Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding And Ballot Measure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NCPRD explores ballot measure after feasibility study and polling proposed by Trust for Public Land
Summary
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District staff and the Trust for Public Land outlined a feasibility study and voter polling strategy March 11 to evaluate whether a tax or bond measure could close long-term budget shortfalls; polling results and the board will determine timing and mechanism.
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD) officials on March 11 described a two-step process to test whether voters would approve new, sustained revenue for parks and services: a feasibility study followed by targeted polling to shape measure design and timing.
District director Kia Celi said the board has authorized staff to work with the national nonprofit Trust for Public Land (TPL) to “identify a funding strategy to provide financial stability and sustainability for the district.” She told the District Advisory Committee (DAC) that staff will bring feasibility findings to the board and continue public engagement before any measure is referred to voters.
Nathan Henry, TPL’s Western Conservation Finance director, described the feasibility study as the first phase. “The first step of this process … is called a feasibility study,” Henry said, explaining it will inventory potential funding mechanisms (for example, a tax-rate increase or a bond), model revenue under different rate scenarios and review past ballot performance in the district’s communities. Henry said the feasibility work should be completed in “the next week or two,” after which polling would test public support and message frames.
Henry said polling serves three purposes: measure viability, messaging and prioritization. “We are not normal people. All of us live and breathe parks… but the people who are going to be making decisions about raising taxes are voters themselves,” he said, adding polls can be designed to compare options and to break results down by geography and demographics.
DAC members pressed on technical points. Joel Bergman asked whether polling would account for competing ballot measures and broader election context; Henry replied a survey can be designed to include other likely measures or to simulate different ballot conditions. Members also urged that polling emphasize a compelling, positive vision of what new funds would buy—restored programs or new amenities—rather than only warning about cuts. “It could be more compelling to the community if they got something extra instead of just sustain our current level of service,” said Laura James.
Celi and TPL emphasized the board retains decision authority and that community engagement will continue throughout. If feasibility and polling indicate sufficient support, TPL would recommend timing, amount and funding mechanism; Henry said that could lead to a recommendation to place a measure on the November ballot if other conditions align.
