The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-11-10
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (11,210 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met on Monday, November 10th, with roll call confirming attendance and adoption of August and September minutes without objection. The first agenda item concerned an ordinance declaring city property at the Sellwood Community House surplus and authorizing its sale for $1 to the Friends of Sellwood Community House, following a history of the nonprofit leasing and renovating the historic facility since 2019. Panelists from Public Works and Parks described the building's programming, funding history, and investment figures, though some financial figures were stated inconsistently across speakers. Discussion covered deed restrictions, reversion clauses if public benefit use ceased, permitting barriers, and potential first-right-of-refusal protections for the city. A motion was made and seconded to refer the ordinance to full Council with a recommendation to pass; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The second agenda item was an update on the 2025 Parks Levy, which had passed, covering funding allocations for operations and capital maintenance, long-term planning commitments, partnership development, key performance indicators, asset management planning, and property tax compression impacts on other levies. Committee members discussed engagement disparities across districts, coalition-building, and future funding strategies including system development charges and a possible capital bond. The meeting adjourned with the next session scheduled for December 15th.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Hello? It's not on yet. There it is. Okay. Good morning everyone. Thank you for coming. I'm calling the meeting of the transportation and infrastructure committee to order. It is Monday, November 10th at 1030. Rebecca, can you please call the roll?
1 Green?
Procedural episode · turns 2–10
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
2 I present Smith.
3 I Koyama Lane Morillo. Here. Clark. Here.
4 Thank you. And, Clark, can you please read the statement of conduct?
5 Good morning, and welcome to the meeting of the transportation and infrastructure committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at Portland.gov council agenda slash transportation and infrastructure committee, or by calling 311. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
6 Thank you. Claire. Today we have three items on our agenda. First, we're going to hear an ordinance related to the sale of the Sellwood community house. Then our colleagues from Portland parks and rec are going to give us an update on the outcome of the parks levy. But before that, we're just going to quickly adopt our committee minutes for August and September. Do I do I need a motion for that? I don't know, is there any objection to adopting our minutes from the last two meetings? Seeing none. Okay. Good. So let's see. Rebecca, can you please read the item, the next item.
7 Item two. Declare city property located at 1436 southeast spokane street, known as the Sellwood community center as surplus property and authorized city administrator to dispose of the property by sale to friends of Sellwood community house.
8 Thank you. Thank you so much. This is a great day for many of us in the room. Have been working on this issue since the winter months, just really briefly, and I hope I'm not going to repeat things that you're actually planning to say, but I think starting in 2019, there was a decision to close the community, Sellwood community house, due to a lack of resources at the parks bureau and all the necessary maintenance that was needed, needed to upgrade and to keep it running. So the friends of community of the soviet community house stepped in and took over. They agreed to lease the facility for $1 a year. And this is an example of something that some of us are very interested in and actually had a budget note on. An example of what a successful public private partnership looks like, and they have managed to accomplish this at the community center. And if you haven't been there, you need to go, because it's truly astonishing. They've raised over $2 million to fully renovate and rehab this building. And every day it is bustling. It is noisy in there. It is bustling with community groups, kids and preschool, seniors taking classes and many other opportunities to connect with others in the community. And several of us hold regular, hold regular meetings there. So I've been working with parks and the friends of the Sellwood community house since last winter to get to this point today, declaring this property surplus and selling it to the friends for a dollar, they will continue to operate it as public use and remove this property from the city rules, reducing the future capital maintenance cost to the city. The friends of the Sellwood community house have demonstrated a major, major success in fundraising and programing. The community center, including the craft shack, which we're not even talking about today. I see this partnership and ordinance as a model that we can use across the city, and we'll look for other ways to do this, other opportunities. So at the dais, we have three speakers from our public works service area, kelly torres, who is the external affairs and partnerships manager for Portland parks, dylan paul, the real estate manager. Ashley, are you going to join up here? Why don't you join us? Ashley murray, who is the executive director of the community house and our dca. Dana. Priya. Dana. Paul. Sorry. Great. So why don't. Who's going to kick it off? Priya. Great. Thank you so much for being here this morning.
9 Good morning chair, and good morning councilors I'm priya, the dca for public works. And it's an honor to be here to talk about the community house. I second everything chair Clark mentioned about community. It's a cherished historic facility that has served Portland families for more than a century. And when I visited it to have a tour with ashley, I saw everything that chair Clark mentioned. It's bustling with activity and it's really serving the community with really good purpose. This disposition is a part of a broader evolution in which the public works service area and the parks bureau will manage community partnerships. I want to prioritize collaboration, accountability and innovation in the stewardship of public assets for our bureaus, and this reflects a coordinated approach that unites our property management expertise with relational and community engagement. Work led by external affairs and partnership teams within the Portland parks and recreation bureau. And I also want to acknowledge, councilor Clark for your partnership in helping to expedite this process and for your leadership in shaping a more responsive and relationship centered approach to community partnerships. And with that, you will hear from kelly torres, who will share the history and success of this collaboration, and from dylan paul, who will talk about the the real estate aspects of this, of this, of this partnership as well. With that, I'll pass it on to kelly to talk more about the history and success of the collaboration.
