The Parks Bureau Says It Needs to Double Its Tax Levy in Order to Avoid Major Cuts. Will the City Council Bite?

THE PROPOSAL: Leaders at Portland Parks & Recreation want to ask voters to double the size of the bureau’s current property tax levy that expires in June 2026, WW first reported Jan. 20.

The Parks Levy, which imposes an 80-cent tax on every $1,000 of assessed property value, currently constitutes 40% of the bureau’s annual operating budget. Without the support of a tax levy, the bureau recently warned, the city’s sprawling parks system faces a 50% reduction in services.

In recent weeks, the parks bureau has shopped the idea of doubling the existing levy to $1.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. Parks officials told the City Council in a budget briefing that doubling the levy’s size wouldn’t add any services—it’s just enough to maintain the bureau’s current service levels.

What’s more, the levy won’t make a dent in the existential crisis that Portland Parks & Recreation faces: the ballooning cost of the bureau’s deferred maintenance. The most recent cost estimate of the backlog: $600 million.

The last time Portland voters threw cash at that problem was in 2014, when voters passed a $68 million bond specifically to fix degrading park assets, and also to create some new infrastructure. The bureau has used all of that money for its intended purpose. There’s no bond money left.

Levy dollars cannot be used for deferred maintenance. At the rate it’s moving, parks officials have frequently forewarned, 1 out of every 5 park assets across the city will be unusable in 15 years. Members of the City Council have made it clear from the dais that the parks bureau needs to start thinking about how it wants to tackle deferred maintenance in the coming years—if it wants to at all.

According to two city councilors briefed by bureau staff, parks is pressing the council to place the doubled levy on the May ballot rather than waiting till November.

Councilor Jamie Dunphy, who represents District 1, tells WW he and his fellow councilors won’t vote the levy onto the May ballot just because the parks bureau wants them to.

“My council colleagues and I are not going to be rushed into making a decision on when to refer this to the voters,” Dunphy says. “There are still major questions about how this bureau runs, levels of current service delivery, and this proposal would still leave a $600 million backlog of maintenance. This funding model is not serving Portland well, and now we are asking voters to double that investment.”

THE RECEPTION: Dunphy’s remarks are one hint that the levy, which 63% of voters approved at the November 2020 ballot box, may encounter stiffer opposition this time around if the tax is doubled—both from the City Council, which must send it to the ballot by a majority vote, and by interest groups with business at City Hall.

First, Portlanders in general are feeling overburdened by local taxes. The Portland Metro Chamber, the city’s business lobby, has made that abundantly clear. The chamber has not yet publicly taken a position on the doubling proposal, but said in its 2024 legislative agenda it would oppose any new or increased taxes for three years.

Second, Gov. Tina Kotek asked for a three-year moratorium in late 2023 on any new taxes or tax increases. Doubling the levy would go against Kotek’s request that voters not be asked to pay more.

But even on the inside, the parks bureau could face resistance from the first group that counts: the City Council, the city’s legislative body. Some city councilors are feeling tepid about a doubling of the levy, and even more skeptical about placing it on the May ballot.

Councilor Eric Zimmerman said that during his time working for Mayor Ted Wheeler, parks was the most challenging bureau to work with—and an agency that Portlanders have in recent years lost faith in. That might make it harder for voters to say yes to an increased tax, Zimmerman mused during a recent council work session.

“This is a core service that we’re going to go back to voters to ask to keep alive, to spend twice as much to do nothing new,” Zimmerman said during a Jan. 16 budget briefing by the parks bureau. “These are huge, challenging asks, and reputation is going to matter in this.”

Councilor Mitch Green, an economist and staunch progressive, says he’s concerned that rushing the ballot measure to double the tax would result in its failure.

“It’s better to do it right,” Green says, “than do it poorly, fail, and be in a worse position.”