The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-10-15
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (7,601 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
A public hearing was held on October 15, 2025, convened by the Tax Supervisory and Conservation Commission (TSCC) with Portland City Council regarding the City of Portland's proposed Parks Local Option Levy tax measure. Commission members and city councilors introduced themselves, and the hearing's purpose was described as informational, with the commission neither taking action on nor advocating a position regarding the measure. Members of the public, including representatives from the Portland Parks Foundation and Portland Democratic Socialists of America, offered testimony supporting the levy, along with a written comment. Discussion topics included the levy's allocation across maintenance, climate-related work, and program access; potential impacts on cost of living; compression effects on other local taxing districts such as the Children's Levy, Metro Natural Area Levy, and Oregon Historical Society funding; long-term funding planning history including a failed legislative proposal and voter polling; the "leveraged funding model" for combining general fund and levy dollars; equity considerations across council districts; tree canopy funding compared with Portland Clean Energy Fund resources; and anticipated impacts if the levy does not pass. Some figures, such as projected levy revenue and cost estimates, were stated inconsistently across speakers. Councilors closed the hearing by offering individual perspectives on reasons to support the levy.
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.
0 Good afternoon everybody. Thank you for being here. This is the city council's meeting with the. Tsk. And I'm not actually sure if I gavel this in or if you do. I think this is your meeting.
1 This is my meeting. So I'll go ahead and get us started. Welcome, everyone. I will officially call to order this public hearing on October 15th, 2025 for the city of portland's parks local option levy tax measure. Good afternoon. My name is harmony kiddos. I am chair of the tax supervisory and conservation commission. Just as a reminder, the tsec is a community oversight commission established by the Oregon legislature. The commission oversees the budgets of all tsec member taxing districts and annually conducts a thorough budget review and certification process. Another of tsecs responsibilities, as detailed in state law, is to hold public hearings on all property tax measures proposed by municipal corporations under the commission's jurisdiction. Tsec holds public hearings like this one to give the public an opportunity to learn more about the proposed measure, we ask questions that we think a typical community member might ask. In that sense, we're here today to represent those community members who may not be able to ask questions of you directly. We encourage community members to attend the meetings and make comments and ask questions. Minutes of this public hearing will be prepared and retained as a permanent record of the proceedings. To note, tsec does not take any action on the proposed tax measure and does not advocate for a position on the measure. This hearing is strictly to promote information sharing. I will now ask my fellow commissioners to introduce themselves. We'll start with doctor moore.
2 My name is rita moore. This is my. Are we still in the first year? We still still my first year on tsec. I'm a former school board member for Portland.
3 Good afternoon. My name is matt donahue, fourth year on cc and vice chair. My day job is as a municipal bond banker and sometimes advisor.
4 Thanks, pat. Again, I'm harmony kraus. This is my seventh and final year with tsec. This is my final hearing. I know they had to pull out the gavel, so I make sure I get to really hammer it home today. I in my other life I work in k to 12 education and curriculum. Our staff are also here. Wilhite and brittany abhari and they will introduce themselves when they come up to speak. Will the city representatives please introduce themselves?
5 Thank you so much for being here. My name is Elana pirtle-guiney. I am a councilor from district two and the council president.
6 Hi. Tiffany Koyama Lane, district three, council vice president.
7 Steve Novick councilor, district three. Honored to be here with you today. As the old saying goes, there's no soup like tax soup.
8 My name is Mitch Green. I am a city councilor for district four.
9 City council, district four.
10 Candace Avalos, city council for district one.
11 Jamie Dunphy, he him councilor from district one.
12 Good afternoon, Loretta Smith, district one councilor. Thank you.
13 I am Sameer canal. Thanks for being here, city councilor for district two.
14 And we do have one councilor Who's joining us online today.
15 We also have a commissioner Joining online. We'll go ahead and let them introduce themselves online.
16 Hi everyone. Councilor Morillo here representing district three. Thanks for being here.
17 We let todd introduce himself to todd.
18 Good afternoon councilors. My name is todd. This is my second year on the tsc and my background is in public finance. I've served as a budget officer and in various finance positions for a number of jurisdictions in the region, including the city of Portland. Thank you.