10 Great. Thank you. Deputy city administrator donna paul, for the record, my name is kelly torres and I serve as the external affairs and partnerships manager for Portland parks and recreation. The Sellwood community house is one of those rare places that truly reflects the heart of Portland, where neighborhoods connect, children grow, and creativity thrives. For more than a century, it has served as a hub for family, youth and arts programing, and generations of portlanders have made memories within its walls. Several years ago, as you mentioned, when the city was facing funding constraints and difficult decisions about facility operations were happening and the community did not step back, they stepped forward. The Sellwood community house nonprofit formed out of that moment, determined to keep the doors open and programs alive. That transition became an early example of what we now recognize as the future of partnership. When community capacity and city support come together to sustain public assets, the city's role shifted from operator to collaborator, and that shift has proven incredibly successful. Since taking over programing, the Sellwood community house nonprofit has re-energized the building. They have expanded programs for all ages, welcomed new arts and wellness offerings, engaged more volunteers and maintain strong fiscal responsibility, all while ensuring the space remains affordable and accessible. Their work shows how community led stewardship can amplify public benefit when the city provides the right framework and support within parks. This effort has also prompted a rethinking of how we collaborate internally, bringing together the technical and legal expertise of our property team with the relational and strategic work of external affairs. It's a new model for how we approach shared goals, one that values the structural and human elements of partnership. Together, we have worked to ensure this disposition reflects the city's values, transparency, accountability and long term public benefit. This process is more than a property transaction. It is a reflection of how we intend to manage partnerships going forward with clarity, collaboration and care. To walk through the specifics of this process and the agreement before council, I will now hand it to dylan paul from the public works service area.
11 Thanks, kelly, dylan, paul real estate services, public works business services division. Pleasure to be here. Chair. Councilors. As a reminder, this property is coming to you today. As an exception to city policy. We have a real property disposition policy. Adm 13.02. It was written some time ago. It is currently being updated. In the future. We would hope that dispositions such as this would not be treated as an exception. So there is work being done for the unique nature of a lot of these, especially parks. Portfolio disposition. So with that, we are seeking this exception today, largely in part due to the contract language which requires us to negotiate in good faith if we decide to dispose of the property. Their lease agreement was endorsed and promoted by our former late commissioner, nick fish. This came, as you've heard, is a time when we had just closed the doors. This partner invested over $1.5 million into the property, has kept it thriving. The expectation of parks is that this property would be used in perpetuity as a community center. This is exactly what our partner has intended to do and has been doing for the last 5 or 6 years now. Of significant note already mentioned that the administrative policy is being retooled right now. Recent examples of other exceptions. You might have seen some with PBOT right of way vacations where oftentimes the land is split up and divided between the two adjacent residential parcels. You know, oftentimes it only makes sense to put that land back into those parcels. Others might be the former children's museum in Washington park, the second location of it. We recently brought that for dispositions for sale to the Oregon zoo. So metro that is currently underway. In those situations, it would really only once again make sense because the expectation is not that the property would be used for other purposes, but that our partner will be able to extend and continue that sole purpose that, you know, the community has come to love. So because this property is being sold for just $1, you'll notice that the council documents or the committee documents, ordinance and purchase and sale agreement do have some restrictions to ensure that the property will be used for the intended purposes in perpetuity, just in case of transition or turnover. That's just common practice with the city, as $1 sales are not as common as they used to be. It's my pleasure to be real estate staff supporting this all the way through. Council, and I will be here for questions at the end. I'll hand it back over to kelly.
12 Thank you. Dylan.
13 Sorry.
14 Totally fine. On on behalf of the city of Portland and Portland parks and recreation, I want to take a moment to express deep appreciation to ashley murray, executive director of the community. Whether it's working with director shymansky or with me, ashley has been an extraordinary partner, steady, thoughtful and solutions oriented throughout the process. And the community house is a is a story is one of persistence and possibility. Under ashley's leadership, the organization has continued to evolve while staying true to its purpose, creating space for connection, creativity, and belonging. Her boat with her work with the board, staff and volunteers demonstrates what sustainable stewardship of a public facility can look like when it's rooted in trust and shared purpose. Ashley has been at the center of this journey, guiding her team and community through transitions with grace, optimism, and a focus on impact. And I know she'll share more about what this space means to the community and what this partnership has made possible, and how this chapter, next chapter will continue to strengthen local connection. Ashley, thank you again for your leadership and for the example you set for community partnership across our city. The floor is yours.
15 Thank you so much council members and everyone here. I know we're talking a little bit about partnership, and I don't think I could be standing or sitting here feeling a little. I feel so in partnership with everyone right now, and I feel like that is just a wonderful moment to be at. So I'm ashley murray, the executive director of the Sellwood community house. I've been the executive director for six years. I'm the first executive director to be stewarding this organization, and it is my privilege here to share a little bit more about the community center and why the disposition of this property is so important, not just to our community, but really all four districts of Portland. By having this as an example of what's possible citywide. So first, let's. I thought I could share just a little bit more about the building. I know a lot of us have maybe heard about the Sellwood community house, but in 1910, there's a beautiful story about the the residents of Sellwood coming together and wanting a space as a ymca. The first ymca here in Portland was on the other side of the river, and there was just this deep desire for community members to come together to experience recreation and connection. And it was really this powerful story of the community members wanting this space and advocating for that. It opened its doors in 1910 as a ymca. It was separate from Portland parks for ten years, and in 1920 was given over to the Portland parks and recreation. It was one of the first community centers here. And I think what is so special about this space is these doors have been a community space for over 100 years. Just the stories that happen in this space. We still have people who went to preschool over 85 years ago that live in the neighborhood, that walk through the doors and still have that deep connection. So in 2019, when this center was dropped from the city's budget, similarly to the fulton and hillside parks was kind of moving away from these smaller neighborhood assets, and the community stepped up once again just in 1910, said, this is so important to our community. This is vital. This is a legacy. We need to continue to offer this to our to our patrons. So we entered into a lease agreement with Portland parks at the time, and I think all of us definitely knew it was an area of interest and opportunity. But I think coming into it, also experiencing COVID related closures so quickly after we entered into a lease agreement with parks, it was just this beautiful example of the need for community connection. We have grown exponentially since 2019, when I came on the budget, that was kind of working with parks was about $500,000. I had a staff of six this summer. I had a staff of 72. I currently have 46 fte. We're about a $2.5 million operating budget. We serve every community member, from parents of little ones up through seniors and older adults. In this summer, through some data, research, surveying at the shack, we are serving 52 zip codes here in Oregon and all four districts. So really looking at this space is not just for our neighborhood. It's a destination for portlanders all over Portland.
