Portland council narrows parks levy options, prioritizes maintenance and capital repairs

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Portland City Council on June 24 held a work session to give staff direction on a replacement parks levy that would go before voters in November, with most members prioritizing maintenance of existing assets and a small, dedicated fund for capital maintenance over new program expansion.

Council members and city staff said the current parks levy expires in July 2026 and the council must act at its July meeting to place a measure on the November ballot. Mike Jordan, city administrator, told the council that the levy “is really not an additive thing for new service. It is really really something to maintain service over the next 5 years.”

The discussion centered on four illustrative levy scenarios staff presented. Sonia Schimanski, deputy city administrator for the Vibrant Communities service area, said the rate needed to sustain ongoing service — after accounting for recent one‑time restorations in the current budget — is about $1.27 per $1,000 of assessed value. Staff presented example packages that ranged roughly from about $1.37 to $1.51 per $1,000, varying by how much is devoted to capital maintenance, programming and operations.

The council’s options included a “restoration” scenario that restores programming and routine maintenance without committing a major capital maintenance fund; versions that commit roughly 10 percent of levy revenues (described by staff as about $6 million a year in some scenarios) to capital maintenance for repairs such as restrooms and playgrounds; and mixed packages that also restore some community center hours and summer programming. Schimanski said these examples were “illustrative and they’re not recommendations,” and she noted a small correction to numbers distributed to the council: an urban forestry reinvestment of about $2.1 million lowered the rates by roughly 3–4 cents.

Council members repeatedly emphasized maintenance and preventing further backlog. “My priority for the levy is maintenance,” Councilor Clark said, urging a longer‑term, comprehensive asset plan and suggesting parks be included in future capital or bond planning. Councilor Dunphy said failing restrooms and broken play equipment reduce public safety and park use, particularly in East Portland. Several members backed a modest capital maintenance set‑aside — enough to fund mid‑sized repairs across the system — rather than using the levy primarily to open or operate large new facilities.

Staff and partners described how the levy fits with other funding. Jordan and parks staff said the levy and general fund are blended in practice: the levy has come to cover a large share of parks operations and, absent a different policy choice, staff modeled new facility operations as being funded through the levy (an assumption councilors questioned). Sarah Huggins of the Parks Bureau explained that during the current levy period the city has not added general fund support to cover operations for newly opened facilities, so the council must decide whether to continue that policy.

Councilors pressed staff on tradeoffs and assumptions: what “capital maintenance” would cover (playground replacements, restroom rehabilitations, periodic repairs), how partnerships and philanthropy figure into modeled revenues (staff included a rounded $1 million line for philanthropy, volunteerism and partnerships that embeds renewed community grants of about $450,000 a year), and how cost recovery could be adjusted to expand swim lessons without excluding low‑income families. Noah Siegel, contracted with the Portland Parks Foundation, described the partnership line as a startup investment for external partnerships and estimated it could yield additional revenue (staff characterized the partnership figure as a rounded, preliminary estimate).

Councilors also discussed major planned projects that will come online during the levy period. Staff listed several high‑cost projects in development or planning, including the North Portland Aquatic Center (staff estimated about $100 million capital cost and about $6.4 million in annual operations costs if opened), an Old Town skatepark (annual operations example: ~$450,000), Darcelle Plaza, and other capital projects. Several councilors said the city should not add new, ongoing liabilities without clear funding commitments; others—particularly councilors representing districts that would gain new facilities—argued the council must account for operating costs somewhere (levy, general fund or a different vehicle) or the city will have assets it cannot afford to operate.

Staff also flagged fiscal risks to consider: property value changes downtown create “compression” under state property tax rules (Measure 5), which reduces levy yield. Schimanski and staff said revenue figures used in the scenarios reflected an estimated amount after compression; staff noted some impact on other levies and cultural funding but characterized those impacts as limited at the scenario levels shown.

Council discussion turned to political strategy and messaging as well as dollar amounts. Staff presented polling showing stable support for a parks levy at modest rates and meaningful price sensitivity above roughly $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed value; several councilors noted that the choice of a final rate should balance need and the best chance to win on the ballot. No formal votes were taken—the meeting was a work session—but staff were asked to return with referral language and refined numbers for the council’s July meeting so the body can refer a measure in time for the November ballot.

The council asked staff to draft a referral that emphasizes maintenance, commits a clear but modest share of levy proceeds to capital maintenance (many members discussed a 10 percent target), preserves core programming and summer camps where feasible, and sets clear directions about partnerships and cost‑recovery policies to protect access for low‑income families. Staff also heard requests to further refine assumptions about operations costs for specific projects (for example, the North Portland Aquatic Center and Old Town skatepark) and to analyze fee‑ and cost‑recovery options in parallel before finalizing the referral.

The work session closed with council members expressing a range of preliminary rate preferences clustered in the $1.40–$1.50 per $1,000 range, and several urging caution to ensure a winning ballot measure. The council president instructed staff to bring back a draft referral and more precise budget and policy options at the July meeting; no formal referral was made during the June 24 work session.