19 Thank you todd. I will now call on any members of the public who would like to speak. Each person is limited to three minutes of public comment, and we'll let you know when you're nearing the end of your time. Allegra, do we have any members of the public signed up to testify?
20 Yes, we do have three members of the public who have signed up to testify online. We also received one written public comment. And the interest of time. We do not read the entirety of written public comment, but in summary, we received a comment from babs vanilla, a resident of sullivan's gulch and city council district two. The comment praised the numerous parks and community centers, and asked for support of the parks levy in whatever way possible. The comment also mentioned governor tom mccall and his work protecting oregon's natural resources. The public comment in entirety will be included on our website and as part of the permanent record of this hearing. Keelan. Please go ahead and start with our members of the public who are online.
21 Thank you. Allegra. First up, we have jessica Green. Jessica, go ahead and unmute and you can begin your testimony for three minutes.
22 Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. I'm jessica Green, executive director of the parks foundation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Portland parks levy. Portlanders love our parks. Our parks are essential public infrastructure as vital to our city's health and livability as streets or utilities. But years of underinvestment have left our parks system fragile. The 2020 levy stabilize the system on the brink of deep cuts, it kept community centers open, restored parks maintenance and helped expand access to low cost and free recreation programs. Since then, the cost of services has increased in tax revenue has declined due to decreased property values, which means the same rate simply doesn't sustain the same level of service. So the proposed rate increase is intentionally limited and focused. It's designed to maintain safe, clean parks, sustained recreation access for all portlanders, and support the frontline staff who make that possible. Stakeholders worked closely with the city to keep this proposal lean, centered on core operations and transparent to voters. That transparency is backed by significant new accountability measures. The community oversight committee will now report directly to city council, rather than just the parks director. The bureau must clearly identify how many full time positions and what share of operations are funded by the levy in its annual budget, and by year's end, the council has directed the bureau to adopt measurable performance metrics to track results and outcomes. Council also directed the bureau to prepare a long range financial plan, and called on city staff to work with the legislature to clarify the use of system development charges, with the goal of making those funds available not just for new construction, but also for major maintenance and renewal of existing park assets. Even with these steps, deferred maintenance remains a serious challenge. We acknowledge that, but we can't afford to let our parks close or deteriorate further while we develop these critical, long term solutions. This renewal gives us time and stability, keeping the system functioning and accessible. While we plan for its future. On behalf of the Portland parks foundation, I urge everyone's support for this fiscally responsible, accountable levy renewal. It's a prudent investment that protects essential public assets and honors voters. Trust. Thank you very much for your time and your commitment to portland's fiscal health.
23 Next up we have jessie dryer.
24 Hi. Council here today just to express, you know, the support of myself and on behalf of Portland democratic socialists of America for the parks levy, parks are an essential part of our city's quality of life. Now that we're seeing, you know, a terrible federal attempted federal intervention by the trump administration. You know, we need to double down on what makes our city attractive and beautiful. And that is our parks, not the feds. Thanks so much. Check.
25 Next up we have ben gilbert. Go ahead ben, you're unmuted.
26 Thank you. Hello. My name is ben gilbert, and I'm with the Portland dsa and a tenant in district four. On September 14th, members of the Portland chapter of the democratic socialists of America voted to endorse the upcoming Portland parks and recreation levy 2025 ballot initiative as part of our family agenda campaign, and we're really excited that we're launching canvases this weekend to talk to Portland voters about the levy. If the November 4th levy is not approved, the Portland parks operating budget would be cut nearly in half, resulting in far fewer programs, programs and services. The parks the parks levy ensures Portland can maintain parks and community centers by increasing the property tax rate by $0.60 per $1,000 in assessed property value. That means a median homeowner would pay about $26 per month, and the median commercial property owner would pay around $37 per month. Parks or parks are about more than recreation. They're sites of community climate resilience, public health, intergenerational, cross-cultural connection. In a city increasingly shaped by privatization and budget cuts, securing resources for public parks is essential. Local governments around the country have found that investing in parks and providing equitable access to them can increase economic vitality and make their cities more attractive for existing and potential new potential new residents. At the same time, the 2025 parks levy is necessary but insufficient. While the levy will provide urgently needed funding by relying on periodic levies to to sustain critical infrastructure is inequitable and unstable. Approach. Public goods should be guaranteed through progressive, permanent and reliable funding paid for by taxing the wealthy and corporations who benefit from our shared resources, not through regressive measures that disproportionately impact the working class. That's why we need more elected leaders with the guts to push back against the arm twisting ruling class in Portland, right, and stand up for working people. The wealth is here if we want it. Contrary to the stories that wealthy elites tell, tell us. We know that the we know that the rich only get richer by exploiting their workers. The average ceo to worker ratio for major companies was $285 to one. We also know the tax flight is a myth cooked up by the city's elite to get out of paying their fair share. That's why Portland dsa supported city councilor Steve novick's proposal earlier this year to increase the existing surcharge on corporations that have highly skewed ratios of ceo to worker pay, in addition to dsa member and city councilor Mitch greens healthy parks healthy climate plan, which would have built on novick's proposal, these are examples of the creative policymaking the city desperately needs right now. Thank you. I yield my time.