16 Next slide. I do that right.
17 So a little bit about this space when we got it from the city and from Portland parks it was in was in disrepair. I think there's that right there. Yeah. So like a lot of parks properties that we know are have a lot of maintenance backlog. And that was true to this space as well. There was an aging boiler that was original to the building. It was 100 years old. There was a roofing leak or leaking roof and all over the building it was it needed some love. But we really came into this space with opportunity and knowing that we can kind of leverage. How are we going to approach this with a really creative mindset that we can continue to enhance this space to make sure it's sustainable. So to date, the Sellwood community house, which is on the national historic register as well, here in Portland, we have a new roof on the building. We have had five solar arrays. We were a pge recipient. Our whole building is a net zero building. Currently we have a new hvac system which is heating and cooling. We didn't have cooling previously, and there was a lot of times in the summer months that we had to close due to heat constraints. I know a lot of people experience that early into coming back to school this year, we were able to be a cooling center. We've upgraded our exterior safety stairs, full electrical, interior remodel plumbing and ADA entrance. So to date, there's been investment into this property of a little over $2 million. There's still outstanding things that need to happen, in particular on the outside of the building. There's we need new siding. We need some ADA bathroom on the first level. That's a high priority for us. So still, we've put a lot of money into this property, but to really make sure it's going to be sustainable long term, we're wanting to be proactive and not reactive. And we definitely see over the next couple years there's going to be maintenance that we're needing to be planning for. So some of the areas of thinking we are currently in a 50 year lease with the city for a dollar a year, which for a while has been working really well because there's no question that we want to continue to serve the community and be intentional about that creating. There's definitely a lot of obstacles for improvements that we've been experiencing through input permits, which is the non park use permit, and having an additional layer of regulatory oversight that's needed when a nonprofit like us is wanting to make improvements to the building, we are then having to enter into an administrative period through the parks department, which takes a lot of time and energy on their side of things, and it's slows down the process and ultimately has been a challenge to receive grant funds for building improvements that sometimes the stipulations are you are the building owner in order to enter into a grant agreement. So we are coming today trying to think of ways with our shared goal of how we can continue to serve the community in a really intentional way, that it continues to be sustainable and scalable for the next 100 years, and identifying barriers that we've experienced is having to do the administrative oversight with the permits, and also access to grants and funding that could really help kind of meet those proactive approaches to building maintenance and long term sustainability. So this is one area of opportunity we feel really strongly about that. This partnership will continue to serve the community. We are very invested in a shared vision and how this can be scalable citywide. Although this is in our neighborhood, sometimes we feel like we have to go with where there's a model that's working, and we're hoping that this example and this model really can be an example as we think about how we can make these assets just serve portlanders in a really intentional way. I think the levy, I'm so glad everyone showed up, and I feel really proud that it passed. And also that understanding of it did not. It's not enhancing the level of service and addressing the maintenance backlog in a way that we portlanders felt really was lacking from that language. And I feel like working in partnership is just a beautiful opportunity to say the levy passed. It is the foundation, and what we do moving forward is going to be the legacy of Portland parks and recreation and how we're serving all portlanders in a really intentional way. So that is a little bit about the history, what we've put into it, and also the why behind we're hoping to move with this disposition on the property. So I'm available for questions as well.
18 Thank you, ashley, and thank you, panelists, all of you. We have a councilor Who's remote who has to leave in just a few minutes. And I'm going to give her an opportunity to speak here first. Go ahead, councilor Koyama Lane.
19 Hi. Thanks so much for being here. I know that this location, this house, is very important to many of the councilors. A couple questions I do have about our what the options are are instead of selling or doing this disposition, is there a way to that council can waive regulatory oversight in order to fast track and remove some of those obstacles to improvements? I've just seen, especially with school districts times when we've let go of properties and then we no longer own them, and then a couple decades down the road end up regretting that. So I'm just wondering, it sounds like we've already had this $1 rent for 50 years type deal, and that is kind of what I was thinking of if we were to have it be 100 years, but we were able to waive some of the zoning or regulatory things that get in the way, is have we explored some of those options? I know that releasing property can you can't can't undertake undo that.
20 Would you like to address that, ashley. Or I would just say that I know having worked with the group councilor Koyama Lane that city ownership is an impediment to fundraising. At least that's one issue. But I others on the panel may want to address the council's questions.
21 Yes. Thank you. Dylan paul again, real estate services. So there are lots of options. As you mentioned, I think the most pressing is the ability to solicit private donor funds and or be eligible for grants. A lot of times grants have incumbents that are placed upon the city. Many of those would not be deemed acceptable by the city. So we have a, I think, a really wide variety of policies that apply to these sorts of situations as far as our own internal regulatory processes. Oftentimes, these policies overlap multiple bureaus and are pretty deep within, you know, protecting the city from risk. So ultimately, it's a service level question. If we provide at our current service levels, these barriers will will certainly continue to exist. But there will always be a fundamental difference between what a private party and what the city can accept when it comes to different funding requirements and or standards. So the city has a different set of standards for our own internal maintenance and process and approvals, just as we are regulated through procurement codes with what can be placed, all of those things will continue to slow down any private party operating on our sites. So some can be removed, others cannot. I think if it's the intention to remove all barriers, to see the site move forward, there probably is not a service level that would solve for that. Does that answer your question?
22 I think so, so have we explored legislatively changing things. So we do waive some of those restrictions to do things like allow for fundraising, to make some of these processes and approvals faster. Is have we explored how we can also approach it that way?
23 I want to just address that. Councilor Koyama Lane, I think you I'm not sure you were online when we had a discussion earlier about changes that we want to bring forward in the surplus property arena and address some of the concerns you're talking about. But I wouldn't want that to impede what we're trying to do here today. But thank you for the question. Anybody else want to answer? Councilor Koyama Lane. All right. Did you have any other questions, councilor?
