Why Parks isn’t going for a levy in 2008

The Citywide Parks Team meeting was especially informative this past month. Keith Thomajan, Parks Board member, visited to discuss strategy for ongoing funding of Parks programs and facilities, and Fred Howell, Portland Parks & Recreation (PPR) staff, reviewed past bond measure and operating levy expenditures. I’m going to cover these two areas in two posts, beginning with this one on future revenues.

PPR currently gets about $10.6m from the General Fund, $5.4m annually from the operating levy voters approved in 2002. Keith talked about recognition by the Parks Board (volunteers appointed to advise the bureau and Commissioner-in-charge) and growing consensus on the Council that Parks are essential infrastructure of the city, and should be funded like all the other infrastructure bureaus instead of relying on citizens paying extra in levies and bonds. He noted citizens resent being asked to give more, especially in a time of plenty like the current $37m surplus in play with the 2007-8 Budget. He said the Board has been told Portland’s citizens will always support their parks, and that his response is, “That may be true – until it isn’t.” If a Parks funding request is turned down, it may become harder to pass subsequent measures. [Although, remember the 1998 Portland Parks bond measure failed, then a bond and a levy subsequently passed] It would cost $800,000 to mount a successful bond or levy campaign, which is a high administrative cost for a return of $5m per year. The Parks Board and Council hasn’t entirely ruled out asking voters for more money – it depends on Council appropriations for Parks in future budgets.

The current operating levy is being stretched to cover an additional year than promised in the ballot measure, running through the 2008-9 fiscal year. This is possible because more taxes were collected due to rising property assessments, because of higher-than-expected investment returns, and by infusing $2.7 m in one-time money from raiding Trust Funds within PPR. According to PPR, federal rules required the Trust Fund accounts to be considered as money not dedicated to the purpose in the Funds title. I didn’t fully understand the last strategy when it was approved in the 2006 Fall Budget Adjustments (aka “Bump”), and asked Keith if the Parks Board had reviewed it in detail. He did not recall them doing so. The Parks Board’s membership includes more than a dozen citizens with long experience doing budgets in business and non-profit corporations; I would feel much more comfortable with actions like raiding Trust Funds if I knew they had reviewed them.

If there is no Parks funding measure on the ballot in 2008, PPR will need $5.4m in additional funding from the General Fund in 2009-2010 and every year thereafter, to maintain current services. Parks advocates should help this City Council understand that by choosing not to refer a bond or levy to the 2008 General Election, they must recognize they are by default promising to provide adequate funding from general revenues. Although current members cannot commit future City Councils to certain actions, it seems likely at least three current Commissioners will still be members in 2009, and it’s important for them to understand the implication of not sending a Parks funding measure to the ballot next Fall.

The decision not to ask for another operating levy is the right choice, in my opinion. The levy that’s ending helped us through bleak budget cuts and was a useful emergency measure; funding parks operations with “extra” funds, then undercuttng General Fund support, should not become a habit or be viewed as acceptable normal practice.

Cascade Anderson Geller, citizen leader in the Mt. Tabor neighborhood, said at the meeting in April that PPR should have an ongoing budget committee with several citizens included in its membership. This would be returning to a model successful several years ago. Cascade also requested ongoing representation of citizens (other than Parks Board members) on committees discussing potential levy and bond measures, as well as considering the potential of forming a Parks District. Lots of nods in response to these suggestions, from citizen participants at least.

Historical note: According to participants at the meeting, there has only been one operating levy for PPR – the one that’s running now. All other parks funding measures on the ballot have been requests to issue bonds for capital improvements. The first of these, in recent times, was in 1991, to fund improvements at Dishman Pool, turning it from an outdoor pool into a year-round community center.

Practical note: Operating levies come under the Measure 50 cap on property taxes – passage of many levies concurrently means none gets all the money promised in the measure. It’s called “compression”, and we experienced it in the current Parks operating levy when voters passed the Children’s Fund to run at the same time. Capital bond measures, such as both Metro Greenspaces funds and the Parks improvements measure before the current operating levy, are not subject to Measure 50 limitations.

In reading the Portland City Charter over and over, I’m impressed with the clarity of the City’s responsibility for parks. The need to consider parks part of our city’s essential infrastructure isn’t just the right policy for 2007, it’s part of our City’s Constitution. Asking citizens to pay extra for parks, and then turning around and giving businesses special benefits if they choose to pony up extra bucks, isn’t right. The City should be using the current Budget “surplus” to begin working through deferred maintenance and correcting outstanding inequities for underserved areas, and should recognize the policy in the Charter that affords parks the same status as roads and sewers.