Parks Levy Oversight Committee (PLOC) Meeting October 2024

Year 4, Meeting 2

Agenda

Attending 

Oversight Committee Members –

• Mary Ruble
• Tim Williams
• Zay Conant
• Not in attendance, meeting materials shared and feedback collected for PLOC report
  • Silas Sanderson
  • Alescia Blakeley

Parks Board Liaison – Casey Mills (not in attendance, meeting materials shared)

PP&R and Vibrant Communities Staff –

• Todd Lofgren | Deputy Director
• Sarah Huggins | Sustainable Future Program Manager
• Bob Del Gizzi | Financial Planning & Analysis Manager
• Claire Flynn | Levy Coordinator

Members of the Public –

• None

Claire Flynn, Levy Coordinator welcomed participants and lead the group through an icebreaker.

Administrative Items and Current Finances

Claire reviewed the meeting agenda with meeting participants. 

Claire gave an update on the independent audit timeline. PP&R anticipates receiving the final audit report by the end of December and will be sharing the report with the PLOC at their next meeting.

The next PLOC meeting will be held in January and will include an audit overview, a presentation on the FY 2025-26 Requested Budget, and opportunity for the PLOC to write a letter to accompany the Requested Budget. 

Bob Del Gizzi, Financial Planning & Analysis Manager, gave a presentation on FY 2024-25 Q1 operating fund financial performance compared to the Adopted Budget and three prior full-year actuals.

• PP&R spent 27% of the FY 2024-25 annual budget in Q1 in Parks Levy Functional Areas. 
• General Fund program revenues are tracking closely at 27.5% of the Adopted Budget.
• General Fund expense is running proportionally ahead of the Adopted Budget, particularly in personnel at 29.9% of budget, but there are several pertinent offsetting factors to consider in interpreting year-to-date performance: 
  • The Fall Budget Monitoring Process (BMP) was passed by Council this month and will add appropriation of $3.8 million for the following to the Revised Budget late in October:
    • $1.799 million one-time General Fund discretionary resource from compensation set-aside to cover cost of living and a portion of increased health benefit premium expense.
    • $1.587 million in one-time General Fund discretionary resource carry-over from underspending of the current appropriation at the close of FY 2023-24.
    • $421,835 in Parks Levy resource for other carry-overs.
  • An additional allocation of approximately $460,000 will be available later in the Spring to cover a portion of increased health benefit premium cost.
  • The first quarter typically has very high casual/seasonal staffing expenses due to summer programs in the Recreation Division.
  • There is also $1.75 million in actual personnel expense that will transfer to the Portland Clean Energy Fund in Q2, part of a total of $7.0 million in funding swapped in FY 2024-25.
• Increased expenses year-over-year shows both the increased costs due to rapid inflation in compensation, materials, and services prices. It also demonstrates increased consumption and capacity supported by the Parks Levy – particularly the ramp-up of additional positions being hired in Years 1 and 2. 
  • When reimbursing operating expense with Parks Levy resources at the close of FY2023-24, PP&R applied a buffer of $2 million to avoid the possibility of over-expenditure resulting from late-posting expenses. The unused $1.59 million of the buffer will be added to the FY24-25 budget in the Fall Budget Monitoring Process, in the form of one-time General Fund resource.
    • Mary Ruble asked if the $1.59 million carry-over is all Parks Levy funds being carried over to the next fiscal year. 
      • Bob clarified that the $1.59 million is technically unspent General Fund, but it is equal to the amount that was over-reimbursed from the Parks Levy at the close of the prior year. PP&R cannot legally overspend so a slightly higher amount of General Fund is transferred to account for expenses hitting at the very end of the fiscal year, and the carryover prevents supplantation. 
  • PP&R saw Parks Levy revenue increase in Years 1, 2, and 3. It is expected that, in Year 4, revenue will not be as high as Year 3 due to lower property tax collections, resulting primarily from decrease in value of commercial office space downtown. 
  • The beginning fund balance of the Parks Levy, a result of underspending in Years 1 and 2, will be carried over to meet expense needs in Years 4 and 5 of the Parks Levy when expenses outweigh revenue. 