24 Thank you so much.
25 Thank you for being here. Councilor Smith, you had your hand up.
26 Thank you. Congratulations on this incredible job. I, I was looking at my briefing memo, and I didn't know that there was over $2.1 million of private funds that were put into this building after 2019. I think that's amazing and that's outstanding. I also think that there should be some other protections along with this, because one, you're asking for an exception. We have not put it out to the public for someone else. The other piece, I've been through this before and and I do understand how the private sector can get involved with this, and I don't want there to be some sort of deal after this. And someone else purchases this property. So I would feel a whole lot better if there is a clause put in here because you're asking for an exception that we have first rights to refusal, the city of Portland does, in purchasing this property and or the ability to repurchase it back. That would be my only concern about it because I saw how it went, got sold for a million right after we cut the deal and let them buy the property. And I'm not willing at this point, particularly since the chair has been the person who said, we need to look at a 30,000 foot look of all the assets that we have. We're giving up assets, we're asking for an exception and all these things. But I need an exception. I need to have some, some, some surety that a private sector person is not going to come in and, and have the sale. Would the friends of Sellwood and offer you a good job of money and then charge you back a lease to to rent from them. So it may look attractive to be able to get your, your siding done and some of those other deferred maintenance kinds of things. But for my vote, I would really like to have some assurances. So thank you.
27 Yeah, that is in the current language of the purchase agreement, is making sure that if we ever weren't running in community benefit, that it would go back to the city for a dollar as well. So that's definitely been something that we've wanting to make sure that everyone feels really comfortable with.
28 Thank you, thank you.
29 Thank you. Great question. Definitely have a deed restriction. Councilor Morillo I think you've got your hand up. She's online.
30 Thank you. Chair Clark, I just had a quick question around whether or not are there procedures for reverting the property to the city if it falls into disrepair, or if the parties no longer want to use it for the public benefit? As far as the deed restriction goes.
31 So the final language on the deed restriction is still being ironed out. So as it stands right now, if the building were to fall into disrepair, it would most likely be a different sort of city code violation. If it is not being used for public benefit, then most of the deed restriction, reversion reversionary clauses would step into effect. So I think it's a little bit different whether or not it's in disrepair or not being used for public benefit. So as it is drafted, if it wasn't being used for public benefit, then it would trigger those other conditions.
32 Okay. Thank you, I appreciate that. That was my main concern, is just making sure that if we are going to be giving away or, you know, selling off these buildings, that they're going to be used for the public good. So I feel comfortable with that being addressed. Thanks.
33 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Green, you have your hand up.
34 Yeah, I'll try to be brief because I know you're trying to move us along, but I just wanted to say I'm really grateful that you're here today, that you've got, you know, participate in this thought process. Thanks for your leadership, councilor. I know that you have put a lot of work into this. It's a place that really matters a lot to me and my staff. I'm curious. Ashley, do you see this? I know you sent my office a number of emails on some kind of permit related issues that I won't necessarily get into here at the dais, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Do you think this helps solve some of those issues?
35 I think that's going to be more a policy level. So just briefly, what Mitch is talking about is around making sure that the community house can be available for preschool for all space. Currently, there's occupancy adjustments that we're needing to work on to make sure we can welcome for students in the fall and beyond. And I do feel like as we like, my organization is advocating for some policy adjustments around occupancy guidelines for for being the owner is going to really, I think, create an easier, streamlined process as we're working on advocating for some occupancy adjustments.
36 That's good. That's helpful for my staff who are helping you with that. You know, I, I just I my I think the only concerns that I was going to have are the ones that my colleagues have asked and addressed. I think the deed restriction is a really good tool that we're using here. And, you know, if this becomes a model for other sorts of dispositions, I want to make sure that we're really intentional on preserving the public benefit and what that looks like. But I see no reason to not be excited to vote yes at this point.
37 So terrific. Thank you. Not seeing any other comments and we may have lost councilor Koyama Lane. I think at this point it just it's a great moment. I think for all of us, it really foreshadows what we can do in the future all across the city. By by engaging with community based organizations to take responsibility for assets that are in their community that are underutilized. So I'm very excited that this is really a pilot, I think, for all of us. And with that, I would like to entertain a motion to amend ordinance number 2025 430 to the full council with a recommendation to pass.
38 So moved.
39 Second.
40 All right. Councilor Green moves ordinance document number 2025 430 to full council with a recommendation to pass. And councilor Smith has offered a second. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?
41 I can call the roll. And I just want to note for the record, no one signed up for public testimony.
42 Sorry about that.
43 Of course, Green. A Smith.
44 I excuse me, I Morillo.
45 I.
46 Clark I.
47 And the motion to refer the ordinance document number 2025 430 to city council with the recommendation it be passed is approved with four I ii votes.
48 Thank you. And thank you so much. Everybody at the panel, all the people in the audience, elizabeth miller, everybody else. Thank you for all your effort to get us here. Dylan, appreciate everything that you've done. So we'll now move this to council. Thank you so much. I feel like breaking out the applause, but that's probably not. Not kosher. Rebecca, can you please read the next item?
49 Item three parks levy update.
50 Thank you. We've invited paul and parks advocates, parks advocates from the community to talk with us about next steps on the parks levy we received. I think, formal notice this morning from the city's elections team that the levy has actually passed. Yay! So we have several speakers on the dais. I'd like to I have dca, dana paul, can we also invite up some of the community members? I think jessica Green from the Portland parks foundation. Is it paul from the parks alliance, who's also the former chair of the Portland parks advisory board? And I think that's all the invited testimony. Jessica is making her way up. And I think sarah is going to be sharing some slides from the bureau.
