonprofits in Portland being told they no longer qualify for property tax exemption? The public deserves a clear explanation of what is happening, and what is not.

Federal nonprofit status is not the same as property tax exemption

Many people assume that if an organization is a 501(c)(3), it is automatically exempt from property taxes. That’s not how the law works.

Federal nonprofit status governs income tax. Municipal property tax exemption is governed by Maine state law, specifically Title 36 of the Maine Revised Statutes.

They are separate systems with different standards.

Property tax exemption in Maine is narrow and “use-based”

Under Maine law, all property is taxable unless it falls within a specific statutory exemption. Courts in Maine have consistently held that exemptions must be interpreted narrowly. Taxation is the rule. Exemption is the exception.

It is also important to understand that the statute contains different categories of exemption, each with its own standards. Not all nonprofits fall under the same subsection of the law.

Many community organizations, including arts and cultural nonprofits, rely on the “charitable and benevolent institution” category. Under that provision, the law requires that:

The property be owned by a charitable or benevolent institution;
The institution be organized and conducted exclusively for charitable purposes; and
The property be occupied or used solely for those charitable purposes.

That third requirement: “occupied or used solely” is where most questions arise.

The standard is not whether the organization is valuable or does good work in the community. The standard is how the property is used.

Examples that typically qualify:

A museum open to the public for educational purposes.
A food pantry distributing goods to people.
A shelter providing housing as part of its charitable mission.
A nonprofit operating free or low-cost educational programming.

Examples that can raise statutory concerns:

Regularly renting space for weddings or private corporate events.
Alcohol sales
Leasing portions of a building at market rates to unrelated tenants.
Operating substantial revenue-generating activities not directly tied to the charitable mission.
Using significant portions of a property for non-charitable administrative or commercial activity.

Other institutions, such as houses of religious worship or certain hospital facilities, may qualify under different statutory subsections with distinct legal standards.

This does not mean that revenue-generating activities are unethical. Many nonprofits rely on creative fundraising to survive. But under Maine law, exemption depends on statutory use standards, not institutional goodwill.

If someone believes those standards are too narrow, that is ultimately a question for the Maine Legislature, not something a councilor or municipal assessor can change.

Who makes these decisions, and why Council cannot reverse them

In Maine, assessors occupy a unique legal position. Although they are appointed by municipalities, assessors exercise independent professional judgment, are supervised by the State Tax Assessor, are not subject to direction by the municipality in carrying out assessment duties.

This structure exists to prevent political interference in tax administration. And it means the City Council and City Manager are not authorized to direct or reverse individual exemption determinations. Even when controversy arises, the legal structure is intentionally insulated.

If there is disagreement with a determination, the proper avenue is the appeal process, not political intervention.

Why this is happening now

These exemption revocations we are hearing about in the paper arose in the context of Portland’s 2025 property tax revaluation, which requires a comprehensive review of properties on the tax roll.

Under state law, parcels owned by tax-exempt non-profits are supposed to be reviewed annually. In practice, a full annual review of every exempt parcel is administratively demanding and not always possible. From what I have been told, this recent review was likely the most thorough review of tax-exempt properties conducted in many years. (As in, no one seems to remember the last time it was done.)

When regular maintenance doesn’t happen consistently, later corrections feel abrupt. That dynamic can create the appearance of a sudden shift in political ideology or a revenue grab, when, in reality, it reflects a system catching up.

What has occurred so far

According to information provided by City staff:

Since March 2025, the tax-exempt status for 48 parcels has been revoked.
41 revocations took immediate effect.
7 are deferred to April 1, 2026.

Those revocations add approximately $46.3 million in assessed value back to the tax roll.
Using the FY2026 mill rate of $11.98 per $1,000, that equates to approximately $555,000 in anticipated annual revenue.

Additionally, the Assessor has statutory authority to issue supplemental assessments going back up to three years in certain cases. Approximately 39 supplemental assessments totaling about $189,512.57 are being issued or processed.