27 Thank you for your testimony. All comments will be entered into our public meeting record, and we appreciate you being here and sharing your thoughts with us today. We will go ahead and dive into our questions. And I have the first one. The measure shares three primary purposes parks, maintenance and cleanliness, protecting nature and a changing climate and preserving program access. Can you tell us roughly what percentage of levy dollars do you anticipate spending for each of those areas?
28 Thank you. And I'll start us off with this question, and I'll note that councilors around the dais have different questions that they've asked to be able to respond to. So you'll be hearing from most of us up here today, the 2025 parks levy is intended to sustain the current fiscal year 2526 service levels, maintaining the balance of funds currently seen to continue providing programing and services. As the council worked hard to include in our previous budget, which we know you heard about in the spring, in fiscal year 2526, the parks levy funds are contributing most to work ensuring neighborhood park maintenance and cleanliness and preserving program access at about 40% each. The remaining portion of the parks levy would support protecting nature and changing climate. This portion, I'll note, is smaller than the other two portions because we have the opportunity to leverage Portland clean energy funds to help support that work, as well as city council implements annual budgets and priorities. That balance may shift slightly to meet council identified and community identified needs, but this levy was designed very specifically with the goal of sustaining the funding that we were able to pass in the last budget, and we don't anticipate the shift changing significantly from what you see before us today and what we expect to see in that 2627 budget year, specific fund allocations will occur during the budget process, where city council will review and decide on those adjustments year to year. Of course, bringing that forward to the tsk through our budget process in its first year, I'll note that the parks levy is estimated to raise about $84 million.
29 This levy is a tax increase. How do you respond to concerns about the tax burden contributing to the rising cost of living in Portland?
30 I'm going to respond to that over here. Councilor zimmermann. First and foremost, it is it's a tax increase. And I think we're admitting that. I think that the city council has taken quite seriously what we've heard from the bureaus regarding the cost to maintain service, the cost to increase service, that not just city government services are experiencing. But I think all portlanders, all Americans are experiencing in this time of inflation, of increased costs. But portlanders for a long time have supported this investment in in this infrastructure and in the services that come around, that infrastructure, recreation specifically. It is one of our great assets, though, and with respect to on median, an $11 increase per month, I think that the city council has weighed that it is a reasonable tax increase, even in light of the of the cost of living burden in Portland. And we did that, I think, from a position of understanding the community conversations that have happened over the previous months and years, the polling that we are aware of, that this is an area that portlanders have indicated that they support, maintaining, that they support a tax increase in order to maintain and not backslide. There are other areas that certainly contribute to the city's cost of living, right? The hhs and its impact and its and its effectiveness is an income tax on folks. The preschool for all is an income tax on folks, both of which are not indexed and certainly contribute to the cost of living for for wage earners. But this property tax is across all properties. There's a universality here. There is a predictability here that is responsible, that acknowledges the assets that are at risk. If we do not pass this levy and acknowledges that we're investing in what portlanders have indicated is one of their greatest assets that they want to protect.
31 When the tsec met with the city in 2020, we asked what the plan was in five years when the parks levy ended. Now we're here. At the time, the mayor and commissioners different, different mayor, different commissioners plan to explore other options for long term funding. What other options have been considered since then, and why are you opting for another short term fix?