51 All right.
52 Good morning, chair Clark again. And councilors, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the parks levy election outcome. I'm pleased to report that the unofficial results indicate Portland voters have approved the 2025 parks levy. This outcome provides near-term operational stability for our parks system and represents portland's continued investment in our parks, natural areas, and community spaces that connect our city. And before we dive into the details, I want to acknowledge the broad coalition that made this outcome possible. Our elected leaders, our city elected officials, our city leaders, our labor partners, the Portland parks foundation, the intertwined alliance, the trust for public lands who call it the campaign, along with community partners and endorsing organizations and campaign volunteers. Their efforts reflect the deep value our community places on parks and recreation, as well as access for everyone. And most importantly, this result is an expression of confidence in the work of parks and recreation staff who do this work every day. The levy will fund over 40% of our parks and recreation operations over the next five years, and provide approximately 2 million annually for capital maintenance, which is critical resources that will allow us to sustain current service levels and begin addressing a deferred maintenance needs. An equally important the levy referral resolution provides clear direction from council on developing a long term funding and level of service plan. With the near-term operational questions now answered, the strategic planning work becomes our priority focus. And with that, I'll pass it on to sarah huggins, who will walk you through the details of the levy's impact and a path forward.
53 Thank you. Deputy city administrator donna paul, passage of the parks levy has both near-term financial impacts and included some bigger picture direction for the bureau. I'll start with that bigger picture direction in the robust conversations leading up to city council's decision to refer the levy, and as documented in the levy referral resolution language itself, council was clear about the city's commitment to long term funding plan that articulates what park system we want, or level of service, and a funding plan to deliver that level of service. As paul noted, with the immediate operational funding questions answered with the 2025 parks levy outcome supporting this community and city council work will become the bureau priority. Council was also clear in the levy resolution about the desire to build up the bureaus partnership and grant programs, leveraging the Portland community's involvement in and investment in their park system. The resolution also provided direction about pursuing other funding options, specifically, the office of government relations is directed to lead an effort to look at allowable uses of system development charges. Council made a commitment to to use at least half of excess general fund dollars for citywide capital maintenance needs, and the city also committed to investigating additional funding options for the city's capital maintenance needs, including exploration of a capital bond. Passage of the levy also means near-term revenue for delivering park services. Specifically, this parks levy is forecasted to fund over 40% of bureau operations over the next five years. That's proportionally around the same as the amount of general fund. It will also provide about $2 million a year for much needed capital maintenance funding in its first fiscal year, which is fiscal year 2627. For operations, it will be between 78 to $84 million for projected collections, for again for operations and for capital maintenance. Just under 2 million on average over its five year lifespan. Fiscal year 2627 through fiscal year 2031, it would be around 86 to $91 million. Projected annual collections of that 84 to 89 for operations and around two for capital maintenance. So what does that level of funding mean for services in fiscal year 2627? The $1 and 40 cent rate, as documented in the referral, was the rate intended to sustain current service levels. Fiscal year 2627. Service levels also sustained fiscal year 2526. One time funded service levels allocate $0.03 of the rate, or approximately $2 million in additional funding for capital maintenance projects, and the bureau was directed to hire an employee to develop the partnership and grant program, and the intent of that position, in part, was to develop more opportunities for partnership and philanthropic investments for portland's parks. Longer term. Operationally, the bureau is forecasted to have the funding levels needed to sustain current service levels for five years through fiscal year 3031. The bureaus forecasted to have an additional $2 million per year for capital maintenance. That's in addition to the roughly $5 million currently allocated from the general fund annually, an increase in staff support and focus on development of partnerships and grants and donations will help harness both the value of volunteers and the opportunities to leverage partnerships with other organizations and philanthropies to invest in portland's park system. Council provided guidance through the levy referral resolution for next steps the bureau will be focusing on. These include both some specific steps for park system funding and the type and way the bureau shares information. So on the funding side, we're directed to start work on a long range funding and level of service plan to be completed by the end of fiscal year 26 or, excuse me, 2728. We're directed to advance partnership and grant opportunities. Lots of work has begun in this area, including partner conversations and around metrics, how we track and communicate that. And we've been directed to advance funding options for capital maintenance, like exploring changes to how sdcs can be utilized and major maintenance capital bond measure. We also look forward to sharing information in new ways. I'll highlight just a few key ones that had near-term delivery dates, so we've been directed to develop a short and meaningful list of key performance indicators for the 2025 parks levy, to be approved by city council by the end of this December 2025. We've been directed to do annual reporting of the percentage of bureau operating budget and employees that supported by the parks levy as part of each budget process, we will be launching a new web page to share cost effective measures the bureau is taking by the end of this calendar year, December 2025. And starting now, we'll be sharing the full cost impacts for capital projects. So the cost to build, operate and maintain in the long term. I will pass it over to dca. Paul.
54 Thank you sarah. So you know the work ahead, which includes developing clear service levels, pursuing diverse funding sources, leveraging partnership opportunities where feasible, and demonstrating cost effectiveness directly corresponds to the discussions we've had in multiple spaces throughout the campaign. We are committed to working closely with this committee, the city council, the levy oversight committee and our community partners to ensure that our resources are managed with full accountability and transparency. The long term funding and the service level of the plan will develop over the coming years will be critical to ensuring a park system is sustainable, equitable and continues to serve all portlanders. This result is not just a renewal of funding, it is a renewal of our responsibility to deliver results, demonstrate transparency, and honor the trust portlanders have placed in us. We're grateful for your continued support and look forward to working with you on this important work. Thank you.
55 Thank you. Jessica, did you come prepared to make any comments or.
56 Yes.
57 Yes, of course.
58 Always.
59 I'm always prepared. Gotcha. Here I have a presentation that I'm also going to share, if that's okay, some of which I can run through quickly since we seem to be in alignment on some next steps. Let's see if I can share this in full screen. Can we see that in full screen now?