The PLOC had no additional follow-up questions. 

PP&R FY 2023-24 Parks Levy Annual Report

Claire presented key themes and aspects of the Year 2 Parks Levy Annual Report to the PLOC, including reviewing how Parks Levy expenditures in FY 2023-24 were used to deliver on each of the commitments in the voter pamphlet. PLOC members had received the draft report for review in advance of the PLOC meeting.

Claire reminded the PLOC of the sections of their report, which is a response to the PP&R report and Parks Levy supported actions in FY 2023-24. As PP&R developed the Year 3 Parks Levy Annual Report, knowing that the report would be accountable to PLOC review, PP&R aimed to align elements of the report with the PLOC review categories: adherence to ballot language, fiscal accountability, and transparency. For adherence to the ballot language, PP&R used the 15 commitments in the voter pamphlet as the structure of the annual report to explicitly show progress on each commitment. Fiscal accountability in the PP&R report included updates on the 5-year Parks Levy forecast and inclusion of all the FY 2023-24 financial actuals by service area and workgroup. Transparency and communication included topical presentations and clear explanation of report topics. 

Claire then led PLOC members through each of the 15 Parks Levy commitments, as included in the Year 3 Parks Levy Report, which details on financial, key performance measures, and featured interview in the report.

PLOC members asked questions and made comments on the report throughout the presentation:

• Mary noted that, for the “Total number of active youth users” performance measure, PP&R should consider defining the age range of youth users. 
• Mary asked for clarification on the footnote that stated that staff vacancy contributed to a slight reduction in total volunteer hours related to nature. Specifically, to emphasize that the reduction is not due to replacement in volunteers with paid staff.
  • Claire confirmed that the clarification could be added and that the staff vacancy was specifically a position that coordinates volunteer groups, so the reduction in volunteer hours was due to limited coordination for volunteer events and partners. 
• Mary asked if the number presented for the Parks Levy fund balance was an amount per year or if it was a total fund balance to be spent across the remaining two years. 
  • Claire shared that it was the total fund balance. 
  • Sarah Huggins, Sustainable Future Program Manager, clarified that the balance is in addition to the future tax revenues that will be coming in for Years 4 and 5.
• In looking at the financials, specifically the line-item expenses for programs, Mary recommended that PP&R go to community centers and share the amount of Parks Levy funding that has gone to programming, personnel, etc. at each community center to share the impact and importance of the Parks Levy. Being very transparent about what community center users are getting from the Parks Levy would be helpful.
  • Sarah shared that once the Parks Levy was passed by voters and Parks Levy revenue started being used for programming, PP&R put up digital signage at community centers with language thanking voters for supporting operations through the Parks Levy. 

Parks Levy Oversight Committee Annual Report

The PLOC discussed their annual report, organizing the conversation around the three key areas outlined in their charter for review. The PLOC reviewed the categories and definitions of past PLOC reports in advance of the meeting.

