Mayor’s Budget Proposal for Parks

Jack Bog’s blog has a long post about controversies in Portland Parks & Recreation (PPR). I’ll give my analysis on the issues here soon. I think the most urgent citizen information need right now is awareness of the proposals in Mayor Potter’s recommended Budget – for PPR and other bureaus. The detailed list of which requested budget packages are included in the budget released by the Mayor’s office on Tuesday can be found at here (pdf).

Backing up for a moment: Here’s how we arrived at this point. Different bureaus have different methods of preparing budget requests. Some have advisory committees that include citizens. The bureaus submit their requested budgets to the Office of Management & Finance (OMF), whose staff produce a recommendation that ranks requests as “High” or “Medium/Low” priority, considering all requests from all bureaus citywide. Some requests don’t even make OMF’s “Medium/Low” category. I don’t know if input from the public meetings held over the past few months influences OMF, or if they’re aimed at allowing elected officials to hear from citizens. I don’t believe they’re entirely Token Public Hearings, as I’ve seen organized neighbors make a difference in moving their project up the priority list.

Where we are now, is that the Mayor’s office staff have reviewed the OMF recommendations and defined a Proposed Budget. A good summary for the PPR outcomes was distributed at the Citywide Parks Team meeting this past Thursday, which shows clearly which requests are in the Mayor’s proposal, and which aren’t. Some highlights/lowlights:

* Laurelhurst Park pond dredging requested and receives $816,700 per the Mayor’s proposal. This money is part of the $37m “one time” funds from the current surplus over existing spending. The pond dredging is the largest single item in the Mayor’s proposal, almost twice the cost of the next highest funded one-time need, $450,000 for Westmoreland Park field & stadium electrical renovations.

* The most obvious problem is $200,000 for Pier Park restroom removal and replacement, deemed High priority by OMF, gets nothing in the Mayor’s proposal. I believe Pier Park’s restrooms should be replaced. I will be astonished if neighbors don’t organize effective testimony at the public hearings on the Mayor’s proposal, and succeed in persuading Council to amend the final budget.

* Odd outcomes – 8 projects deemed “medium/low” priority by OMF are funded in the Mayor’s proposal, while Pier’s restrooms and an ultra-violet system for Columbia Pool – both deemed high priority by OMF – are dropped.

Some items ranked medium/low priority yet funded: $100,000 for “Hoyt Collection Improvements”, and $100,000 for computer lab equipment at two North Portland community centers. It seems to me that health and safety (bathrooms, effective safer pool sanitizing), and active recreation over sitting at computers (if we’re only looking at money allocated to North Portland), should be the higher priorities. What the City should be doing, is assessing parks priorities citywide, AND parks priorities against other service needs and priorities. The OMF recommendation is supposed to do that… which makes the Mayor’s proposal even more questionable.

* One more odd item: OMF determined “St. John’s Racquet Center gutter replacement”, at $91,800, is medium/low priority, and the Mayor’s proposal doesn’t fund it. Failing gutters cause many problems, structurally and for people using a building. The fact that PPR requested the repairs indicates to me the gutters are either shot, or soon will be. In my family, we try to take care of needed maintenance for our home as soon as possible, to avoid damage that is costlier to fix after delay. Even if the full amount can’t be found in the City of Portland’s $2.9b budget this year, I’d like to see a smaller allocation put in as a placeholder, to be augmented in a future year or in a seasonal budget adjustment, until enough is saved in the “St. John’s gutters” line item to do the repairs.

* Speaking of tennis, both the recommended and proposed budgets allocate $94,000 in one-time for the St. John’s and Portland Tennis Centers. The Council decided in a previous budget to give these facilities to private operators, completely eliminating all funding for them. One of the many problems with this strategy was than no private companies bid for the contract. PPR now thinks if investments are made to improve the facilities, they will be more attractive to private interests in a future bidding process. I think this is wrong on so many levels, it would take a whole new post to summarize.

* Ending on the summary list on a positive note, the Budget shows the promise has been kept to take another six Community Centers off the “transition” list, which was forcing them to find more and more private funding. I’m glad citizen pressure achieved this feat this year. Next year, I hope to see the Tennis Centers firmly retained as PPR-run programs, too. We should not be giving private enterprises the right to operate award-winning public facilities.

Those who follow PPR issues closely throughout the year will notice no funding in the Mayor’s proposal for the Facilities and Aquatics Replacement Plan and the Facilities Maintenance Plan for SE 136th. This starts to get into the issues with potential disposal of Mt. Tabor Park land and other parks facilities, referenced on Jack’s blog. The explanation of the Mayor’s proposal is that $650,000 was already allocated for the Facilities Plan in the 2006 Fall Budget Adjustment (“Bump”). I’ll cover the issue of sale of Parks property after next month’s review at the Citywide Parks Team (7 p.m., May 17, City Hall 3rd floor Rose Room). Coming sooner: a summary of this past Thursday’s Parks Team meeting, reviewing levy spending and strategy for ongoing funding of Portland Parks & Recreation’s services and facilities.

Next steps for the Budget:

* May 4th, the Mayor publishes his Proposed Budget (although it’s already up, so I’m not sure what this means) opening up the opportunity for public testimony from May 4th through May 14th. Testimony will be taken online.

* May 10th, Community Budget Hearing at Robert Gray Middle School, 5505 SW 23rd Ave. Public testimony taken.

* Council will take/reject this feedback, and approve amendments to the budget at a public hearing in City Hall on May 16th. Public testimony will be taken, but if you wait until this date to start your campaign, you may as well not bother. On the other hand, if you organize multiple testifiers on May 10, you probably need to show up on May 16, too, whether or not your request is granted between the two dates.

* The budget for Financial Year 2007-08 is scheduled to be adopted by Council on June 21st.