60 Maybe I can see it.
61 It's a little strange, but it's fine for now. Okay. Thank you very much, council, for inviting me up here. I'm jessica Green, the executive director of the Portland parks foundation. I want to take a moment to thank everyone here, especially you councilors, for your support over the last ten months. It's wild to think where we were even just back in January, and I appreciate the work that we all did together and looking forward to continuing to engage. I have a feeling that you felt the same way I did the moment the levy passed. There was a second of excitement and then you possibly went into, okay, now what do we need to do? And that's where I am. I really appreciate being here today as a motivation to start to contextualize that and think about like immediate next steps and long term next steps. So thank you for initiating this. Before I dive into what's next, we've heard today from dc, donna paul, how important the coalition was and the collaboration to be able to pass the levy. I cannot reinforce that message enough. There were a lot of difficult conversations that we had, even leading up to referral and even to getting the levy passed. A lot of things have come out about how we can continue to make the system better. The levy is not a solution, it's a stabilizer. And the reason we were able to do this is this unique, broad based coalition that was put together through city leadership, through the business community, through cbos, and through labor, through local and national parks organizations. And my first recommendation as we look towards the future and next steps, is that we are stronger together and that we keep this coalition together. We keep these open lines of communication, and we work through that tension, because that's where we're going to come out on a better side. So that is my first next step. When we think about our levy debrief, that's conversations we're already having in the room is how do we keep this conversation with these people and even extend it out going. So on top of that, I will say our group amongst all of you, we made several commitments to each other and to the voters, and we want to keep those commitments. We heard several of them just now from sarah, and I will just sort of go through those quickly. But what I'm here today is to think of those commitments through a partnership lens. It's not showing up. Oh. Stop. Sure, maybe.
62 We just have to go to the proper screen. But yeah, I'll do that.
63 Starting over. There we go.
64 Do you have any audio?
65 No. Okay. I think we're in business, so as sarah mentioned, there were several commitments that we made through the levy resolution. And just quickly running through those, you know, develop kpis for city council approval and partnerships annually reporting to council the approximate percentage of operations, the number of fte. Establish a community oversight committee for the levy, annual financial performance reporting, independent financial and performance audit and building a stronger volunteer and partnership program, as well as strengthening partnership with the private sector with an eye towards revenue generation. On the other side of that, what we've been communicating to the public is that city council approve paas. Kpis for the levy will work on a long range financial plan due by 2028. I have a feeling we might hear a little bit more about that 2028 number in a second, explore options for major maintenance bond measure, address sdc reform and annually dedicate 50% of the general fund and have the levy oversight committee report directly to city council versus parker. Well, we've said all that. But back to my recommendation today about doing this together. So as I look towards these commitments and I think about where partnership can show up in the levy resolution. Leader. Oops. Excuse me. Sorry. Pb leadership. It says pbr leadership in collaboration with stakeholders, will submit key performance indicators for city council approval. So that's step one. And then another piece of that next step is I recommend that we review the levy oversight committee charter in collaboration with stakeholders and with past committee members. We heard a little bit about this and some of the levy testimony. And I think we have a levy oversight committee. And I think as we look to the future, we think about how we can improve that levy oversight committee. And that's something that I would do sooner than later. As we know, levy is in our future. Also, sdc reform the short legislature session is happening soon. Is there a move there? But working with key stakeholders on how we can get that passed? Because similar to the levy, it's going to take a broad based coalition. And then I would also say identifying roles and timeline and key support for major maintenance bond, as well as the long term sustainable plan. So what are our roles? What is communities roles? What is city leadership? What is the bureaus roles? But how can we do this all together so it doesn't feel like it's in a vacuum? And then lastly, I would say it's really important that we invest in our partnerships in alignment with city long term financial plan and goals and against our collaboratively developed kpis. So there's there's a desire to address and this budget crisis. But I think we also want to be really strategic about how we think about our partnerships. So parks is unique in the vast number and diversity of partnerships that they hold. And within the context of the levy and our partnership goals, I think it's important that we understand the various types of partnerships, and we've been talking about these kind of in two ways. And so I want to be clear about that, that there's, you know, private partnerships that expand the capacity of our system through direct service. And then there's partnerships that expand the capacity of our parks through direct financial investment, like capital investment in park projects. And when we talk about these, they're not mutually exclusive, and they are equally important, but they also each have their own sort of care and policies around them. And I just think it's important that we're all in the same page as we think about our partnerships. And I also want to point out that as we look towards partnerships, again, I cannot stress enough that we invest in partnerships today with an eye towards our future. And I again think that we really just need these to be in alignment with our strategic long term plan. So coming back to the fact that we should be developing all of this together. So I also wanted to just spend a minute to to highlight some of the ways that we're already doing that. I'm seeing strategic partnerships out in the community. I mean, we heard today from the community house. Congratulations. So yes, you are. But then as as we think about the future of partnership, what are some other ways that we can do that? And I just wanted to share a couple thoughts today to percolate. But you know, there's already in the system partner revenue models that are allocating certain percentage of their income to deferred capital maintenance. And I think there's an opportunity to start to think about that as as we think about partners. And we bring as we bring in investments into the system, how can we also invest in the care and maintenance of what what we're taking care of? In a sense, we heard that from Sellwood community house today about all the investment that they've been putting into the space. But how can we build that into a model as well? You're seeing that at places like leach, where they now have a maintenance fund set up that is assessed on their user fees or their admission fees? Second, I had an interesting conversation with state parks director the other day, and they have the same issue. Actually, most state parks have the same issue of being able to fund their deferred capital maintenance. And so I asked her, well, where are you seeing success? And she said, well, there's this one state where they had some billionaires get together and actually establish an endowment fund for the entire state park system to fund deferred capital maintenance. Now, this is a big scale solution, obviously, but I think we can start to think about this on a small scale. The Portland parks foundation has a couple endowment funds that help fund things in perpetuity. And granted, they're not capital maintenance things, but they are they're they're a model that we can look at to think about private investors in the system itself. You know, we have sports fields, we have basketball courts, we have rose gardens, which I think we have a rose garden fund, actually. So, you know, there are ways to creatively invest with public partners or private partners. And it's already happening. So I think like looking at where we're finding success. Also, sarah touched on this a bit. But budgeting public, private, public private projects with future maintenance costs in mind. You know, when we get together with parks, we have a project budget. And oftentimes that project budget doesn't include maintenance. One of the projects that we did that was successful on that was the barbara walker crossing, where our total project cost included a certain allocation just to be passed off to the city for maintenance costs. So building that into our public private projects. And then I think also just continuing to work with partners to identify and remove barriers to private investment on shared priority projects and programs. And I think that there can become tensions within the system. And so that's where I'm saying, can we start? And we've already started this conversation with kelly torres, and I know she's doing it with a number of other, other organizations, but what are the barriers towards further investment and then starting to understand the shared why and how, which is a conversation that is new. So those are just a few of the little things. And I love this quote. I've put it up on the screen before, but I think this is what drives us. And really that part is we need to reach what seems impossible and think in the long term. And I can't stress that more when we're in a moment of crisis, which we kind of are now, but to still really think in the long term, thank you.