It’s important to be clear that these revocations do not automatically imply bad faith by nonprofits. It may reflect evolving uses of real property, administrative capacity constraints, or reporting gaps over time.

The larger issue is consistency and fairness in application of the law.

What organizations can do next

Organizations have several options:

Request an in-person meeting with the Assessor’s Office
Submit a written request for reconsideration
File an abatement and appeal to the Board of Assessment Review
Appeal further to Superior Court
In certain cases, seek a declaratory judgment

If an organization believes it can modify its use to comply with the statute, it may also simply reapply for exemption.

What this is not

This is not a City Council vote targeting nonprofits.

This is not a judgment about the cultural value of institutions like the Maine Irish Heritage Center, Maine Public, Mayo Street Arts, or others.

This is not the same thing as the proposed PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) program that the Finance Committee has been working on for two years.

The broader context

Portland has a significant amount of tax-exempt property—estimated at $4 billion. When exemptions are granted appropriately, they reflect legitimate public benefit and help relieve the burden of government. But, when exemptions drift beyond statutory standards, the funding needed to deliver core municipal services shifts to homeowners and businesses.

Portland’s nonprofit sector plays an outsized role in civic life, in part because our private-sector base is relatively thin and public investment has fluctuated over decades. Many nonprofits provide services that are valuable and loved by many, but that does not eliminate the need for statutory compliance. Allowing exemption standards to drift for years without review undermines public trust, erodes our tax base, and ultimately creates sharper corrections down the road.

What comes next?

When you elected me to serve in City Hall, I made it clear that I would fight for tax fairness. That means making sure our laws are applied consistently, transparently, and without political interference.

It is evident to me that the Assessor’s Office has undertaken a more comprehensive review of exemptions than has occurred in many years. The fact that this feels sudden to many organizations suggests that past oversight may not have been as regular or as visible as it should have been. Going forward, our responsibility is to ensure that review is consistent and predictable.

I believe the best work of the Council right now is to insist on:

Clear, proactive communication about process and timelines;
Better public education about the difference between federal nonprofit status and municipal property tax exemption;
An honest discussion about our capacity to conduct regular reviews;
Respect for the established appeal process.

Portland values the services nonprofits provide. We love our cultural institutions. We must also insist that tax law be applied consistently and fairly.

If you would like to understand your organization’s specific situation, I encourage direct engagement with the Assessor’s Office and use of the established appeal pathways.

The standards are written in state law. A fair process exists. This is a complex issue, but it is not a mysterious one.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Monday, March 2, 2026

Tonight’s Drone Vote: Why I believe regulation is the responsible path

Over the past several weeks, I’ve received many messages and calls urging a “no” vote on the Portland Police Department’s request to purchase a drone. These concerns are thoughtful, deeply felt, and they deserve a clear response.

For me, this decision is not about whether drones are “good” or “bad.” It’s about how we regulate their use here in Portland, and whether that regulation is under strong local control.

I’m weighing several things at once: community trust in a moment of federal overreach and fear; the reality that drones are already being used here in Portland; and my responsibility as a policymaker to regulate what already exists in practice.

Trust and Context

The recent ICE surge changed the emotional climate in our city. Even though that surge has been scaled back, a lot of fear and uncertainty remain. For many residents, distrust of surveillance and law enforcement has been a lived reality for generations. I know that policing and technology can disproportionately impact immigrant and Black and brown communities, and any expansion of law enforcement tools must be considered in that broader context.

That is precisely why I have spent the past two years working with City staff to strengthen the guardrails around this policy. If this technology is going to exist, it must operate under strict constitutional limits, clear use restrictions, and meaningful transparency.