32 So I'll note before I jump into this answer that no one's sitting up here. Today was a part of the last few years of that system at least. A sustainable future for our parks and recreation system remains a critical goal for the city. The park system today, I'll note, is a very different park system than the system that was before us five years ago. Our parks have been shaped by a global pandemic, a public housing crisis, and families needing new places to connect. The way that our community uses our parks has had to change because of that as well. I'll note that in the past five years, we have taken a number of steps as a city to consider various long term funding options for our parks system. A few of those include. In 2022, a ballot initiative task force which met to review alternative funding options for a financially sustainable park system. The group advised the parks director on a number of funding alternatives and the sequencing of potential future ballot initiatives. The director considered that, in collaboration with the parks commissioner at the time, in 2023. A year later, the city of Portland prepared a legislative bill, house bill 3515, with state representative nelson, which sought to change Oregon statute to allow for a city governed parks and recreation district, a model that some other communities, including seattle and olympia, have pursued to open up an additional option for us not committing to that being the right path forward, but ensuring that we had all options on the table. That bill was not successful at the state level. The legislature was not interested in allowing us that option to consider in 2023 and 2024, the Portland parks and recreation bureau conducted two rounds of voter polling to test support for bonds and a variety of levy approaches. There are many cities which sustainably operate their park system, with a mix of general fund levies and bonds, and we wanted to understand portlanders interest in a mix like that for our long term funding. Here, with the opportunity we now have in this new form of government, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues and the bureau to develop a long range financial plan over the next few years in our resolution to refer this levy to the voters, we set a specific directive to hold ourselves accountable to actually getting this work done by the end of fiscal year 2728. City leadership looks forward to developing that long range plan and implementing it to ensure that our city has sustainable parks to offer services to our community well into the future.
33 So I think we all understand local option levy is an imperfect tool for a variety of reasons for raising funds, including the issue of compression, which affects other taxing districts that have local overlapping local option levies, as well as making the the levy inequitable on a property by property basis for those who are in compression. But tsk, we love all of our districts equally. And so what conversations have you had with the other jurisdictions who the increase in this levy will result in a decrease potentially of their their revenue? And are they supportive of the measure?
34 Thank you. Thank you for that question. I'll be answering that. One of the features of a local option levy is that it will compress other local option levies. There are three other local option levies that would be impacted. They are the Portland children's levy, estimated at approximately 820,000 for fiscal year 2627. Metro natural area levy estimated at approximately 196,000 for 2627, and the Oregon historical society through Multnomah county, estimated at approximately 102,000 for fiscal year 2627. In the resolution, we resolved to make an appropriation in the annual budget from the parks local option levy fund to the children's levy investment fund to make up for the lost revenue. These dynamics aren't new, but as they replace an existing levy, the city of Portland has many agreements with both metro and Multnomah county and welcomes discussions in regards to compression for this levy. And we're in ongoing discussions. While we didn't discuss specific cost levy, conversations were robust and we don't believe these impacts will come as a surprise to any of those entities.
35 So let's understand what the children's levy you're making that hole.
36 We're going to make the children's levy hole okay.
37 Thank you.
38 Todd, you have the next question.
39 Thank you. Harmony. My question is will all local option levy dollars go towards enhancing and preserving current services, or are there any new programs expected to be added assuming the levy passes?
40 Thank you for this question, todd. The local levy option dollars are designed to support current services, including daily parts, parks, maintenance and small scale facility and asset maintenance. Recreation programs like sports programing, community center classes and summer free for all events are included, and free and discount options for those programs. It will also support park tree care and tree planting, and creating strong community partnerships and new partner opportunities. The preservation also includes sustaining programs that were funded with one time resources in fiscal year 20 2526, and the adopted budget that would otherwise expire after this fiscal year. So some examples for that would include the environmental education programs like the nature day camp, teen nature team internships, and the youth conservation crew annual summer camps hosted across our ten community centers that provide programing and child care options during summer months, and maintaining current community center hours of operation instead of opening later and closing earlier. In addition to sustaining current service levels, new programs or initiatives would further enhance delivery of parks levy commitments to voters. The levy would also add one fte staff position dedicated to financial partnerships and revenue generation, in an effort to bring in additional stable funding from donors, local small local businesses and public private partnerships. The $0.03 of the 140 rate would be specifically for capital maintenance projects such as repairing bathrooms, playgrounds and cottages. The funds will be distributed between the four council districts, and city council members will recommend which capital maintenance needs and capital replacement opportunities to advance. Thank you.