Adherence to the Ballot Language

• Claire gave an overview of the adherence to ballot language section of the last report and recommendations made by the PLOC.
• Mary liked that the bureau is using the 15 commitments from the ballot language to track progress and implementation.
  • Claire shared that, in meeting with committee member Silas Sanderson prior to the meeting, he echoed that sentiment and appreciated that the PP&R report and executive summary include the exact image of what the voter pamphlet looked like to voters – showing the language matches. 
• Tim asked if it was time to start thinking about if and which of the 15 commitments would be carried over to a future levy and if that should be included in the PLOC report. 
  • Claire advised that, for this report, the content focus primarily on the actions and reporting on Year 3, FY 2023-24. She noted that the PLOC could include recommendations on commitments that the committee sees as critical to successfully delivering the Parks Levy and how PP&R can better support commitments. 
• Tim brought up that the year prior, the committee mentioned the capital maintenance backlog in the annual report and would like to see that included again.
  • Mary agreed with Tim and shared that she continues to get questions from people about why PP&R can’t use the Parks Levy for some of the backlog. She asked that the PLOC report describe that distinction and also acknowledge awareness of the concern. 
    • Sarah noted that including that as part of the report is possible and also suggested that the tie to the Parks Levy be that Parks Levy commitments cannot be met if facilities are degraded, at the end of their usable life, or failing. For example, if a community center fails, the operational dollars of the Parks Levy can’t be used to deliver services there. 
• Tim asked PP&R staff how they feel about how the Parks Levy is being delivering commitments and asked if staff sees gaps. 
  • Sarah stated that, in the way that PP&R is tracking progress on the commitments (i.e. dollars spent aligned with the commitments, performance measures), PP&R hasn’t seen gaps where the bureau hasn’t been able to deliver on any of the commitments.
  • Tim clarified that all 15 commitments are personal asked how or if PLOC member perception or personal interest should shape report content. 
    • Claire acknowledged that measurements of success also have to do with perception and reiterated that the Community Needs Survey and other qualitative data will help PP&R understand how Portlanders’ feel about cleanliness, cost as a barrier, and more. 
    • Tim shared that, without benchmarks, it can be hard to interpret the data. It’s encouraging to see the dollars spent and numbers increase year-over-year, but it’s challenging to understand the impact of that. If there were benchmarks, such as restroom cleanliness compared to other park systems, it would be easier to speak to success.
      • Sarah acknowledges the unique nature of the Parks Levy. Because it is sustaining and elevating service levels for services that were already being provided by the bureau, there’s not as many examples of completely new programs from the Parks Levy. Another challenge is that, because the Parks Levy was passed during COVID, comparing with/without the Parks Levy is less clear-cut.
• Mary asked if there are areas where the bureau has been criticized that there is another way to tell the story. For example, planting trees but not watering them or criticism/feedback from surveys. Mary suggested that additional feedback be collected to further understand how PP&R is meeting or could better meet users need – something simple like a survey of community center users asking about the quality of services provided at the community center. 
  • Claire acknowledged that Mary and Tim’s feedback echoed what the previous PLOC report recommended that the bureau develop and provide quantification of success in each commitment. She noted that the development of specific performance measures goals is a slower process but something PP&R is working towards. 
• Zay Conant shared that it’s important to incorporate more ideas and suggestions from the community. Specifically, when the PLOC is asked to identify gaps or speak to adherence to the ballot language, community feedback can help the PLOC understand how well PP&R is serving those communities. Incorporating presentations in PLOC meetings about community feedback and impact from the Parks Levy would be helpful.
  • Sarah noted a big interest in the information that will be coming out of the Community Needs Survey in early 2025, which will be shared with the PLOC. The Community Needs Survey is a statistically significant dataset and survey that is conducted every 5 years. The survey is large so that PP&R can generalize for populations. One of the challenges of smaller surveys is that they won’t be able to be generalized with a small sample size and results may not be representative of a population. Sarah shared that PP&R does have ongoing, smaller program participation feedback surveys.
    • Todd Lofgren, Deputy Director, shared that, the PP&R system as a whole has an overall 70% approval rating from voters (taken from voter polling). Generalizing across the whole system is challenging for a bureau that offers a broad range of services, which is why the Community Needs Survey is every 5-7 years. 
  • Mary said that an important part of the report will be that the PLOC looks forward to receiving that data from the survey and seeing how to compare that with Parks Levy spending to ensure Parks Levy dollars are having the maximum impact. 
• Zay recommended that, for smaller program surveys of participants or users, it is important to make sure that survey takers know how the feedback is being used and the changes that are made based on their feedback. The smaller surveys are important to understanding feedback between the larger survey every 5-7 years. 
  • Todd gave an example of what has been done similar to that in the last year. PP&R conducted intentional Listening & Learning sessions for centered communities as part of the Healthy Parks, Healthy Portland framework. These gatherings, in partnership with community organizations, are an opportunity to hear from centered communities what is working and what isn’t for them. For example, the Tongan community shared that an underground barbeque pit to gather and cook together would be a beneficial asset to support desired park use. With that feedback, PP&R is exploring whether a partnership at a community garden could facilitate that kind of pit and element. Currently, PP&R is focused on hearing from and centering communities who currently and historically haven’t been served by parks and recreation. 
  • Todd shared a second example. While not levy supported, the light pole project was originally just going to take down dangerous light poles without replacement but, because of community feedback and action, PP&R pulled together funding to put back additional lighting in parks, helping community members feel safe at night. 
• Zay noted that a lot of their community and peers don’t know about these efforts. They emphasized that effort to share that information more widely would be beneficial. 
  • Claire advised that feedback go under transparency and asked Zay if there are specific examples of communication materials or methods of marketing that they had in mind for best disseminating information.
    • Zay shared that most of their time is spent at school. Making meetings or information available at schools to teachers, staff, students beyond just posters but also news updates. 