What the Policy Now Requires

The current Standard Operating Procedure is significantly stronger than the original draft. It:

Prohibits passive or warrantless surveillance
Requires prosecutorial approval and a warrant (or recognized legal exception) for criminal investigations
Limits use to defined public safety situations
Mandates documentation and public reporting of each deployment
Bans facial recognition
Restricts enhancement technologies

The vote the council will take tonight will not give police a blank check, rather it proposes a tightly regulated framework designed to prevent misuse.

The Reality: Drones Are Already Being Used

Portland police already use drones by borrowing them from surrounding municipalities. When that happens, the other municipality’s policy governs the use. The data collected may be stored outside Portland’s control, and we have limited oversight over retention, deletion, or potential sharing.

Public Safety Considerations

Drones also have legitimate public safety applications. They can help locate missing persons more quickly, including people with dementia who may wander into wooded areas, assist with fire scene assessment without placing personnel at additional risk, and provide aerial visibility in hazardous or high-risk situations where distance can reduce escalation.

When properly regulated, this tool can protect both the public and first responders.

If a tool can help find someone faster, prevent unnecessary danger, or reduce escalation, I believe it should be available, under strict regulation and meaningful oversight. And I believe that here in Portland we are capable of being a model for that kind of regulation.

Governance in a Changing Technological Landscape

Trust in government is fragile right now, particularly for communities that have long experienced over-policing and surveillance. I take that seriously.

At the same time, technology will continue to evolve whether we welcome it or not. I believe it is our responsibility as policymakers to ensure democratic oversight keeps pace with that change. If we step back from setting rules, enforcing limits, and governing responsibly, we don’t strengthen trust, rather we erode the civic institutions that allow communities to shape their own future.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and continued conversation.

-Kate

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Reflections on the District 5 Community Meeting

Last night, I had the honor of hosting residents of District 5 for a community meeting at Casco Bay High School. We were joined by City Councilors Ben Grant (At-Large), Pious Ali (At-Large), Mayor Mark Dion, State Senator Jill Duson, State Representative Sam Zager, Superintendent Ryan Scallon, City Manager Danielle West and more than City Staff representing many different departments. This annual event offers residents the opportunity to raise concerns, ask questions, and hear directly from the elected and appointed officials working on their behalf. For me, it was a chance to listen, learn, and take the pulse of our community.

Below are a few of the major themes that emerged and some reflections I want to share as your District 5 Councilor.

Emergency Shelter at 166 Riverside: The Right Service, the Wrong Fit

The most urgent concern raised by Riverton residents involved the city’s plan to open 166 Riverside as an emergency warming shelter this winter. Many neighbors voiced fears about increased crime, public drug use, and the disruption of neighborhood safety and cohesion.

I understand these concerns and expressed similar ones myself, especially around the location of the shelter, which is far from where unhoused individuals are currently living, and not set up for this kind of use.

Meeting the needs of unhoused individuals trying to survive on our streets is not just a Portland issue. It is a county issue, a state issue, and a federal issue. I have and continue to encourage constituents to contact our Cumberland County Commissioners, the County Sheriff’s office, and State lawmakers across Maine to demand action. No single level of government can shoulder this crisis alone; but every level must be part of the solution.

It is long past time for a political reckoning on this issue. Taxpayers deserve more than the rhetoric we hear from both political Parties. Democrats must recommit to long-term fiscal responsibility, and prove to the public that strategic, preventative investments reduce the need for high-cost emergency interventions. And Republicans must recognize that simply cutting services in the name of budget discipline does not save money in the long run. It simply shifts the burden, pushing people into jails, emergency rooms, and shelters that were never built to serve as housing, healthcare, or recovery programs.

A functional society invests in its people. Not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to do.

Development in Riverton: Growing with Intention

We also discussed Belfort Landing, an approved 50-unit housing development near Talbot School. This is a market rate development that complies with the Green New Deal’s environmental and inclusionary zoning requirements that 25% of units be affordable to people making 80% or less of the Area Median Income. This is precisely the type of infill development we need in District 5. It is located along a public transportation corridor, walkable to schools and amenities, and designed to accommodate Portland families, the teachers, essential workers, and young parents that will help our city thrive.