41 Thank you, and I'd like to ask a follow up question. And it's probably the city council's favorite topic, the general fund. What how much reliance assuming again that passes. How much reliance will parks have on the general fund going forward? If you look into your crystal ball, and will the general fund be continue to be a primary source of operating revenues for the parks bureau?
42 Thanks for that follow up question, todd. If the levy passes, the general fund and parks levy will will be nearly even in terms of the operating revenue support over the five years of the parks levy, each forecasted to provide about $90 million per year on average over the five year period. Council referred this levy to sustain parks and recreation services, not to offset future ongoing general fund expenses. We included that intention and commitment in our resolution to make that point clear, writing that the operational funding is to sustain the levels of operational service provided to portlanders at levels included in the fy 2526 budget. So we really wanted to make that crystal clear in the referral. While no funding stream is certain in the current environment, we you know, we can't bind the decisions of future city councils. Nevertheless, the resolution is a clear statement of our intention to continue the current level of the ongoing general fund commitment.
43 Thank you and harmony. Can I ask an additional follow up?
44 Go ahead.
45 Oh, we understand the current levy follows a leveraged funding model to ensure that all general fund dollars are spent before using levy dollars. Will that hold true for this new levy as well?
46 And we're actually going to pass this one to dca. Donna paul, since this gets into some of the nitty gritty details of how budgeting works at a bureau level.
47 Thank you. Council. Preston. Good afternoon. I'm deputy city administrator for public works. That also includes Portland parks and recreation. So to answer your question, yes, the new levy will follow the same leveraged funding model, which ensures that all general fund dollars are spent first before using levy dollars. That means levy dollars serve as an additional resource to meet our parks levy commitments. Because this levy supports basic operations, not just a single program or purpose, the approach has been effective at streamlining how we use multiple funding sources for the same activity. Frontline supervisors have one unified budget to manage, and staff aren't labeled as being on a temporary funding source. So we we also had an outside auditor review this model as part of the 2020 parks levy audit, and they concluded that it was appropriate and effective mechanism for funding eligible activities. And that being said, we're always looking for ways to improve. We'll be refining or creating new tools to better document and report how each resource is budgeted and expended. The city's budget office has received feedback from councilors and stakeholders, and will be eager to incorporate what we've what they've heard into the implementation of this levy, if passed. Thank you.
48 While I have you up here, maybe the risk of getting too into the weeds and possibly the terms leveraged funding model means something different in my world than it does in the budgeting world, but would you be able to explain in layman's terms how that works? Do you set levy dollars coming in from the county in a separate account, and then that's sits there full until other monies are spent, and then when other moneys are zero, then it starts coming out of the separate account.
49 That is correct. And that's a great question, and.
50 I'm happy to jump in if that's okay. Good afternoon. My name is sarah huggins. I'm with the Portland parks and recreation bureau. So there is a separate fund for parks levy resources. They all come in to a specific parks levy fund. At the end of each year, we calculate how much of the eligible pool based on parks levy commitments, would attach itself to expenditures from the general fund and the levy, and we move over the appropriate amount from the levy fund to cover the levy's percentage share of those dollars. So they stay in the parks levy fund until sort of the end of the fiscal year and transfer at one time.
51 Okay. Thank you. And that's just to ensure that you're meeting those commitments in the levy language from this funding. Okay. Great. Thank you.
52 I have a I have another follow up. So it's it's good to like understand the operational programs and the the the maintenance component. We know that Portland has a structural deficit where tax receipts, especially for the parks, even in good times, are insufficient to maintain, let alone like tackle the $600 million maintenance backlog. I just want to ask a question about is in addition to like the the financial planning around. In addition to the financial planning around how the parks are going to be funded long term, is there work also being done around? We saw the auditor's report this morning around the strategic plan for the long term maintenance for. Operations for are we building more new community centers? How will we maintain those if there are new programs? Can you talk a little bit about the long term kind of plan, not just the financial part?
53 Are you speaking specifically to the deferred maintenance part of a long term plan, or to the funding operations of new assets part of a long term?