Fiscal Accountability

• Claire reminded the PLOC of the deeper dive in the Parks Levy revenue forecast that PP&R presented to the committee, specifically in the lower-than-expected projected revenue in Years 4 and 5. 
• Tim shared that mentioning the adjusted forecast would be important in the PLOC report. Additionally, the section should mention the increase in spending from the first couple years of the Parks Levy to Year 3. 
• Mary said it would be good to acknowledge that the PLOC is thinking long term. Specifically, that the bureau has created new positions and increased services with the Parks Levy and that, continued revenue from the Parks Levy is important to continue to deliver services and keep staff on board. 
  • Claire noted that, last year, Mary brought up continuing to emphasize the amount of support that the Parks Levy provides PP&R – one-third of the bureau’s operating budget – and confirmed that continuing to highlight that will be important. 
• Sarah asked for clarity on if PLOC members felt that Parks Levy finances were tracked, auditable, and accountable. PLOC members present confirmed.
• Claire noted that this section could mention that the PLOC will be receiving the independent audit in early 2025. 
  • Tim emphasized that the audit will be key in looking at an external analysis of Parks Levy spending and processes. Information received by the PLOC is generally developed by PP&R staff so getting additional, third-party information will be helpful analysis. 
  • Mary shared that speaking about the context of the new City structure is important to note. Specifically, that a new City Council, Mayor, and City Administrator will need to be educated on the Parks Levy and PP&R’s financial situation. Collaboration, both with new City leadership and other funding sources such as Metro’s bond, is essential to stronger outcomes. 
    • Tim echoed Mary’s sentiment, noting the bureau would be going from educating 5 council members to 12 and that Portlanders’ are hyper aware of tax levels.
    • Zay agreed that acknowledging the unknowns about the change in City structure is important. 

Transparency

• Claire shared that, in meeting with Silas in advance, his feedback centered on exploring if PP&R can use the three years of data to show information more visually through graphs or other communication methods. Additionally, sharing information in a shorter format to make information accessible. 
  • Mary agreed and recommended sharing those materials in community centers and through a variety of formats. 
  • Zay said that more visual representations and shorter materials are better ways to get youth engaged in learning and feedback. 
• Mary appreciated that the promises that PP&R made in the explanation of underspending in Year 1 and 2 came true – specifically, in that Year 3 saw expenses nearly equal to revenue. She also asked that this section mention the Community Needs Survey and gathering community feedback to continue to build trust and adapt based on Portlanders’ needs. 

Claire wrapped up the meeting and summarized next steps in drafting the report, scheduling a January meeting, and having a PLOC member present the report to City Council. 