66 Thank you jessica. Great comments. Paul. Do you.
67 Thank you I'm paula grimace with the Portland parks alliance. And I'd like to echo what we heard from dca, donna powell and sarah huggins and jessica Green got a couple of sort of recommendations in addition to what we've heard so far. So I'm here to present to you regarding the parks levy that passed last week. And the Portland parks alliance is 75 people in organizations who joined together with a focus on three goals. And those are achieving financial sustainability for our park system, developing a realistic plan to address the deferred maintenance backlog, estimated to range between 550 and $800 million, and strengthening partnerships between parks and parks volunteers. The parks alliance strongly agrees with mayor wilson's editorial in yesterday's Oregonian. The levy provides the opportunity to address the financial sustainability of our parks, and to meet a new standard of transparency and responsible stewardship. The Portland parks alliance sees three urgent actions that will help Portland make the most of the opportunity that delivery offers. By stabilizing paris for the next five years. We strongly agree with the proposal to develop the website detailing proposed cost savings at parks by the end of the calendar year. We are here to advocate for accelerating the proposed financial sustainability plan from June 2028 to June 2026. The parks audit describes an infrastructure crisis, and we've heard crisis mentioned a couple times already in the city. Budget office has warned of fiscal cliffs for parks funding for decades. A crisis demands a sense of urgency. In response, June 2028 would not be an urgent response. Responsible stewardship requires that sober changes are made before the new levy funds are obligated. Organizations are typically slow to change cultures, and the culture at parks needs needs to change. Starting now. This culture change needs to embrace ownership. In managing the park system, parks is consistently designed and delivered high quality assets. However, system wide challenges in funding and asset management have failed to ensure that those assets remain for future generations. With 20% of the assets projected to fail in the next 15 years and 86% of the assets rated in poor or worse condition, a sustainable strategy is urgently needed. Three we're here also to advocate for a park system asset management plan by December 31st, 2026, the auditor's report found. The city has no asset management strategy, and asset management strategy would inform a level of service that is sustainable with available funding. We believe that major capital maintenance needs to be funded at an at an order of magnitude higher than the levy passed last week. This will require some trade offs. Some of those will be painful. It seems likely that operating costs need to be reduced to fund asset maintenance at a meaningful level. We agree service reductions should be a last resort. These three actions are achievable as described if undertaken with urgency and focus. Our recommendation is that these actions be defined by specific and measurable objectives that will provide benchmarks for transparent reporting. The city council, the mayor, city leadership and many others need to be proactive in letting the public know that this situation is urgent. Trade offs will be required. An urgent and coordinated response will yield a stronger and more resilient park system. So I'd like to thank you for your attention and I'm happy to answer your questions.
68 Thank you paul. Thank you. Panelists, I'd like to make a couple of comments before I turn it over to my colleagues. This has been great. I really appreciate the overview. I'm like, jessica, I was really pleased with the passage, but I think like the mayor, I'm not celebrating. I am not celebrating because of what we need to do. We have a lot ahead of us and we're really, I feel, on borrowed time. So I appreciate the comment, paul, about speeding up the timeline. I do feel that sense of urgency about the parks. I do have a couple of specific concerns I'd like to just throw out. Not for your comment necessarily, but just to say that I do feel we need to reduce operating costs, that parks needs to generate more revenue, that we need to make our assets swift. I think I heard that somewhere. It's not an original line, but we need to make them work for us. We need to to make money off of our assets. We need to increase our public private partnerships, obviously, and I know that's part of this new partnership program development. From my perspective. I think it's really important that we emphasize the community side, not just the chasing dollars, the philanthropic dollars, but we really emphasize the partnerships that we can find to make things work. And by that, we engage and strengthen our community as well. Clearly, we need to maintain what we have in face of this huge capital backlog, which you've addressed, paul. And we do we do have an asset management plan underway, and I'm hoping that parks will be a heavy contributor to that. That effort and the standardization of how we take care of those assets across all bureaus. So that is underway. And part of that asset management resolution or budget amendment was to come back to us also with a capital plan. And we're and some of us are anxious to see what we can come up with. Let's see if I had any other comments I do. Are you planning? Maybe I'll ask this to dca. Paul, are you planning to come back to this committee with the kpis or what was the what was the plan for delivering those?
69 We would be coming back to tni, but we'll have to check with council president whether we go to the climate and land use or tni. So thank you for your patience while we get the clarification.
70 Okay. We did invite other members of other committees to be here today to hear this, but they're not here. I'll stop there. Other issues may come back to me. But councilor Green, you have your hand up.