Some neighbors have expressed concerns about density, traffic, and safety for children walking to school. Those concerns are valid, and they have been heard and responded to by both the Planning Department and Planning Board. The project is proceeding because it meets our zoning and development standards, which were themselves developed through a rigorous democratic process.

Good community decisions happen when we set fair and inclusive rules, elect representatives to make decisions in the common good, and then hold them accountable to those decisions. That is what the city’s zoning reform efforts (ReCode), the Comprehensive Plan, and State level policies like LD 2003 have accomplished, and we must abide by those rules.

I support this development, and I also support the efforts of the neighborhood to organize a Friends of Riverton group to help guide future development in a community centered direction. Those efforts will be most successful when they align with our broader, democratically decided goals for housing, equity, and sustainability and add value to that by partnering with local developers and business owners to bring more people and amenities to the area. We need more housing in District 5, not less. And we need it to reflect the investments that taxpayers past and present have made in our transportation corridors, utilities, and infrastructure, as well as the vision and values of the current residents.

Rising Property Taxes: A Call for Equity

This year’s tax assessments have hit some District 5 residents especially hard, and I want to acknowledge that pain. For many homeowners, it has meant rebalancing budgets, tightening spending, and worrying about the future.

The City Manager encouraged homeowners who have concerns about the accuracy of their assessment to email her directly at: citymanager@portlandmaine.gov to get information on how to appeal.

On the Council I am working through the Finance Committee on two concrete solutions:

Expanding the Senior Tax Equity Program to include residents of all ages.
Advancing a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program that asks large nonprofits to contribute to the cost of city services.

A Word on Social Housing

One of the most promising initiatives moving forward in Portland right now is Social Housing, and it could be a game-changer for how we solve our housing crisis at scale. The establishment of the Social Housing Task Force marks a turning point in how we think about housing not just as a commodity, but as essential public infrastructure, just like roads, bridges, schools, and fire stations.

The basic idea is this: we use public funds to build and permanently own mixed-income housing that serves low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents. This housing is off the speculative market. It is not beholden to profit margins or outside investors. It is publicly owned, permanently affordable, and aligned with our values and our needs as a city.

When we invest in social housing, we stabilize families, reduce emergency shelter use, relieve pressure on rental markets, and lower the demand for crisis-level public services. The public pays less over time because we are solving problems upstream, not scrambling to manage them after the fact.

Unlike subsidizing private development, which requires continual reinvestment to maintain affordability, social housing is a one-time capital investment that pays long-term dividends. It generates revenue through rent, maintains affordability in perpetuity, and gives the city a real asset—public housing stock that is aligned with our goals.

This approach also allows us to build at a larger scale. We don’t have to wait for the right developer with the right margins; we don’t have to negotiate inclusionary zoning percentages. We can grow in accordance with our own vision for equitable housing development, not according to the bottom line of private capital. That means we can build near schools, near transit corridors, in walkable neighborhoods like Riverton and Deering Center, and build it responsibly.

In fact, social housing is one of the only solutions on the table that addresses every major issue that came up at our District 5 meeting:

Concerned about the shelter system? Build more deeply affordable, stable housing so fewer people ever need emergency shelter in the first place.

Concerned about rising property values and taxes? Invest public dollars in housing to increase supply and reduce reliance of shelters, emergency services, and jails to fill gaps in the social safety net.

Concerned about neighborhood integrity? Plan and design housing that is community-centered, transit-connected, and aligned with long-term infrastructure and land use goals—guided by us as a city, not just the priorities and limitations of the private market.

Social housing allows us to build what we need, where we need it, for the people who need it most—and to do so responsibly, transparently, and in alignment with the values of our city.

That is how we take control of our housing future.

Thanks to everyone who attended the meeting last night, and I look forward to sharing more about the work of the Social Housing Task Force in the weeks ahead.