Meaningful Access Statement

It is the policy of the City of Portland that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any city program, service, or activity on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, or other protected class status. Adhering to Civil Rights Title VI and ADA Title II civil rights laws, the City of Portland ensures meaningful access to City programs, services, and activities by reasonably providing: translation and interpretation, modifications, accommodations, alternative formats, and auxiliary aids and services. To request these services, contact 503-823-2525, or for Relay Service or TTY, contact 711.

Traducción e Interpretación (Spanish)

Es política de la Ciudad de Portland que ninguna persona sea excluida de participación, se le nieguen los beneficios, o esté sujeta a discriminación en ningún programa, servicio o actividad de la ciudad por motivos de raza, color, nacionalidad, discapacidad u otra condición de clase protegida. En cumplimiento con los Derechos Civiles Título VI y con las leyes de derechos civiles del ADA Título II, la Ciudad de Portland asegura el acceso significativo a programas, servicios y actividades de la ciudad al brindar de manera razonable: traducción e interpretación, modificaciones, adaptaciones, formatos alternativos y ayudas y servicios auxiliares. Para solicitar estos servicios, llame al 503-823-2525, al TTY de la ciudad o al servicio para las personas con problemas auditivos: 711.
Solicitud de traducción o interpretación de PP&R

Biên Dịch và Thông Dịch (Vietnamese)

Chính sách của Thành Phố Portland là không ai bị loại khỏi, bị từ chối phúc lợi, hoặc bị phân biệt đối xử trong bất kỳ chương trình, dịch vụ hay hoạt động nào của thành phố dựa trên chủng tộc, màu da, nguồn gốc quốc gia, khuyết tật, hoặc tình trạng khác được pháp luật bảo vệ. Tuân theo Đạo Luật Dân Quyền (Civil Rights) Khoản VI và Đạo Luật ADA Khoản II, Thành Phố Portland đảm bảo sự tiếp cận hiệu quả đối với các chương trình, dịch vụ và hoạt động của thành phố bằng cách cung cấp một cách hợp lý: dịch vụ biên dịch và thông dịch, biện pháp điều chỉnh, sửa đổi, hình thức thay thế, và thiết bị và dịch vụ phụ trợ.  Để yêu cầu các dịch vụ này, hãy liên hệ 503-503-823-2525, Dịch Vụ Chuyển Tiếp: 711.
Yêu Cầu Dịch Vụ Biên Dịch Hoặc Thông Dịch Liên Quan Đển PP&R

口笔译服务 (Simplified Chinese)

波特兰市的政策规定，任何人不得因种族、肤色、国籍、残疾或其他受保护的身份状态而被禁止参与任何城市计划、服务或活动或享有任何城市计划、服务或活动的福利，也不得被歧视。根据《民权法》第六章和 ADA 第二章“民权法”的规定，波特兰市须确保市民能够平等参与城市计划、服务和活动，为此要根据需要提供以下各项：口笔译服务、方案修改、住宿、替代格式、辅助工具和服务。如需申请这些服务，请致电 503-823-2525，转接服务：711。
要求 PP&R 笔译或口译

Устный и письменный перевод (Russian)

Политика администрации Портленда запрещает отстранять от участия в городских программах и мероприятиях, отказывать в обслуживании и льготах или иным образом подвергать дискриминации на основании расы, цвета кожи, национальности, инвалидности или иного защищенного статуса. В соответствии с разделом VI Закона о гражданских правах и разделом II Закона о правах американских граждан с ограниченными возможностями администрация Портленда заботится о полноценном доступе жителей к городским программам, услугам и мероприятиям. При необходимости доступны устный и письменный перевод, адаптивные меры, специальные устройства, материалы в альтернативном формате и иные вспомогательные средства и услуги. Для заказа этих услуг свяжитесь с нами. Телефон: 503-823-2525; служба коммутируемых сообщений: 711.
Запрос на письменный или устный перевод информации о PP&R