54 I'm talking more about the plan, like both sides, right. Like maintenance, certainly in terms of capital, but also funding. Like operationally, the programs that exist and any new programs that get added. Is there a strategic plan in place? Is there a plan to develop that strategic plan so we, as portlanders can see kind of the the forward looking like, what what do the parks look like going forward? Not just how are we going to fund it, which we've talked a little bit that you're working on.
55 So I'll note two things. The first is that right about the time, actually, that this council referred the parks levy to voters, we also had a robust conversation about asset management at the city in general. And I wish that our colleague, councilor Clark, were here today because she's led a lot of that work. But at the end of next summer, we are expecting a plan back from the administration on how we can better maintain our assets at the city. Broadly, that's not specific to parks, but it would include parks. So as you look at the maintenance that the deferred maintenance backlog, which this levy just starts to scratch the surface of, really this levy is deferred maintenance piece or capital maintenance piece is about how we make sure that those things that portlanders might interact with daily, that would affect your ability to use a park, a bathroom, things like that are taken care of. The broader maintenance backlog we will be talking about as we discuss how we address our capital maintenance across the city. Again, we'll get that plan back next summer from the administration. So that's something that we have asked for and that this council is committed to working on. On the operations side, I might look to our bureau director, but I'll note that operations costs for new assets that we expect to come online during the life of the levy, are included in the or were included in the calculations to build this levy to ensure that we can continue the service level that we're currently providing as it relates to future assets that we don't know about yet. We do have a pause on sdc collection for most development in the city right now, so we have less money coming in for future assets than we have had over the past few years, which I think diminishes the potential for problems there in the coming years. But I would look to our bureau director to see if there's anything more specific that we should be adding to answer that question.
56 Good afternoon. Sonya shymansky, interim director of Portland parks and recreation. I think I would say, in addition and maybe a little bit more generally, we really appreciated the exercise of the audit and the questions it raised, which were not new, but it brought them into sharper focus and gave us really kind of an organizing conversation to talk about them more deeply and and really with an eye toward actionable strategies going forward. I the way I think about it, is it it proposes a really common sense way of approaching these questions, which is one figure out what size and shape park system you want. That's your level of service to figure out how you might pay for it. That's your funding sustainability plan. And three align your policy and budget decisions accordingly. Included in that were really, I think, thoughtful and helpful suggestions about how we can be more transparent, including about ongoing maintenance and life cycle costs associated with new things as they come online. In our response to the audit, we agreed with all the recommendations and we look forward to putting them into action. Thank you.
57 Thanks.
58 So how is the city when this levy dollars are being spent? Ensure that the funds are going to be spent equitably across all parts of of Portland.
59 Great. I get to answer that question. Thank you. As councilors elected from specific districts, understanding how these funds and services and the services those funds support are distributed across districts will be important, along with using a city wide lens. Because the levy is providing funding for all bureau operational services, we will have opportunities to evaluate bureau operations as a whole, along with the impacts of this specific levy resource. I know the bureau also utilizes an equity and anti-racism lens when supporting funding and program development, before advancing, before advancing items to council through the budget or through other processes. I included a budget note in the fiscal year 2526, adopted budget directing a report of budget and performance metrics by district for both parks and recreation and transportation. I've been working with both bureaus on development of that budget note, and I'm looking forward to seeing how that might that work, might continue as a model to support our ability to use data to evaluate how resources are distributed across districts in an ongoing way. I also want to call out some specific examples that we considered in drafting the levy, that we referred to voters, $0.03 of the dollar 40 rate would be specifically for capital maintenance projects, such as repair of bathrooms and playgrounds. As outlined in the resolution, the funds would be distributed between the four council districts, and council members would recommend the capital maintenance needs and capital replacement opportunities to advance each year within their district. We also considered how the levy can help support system growth to address inequities in access. We know we don't have equitable distribution of our parks assets today. This levy wouldn't build new parks, but it would provide funding to operate and maintain them. As the current 2020 parks levy did for the new parks we've opened during that its time frame, we've estimated that about $45 million over the five years of this parks levy would be spent on operations and maintenance for new parks that came online during the 2020 parks levy, and for new projects scheduled to open over the next five years. In addition to operations and maintenance funding for new parks, the levy supports the access pass, which provides reduced priced pricing options for people who live within the city of Portland, free lunch and play, a summer program that provides free lunch, drop in games, crafts and recreation for youth. 18 and under critical community programs that serve eastern east portlanders like the teen collaborative initiative and community partnership program grants that support organizations providing programing and services to youth and teens, and Portland parks and recreation's free teen program that offers programing and free access to gyms, pools, recreation services, and leadership opportunities.