71 Yes. Thank you. Chair. Clark, I just have two questions today. And thanks again for all your work on getting this thing over the line. I am celebrating and that's okay. I do that knowing full well that we have really, really hard work ahead of us in terms of getting our really it comes back to asset management, as you've always said, and I, I want to foreground a little bit of that. I think there's opportunities actually. We've mentioned system development charges and the resolution earlier. I mean there's there's a piece you mentioned the sort of legislative agenda, lobbying agenda to kind of get someone in the legislature to carry some sort of reform to be a little more expansive. But I'll but I'll just note in the resolution that we passed, there is language there that says. That the city will pursue, as appropriate, policy changes in the city of Portland that clarify and prioritize the use of system development charges for extension of useful life or restoration of existing capital assets. And I just say that because there have been moments where we have put into the cip major maintenance projects that we've paid for with sdcs, because they do meet the definition of capital improvement. And I think if we're willing to do that and sort of put a moratorium on new parks, constructions, you know, with, with some careful and appropriate exemptions for district one, which is still parks poor. I see you over there, counselor, and I'm just imagining Jamie dunphy's also sitting over there, too. Then that's a strong signal to our voters in this city that we are, are are taking seriously this backlog. I mean, the the levy has maybe, I think at most $10 million for capital maintenance in it over the five year period. But we've got tens of millions of dollars available for sdc in sdcs right now. If we're willing to reevaluate our cip. So I know that's good work, that the service area can can take a look at. And I think that if we do that right now, at the same time that we're looking at our asset management plan, that's that's action, not just talk on getting to the sort of capital backlog issue. And I think that if we if we do that, that'll set us up for a capital bond down the road because people need to see that you're you're really walking the walk. So I guess that's not really a question. I'm just editorializing on that, but just reaffirming that that's in the resolution to not just there's an inward looking piece of that, not just a legislative agenda. The other part is, I do have a question on the property tax compression aspect. I wonder if anyone from the campaign or the service area can can just remind us what we think the impacts via compression will be.
72 Great prepared.
73 Thank you.
74 I can and just to clarify, do you mean the impacts on compression on other entities?
75 Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking.
76 Yes. The numbers are small. Let me use my glasses. So for the children's levy we're estimating just under $900,000 a year average for compression. The first year it would be 823 for the metro parks levy. We are looking at just around $200,000 per year. And for the Multnomah county, that's for the Oregon historical society. We're looking at about $100,000 per year.
77 And I believe that we reaffirmed in our resolution that we were going to keep the children's levy whole.
78 That's correct.
79 So that we'll have to look forward to that exercise in the budget.
80 Thanks for the reminder. Yep.
81 Thanks for that clarification. I don't have any other questions, but I invite anyone to respond to any of my statements as well.
82 Okay, well, let them let them think about it. I just want to add to that, I know that we and I think we feel it frequently that we've inherited these inefficiencies and these problems, and we need to correct them. And I think it's going to be not easier, but maybe more manageable under the new form of government, under the leadership of our dcas, I think we'll be able to really more effectively address these issues and not hide anything anymore. And everything is really out in the open now. We're transparent and we know that we need to address these issues. And I think that the current council really has the commitment to do that, to work with you to address these issues. And they're and they're not easy. I realize that everything that we've talked about, it just makes my stomach turn when I think about the backlog that we have and the challenge that we have in addressing it, I don't see any other. Hands up. Did you have any questions or did you want to make a comment? Councilor Smith.
83 Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I just want to say congratulations because I do think it is a congratulations. I think it was a heavy lift. I think that all of our communities are struggling and experiencing economic difficulties right now. And to be able to say that they will give a little bit more to maintain one of our flagship bureaus and parks, I think is amazing and outstanding. But it wasn't lost on me. And I just want my I don't want my community members to to highlight me with with what I do know the data. And in 47 and 48, in any of those precincts, we did not support the parks bureau. I absolutely love our new parks that we've received in district one. So that is something that we have to contend with. I understand where the support came from. I was looking at as we were talking, I was looking at the precincts. And so that is that is very troubling to me that people in district 47 and 48, which makes up basically district one, that they didn't feel that that was important. And I think that's a public relations issue. I think that's an issue that we need to be out in our parks. We need to be utilizing our parks, letting folks know in those districts what we have available. Park Lane is amazing and outstanding. I went out there and did the grand opening this past summer, and it was just absolutely gorgeous. And I think we do a couple of things well. We build new parks very well, but the deferred maintenance on the other ones, that's where we're having the issues at, and that's where I think that we need to put some some energy in. But I am still taking credit and saying congratulations, because I still call my friends all around the city to make sure that they turn their ballots in, because I knew that this was going to be important, that was going to be a whole. That was going to be too hard to fathom how we close that gap. But you all, you hung in there and you got the messaging out and you made sure you got the vote out. That was important. And I want to thank you for me and sitting on the transportation committee, and I want to work with you to to see how we can better engage folks in district one, because it's they're not engaged at this point and they're not voting. Thank you.
84 Thank you, councilor Smith. Thank you again, all of you, for being here today. And congratulations. Maybe I'm not celebrating, but I give you congratulations for this. I'm really looking forward to hearing about the performance indicators when the time is right, and just encourage you also to stay very involved in the asset management plan that's going on. We're all very aware of it. It's very important that parks be a big partner in that effort. But thank you again for coming today. We really appreciate your hard work coalition building. I hope you can keep it together. We have a long way to go, but I appreciate your effort and thank you all for being here today. Very much. Appreciate this. Our next meeting is Monday, December 15th. We only have one meeting left in this year. We're going we're planning on an update from PBOT on the resolution that we passed regarding identifying sustainable transportation funding, talking about money. Again, we passed that resolution, I think, in July, and they're coming back. I think they should have that report done by the 1st of December. But we're going to receive the overview on December the 15th and then mull over where we go from here. We're also going to hear a technical ordinance relating to street naming from PBOT at that meeting. So with that, I will adjourn the meeting of the transportation and infrastructure committee.