60 Todd, do you have the next question?
61 Great. Thank you. This resolution, the resolution says in the new levy, end quote, improve the health and equitable distribution of our tree canopy, end quote in our spring conversation with you, the council mentioned using clean energy dollars also to support trees across the city. And I believe councilor Morello also mentioned this in her remarks a few minutes a little bit ago. How will the levy dollars be spent for this purpose, for tree canopy? And how does that differ from what the dollars will be targeted from the clean energy fund? Thank you.
62 I'll be taking that question. Yes, both resources support this work. The majority of the Portland clean energy fund funding is supporting new plantings and additional services provided by urban forestry. Pcef is providing funding support for about half of the regular ongoing urban forestry operations, the other half, an ongoing operations, is funded by general fund and parks levy, so generally parks levy and general fund dollars fund urban forestry management and programing. Piece f resources are focused on specific initiatives like establishing an equitable tree canopy program to plant at least 15,000 trees over five years on public and private property, maintain tree health, foster community engagement, support workforce development and the tree establishment and maintenance industry. Implementing an existing private property, tree planting and establishment program. Developing a new street tree maintenance program to maintain citywide tree canopy, and an arborist training program to support this work, covering cost and burden associated with tree care for low income households and ensuring that existing trees receive health and safety assessments. Pruning, removal and replanting as needed. So in practice, the use to use the equitable tree canopy program as an example, PCEF dollars might purchase the trees for a yard giveaway program, while the parks levy dollars and general fund dollars actually fund the staff who are organizing and running those events.
63 It's my job to ask about the bad stuff. It's been suggested that if the levy does not pass, the subsequent budget shortfall will require elimination of routine maintenance and minor repairs. Is that still the anticipated response, and if so, what process would you use to prioritize which maintenance and repair projects to complete?
64 I will respond to that question. Steve Novick again, routine maintenance and minor repairs in the outdoor parks and natural areas make up the largest share of parks budget, which includes the levy. Another major expense is operation of the community centers and other programing. If parks loses over 40% of its funding, it will be virtually impossible to avoid cuts in both those areas. City council would have to use the annual budget process to prioritize where reductions in service would occur to address a budget shortfall in general, bureaus develop options for reductions or additions of resources allow in December and January in preparation for the following fiscal year. Those options are discussed, refined and prioritized by the mayor in his proposed budget and then by city council and the subsequent approved and adopted budgets. The mayor's proposed budget must be released by may 5th of each year, and city council then considers and amends that budget before adopting the budget in mid-june. Community input informs the budget process from the beginning through the budget bureau's proposal development, and then through the mayor and council's deliberations, through listening sessions and community meetings to city council hearings. A reduction of more than 40% of the bureau's operational operating budget would likely require more than the standard amount of time to prepare for, and parks would work closely with city council, the mayor and the budget office to develop well considered options for balancing the gap and advance the next fiscal year. That is one reason we choose to move this forward now and not wait until spring.
65 For our final question, we always like to give the district city, in this case, the final word on your levy. So what do you believe is the most compelling reason for voters to say yes on the ballot?
66 So obviously, our role with in our role with the city, we can't speak directly to the votes, but we're going to use this as an opportunity to speak to why we felt this was the right levy to put forward, to refer to the ballot. And we will have one councilor from each district, as well as council leadership, respond so that you can hear a few different reasons why this is so important. Councilor Zimmerman, would you like to start?
67 Thank you, thank you. It's a good question. In my experience, and one of the reasons that I enjoy being a public official is that I believe that the beginning few years for a child, for a family are incredibly important. And when I looked at the options that were in front of the city with respect to backsliding, with recreation, with backsliding for what our public spaces would look like, that was non-negotiable to me. In a world that has become far more individualized and less social or antisocial, I think that anything that we're doing as a community that is pro-social should have our support. I think that for many families, they're able to overcome the lack of publicly available programs when it comes to their kids sports. But for a whole lot of other families, the public access is incredibly important, and I think that is paramount to my role as a city counselor to make sure that the publicly available access for recreation and space is is thought of in my decision making. So for me, that childhood recreation is the most important and most compelling reason that I support this levy. It's why I endorsed this levy, and it's what I'm trying to protect, where all the other arguments exist. That, for me is the fundamental, mostly most important part of this levy and what we'll be able to protect. But it doesn't stop just with kids. I mean, that's the beauty of a parks levying of a, of a public system. Is that the fields and the spaces that are used at 10:00 in the morning by seniors are used by after school kids at 3:00. And so it's a system that meets every age group in our community. And it's something that we should brag about. It's something we should continue to attract people to Portland about. And it's something where our pro-social aspects of this community get to be on, on display, because our seniors, our youngest and our people without kids can all look at our park system and say, that's something I'm proud of, whether we use it every day or if we just drive by it, it's something that portlanders are proud of. That's the most compelling reason for me and why I'm supporting this.
68 Thank you. Councilor. Counselor. Avalos.
69 Yeah, thank you for this opportunity. So the most compelling reason to pass this levy, in my opinion, is that it keeps portland's commitment to equity and access at the heart of our parks system. For east Portland in particular, this levy, this levy represents continued investment in communities that have historically gone without neighborhoods where families rely on parks as their primary access to Green space. In d1, where youth programs that community center not plural because we only have one in east Portland. I want to note that provides safe and positive outlets, but there again, more than just district one across the city, they are an important gathering space for community, and parks are often doubling as places of connection, culture and care. So this isn't just about maintaining what we have. It's also about ensuring that every portlander, regardless of their zip code, has the same opportunity to enjoy our shared public spaces and programs. And the levy is supporting recreation, community safety, climate resilience, and workforce opportunities. These are all things that strengthen our neighborhoods and build belonging. So passing it is a statement of our values that we are willing to invest in each other, and that east Portland deserves the same level of care and opportunity as every other part of our city. Thanks.
70 Thank you, councilor Councilor Novick.
71 As a more famous, under five foot tall person says name, robert reich says I'll be short if you walk through any of our outdoor parks, you see their beauty for yourself and see your fellow portlanders enjoying them. Even if you don't personally use the community centers, if you walk through them, you see how important the facilities and activities are to thousands upon thousands of your fellow portlanders.
72 Thank you, councilor, vice president Koyama Lane.
73 I will share with you the compelling reason that I share in my 62nd pitch that I've been giving to parents while my kids are at their soccer games or little league. I've been walking around with the levy literature, and I point to the back that shows all of the different endorsers and point to the fact and highlight that there's broad support from many different groups across the political spectrum here in Portland. And talk about how it's a great example of these different groups coming together. Have having had many different conversations, collaborating hard work, and figuring out a place where we can have a shared goal here. I believe it's a reflection of portlanders really caring about keeping our parks safe, accessible and thriving. And that's part of the pitch that I give on the weekends.
74 And I will add to all of that. That along with being a city councilor, I am a mom. I am a dog owner, I am a former sports dabbler and a regular park user for all of those reasons. And I know that I am not alone. I know that the majority of portlanders, when asked, say that they use a park, are in a park at least once a week, and when we have a city full of people who not only see parks as part of what makes Portland the place that it is, but a city full of people who actually take advantage of these assets that we have. It is incumbent upon us to maintain those assets. The city council worked very hard to ensure that we could guarantee a level of maintenance that portlanders expect in our parks over the last budget cycle, and we knew that we would not be able to continue to do that without asking portlanders to support our city in supporting this levy, so that we can continue to maintain these assets that the vast majority of portlanders use on a regular basis. This is part of what makes our community, and it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we are investing in that community that we have built together, and that we all value and want to maintain.
75 Thank you so much for your impassioned arguments for the levy. We wish you the best of luck. Thank you so much for sharing with us today and answering our questions. And with that, I will close the hearing. Thank you.
76 Thank you so much for being here with us today.
77 Sorry, I know.
78 No last meeting.
79 I know, I know, I know.
80 Thank you for spending your last meeting with us here at city hall. We appreciate the opportunity to share why this is important.
81 Thank you.