Turjumaad iyo Fasiraad (Somali)

Waxaa kucad siyasada Mgalaada Portland in qofna loodiidi karin kaqaybgalka, loodiidi karin gunooyinka, ama aan latakoori karin wax kamid ah barnaamijyada magalaada, adeegga, ama shaqo sababo laxariira isirkiisam midabkiisa, wadankiisa, naafonimadiisa, ama xaalad kale oo sharcigu difaacaayo. Ayadoo raacaysa Sharciga Xaquuqda Madaniga ah ee Title VI iyo ADA Title II ee sharciyada xaquuqda madaniga ah, Magaalada Portland waxay xaqiijinaysaa barnaamijyo lawada heli karo oo macno leh ayna bixiso magaaladu, adeegyo, iyo shaqooyin ayadoo si sax ah ubixinaysa: turjumaad iyo soojeedin, isbadalo, adeegyo caawimaad ah, noocyo kaladuwan, iyo caawimaado iyo adeegyo dheeri ah. Si aad ucodsato adeegyadaan, wac 503-823-2525, Adeegga Caawimada: 711.

Письмовий і усний переклад (Ukrainian)

Згідно з політикою міста Портленд, жодну особу не можна позбавляти права на участь, відмовляти їй у матеріальній допомозі або піддавати її дискримінації в будь-якій програмі, службі чи діяльності міста на підставі раси, кольору шкіри, етнічного походження, інвалідності або іншого статусу захищених класів. Дотримуючись законів про права громадян, а саме розділу VI Прав громадян і розділу ІІ Закону про права американських громадян з обмеженими можливостями, місто Портленд забезпечує значний доступ до програм, служб і заходів міста, надаючи такі послуги: письмовий і усний переклад, модифікування, адаптування, альтернативні формати, додаткову допомогу й інше. Запитати ці послуги можна, скориставшись контактними даними: 503-823-2525, служба комутаційних повідомлень: 711.

Traducere și interpretariat (Romanian)

Este politica orașului Portland ca nicio persoană să nu fie exclusă din programe, servicii sau activități ale orașului, să nu i se refuze acestea și să nu facă obiectul unor discriminări pe bază de rasă, culoare, naționalitate, dizabilități sau alte situații vizând categorii protejate. Respectând legile privind drepturile civile „Civil Rights” (Drepturile Civile), articolul VI, și „ADA” (Americans with Disabilities Act - Legea privind americanii cu dizabilități), articolul II, orașul Portland asigură acces adecvat la programe, servicii și activități ale orașului oferind, în mod rezonabil: servicii de traducere și interpretariat, modificări, cazare, formate diferite, ajutoare și servicii auxiliare. Pentru a solicita aceste servicii, contactați 503-823-2525, Serviciu de retransmitere: 711.

अनुवादनतथाव्याख्या (Nepali)

पोर्टल्यान्डको शहरको नीति हो कि कुनै पनि व्यक्तिलाई जाति, रङ, राष्ट्रिय मूल, असक्षमता वा अन्य संरक्षित वर्गीकरण स्थितिको आधारमा कुनै पनि शहरका कार्यक्रम, सेवा वा क्रियाकलापमा सहभागी हुन भेदभाव गरिने, वञ्चित गरिने, लाभहरू प्रदान गर्नबाट अस्वीकार गरिनेछैन। नागरिक अधिकार शीर्षक VI र ADA शीर्षक II नागरिक अधिकारको कानूनहरूको पालना गर्दै, पोर्टल्यान्डको शहरले शहरका कार्यक्रमहरू, सेवाहरू र क्रियाकलापहरूमा बराबर पहुँच निश्चय गर्नको लागि निम्न प्रदान गर्दछ: अनुवादन र व्याख्या, परिमार्जन, आवास, वैकल्पिक ढाँचाहरू र सहायक सामग्री र सेवाहरू। यी सेवाहरू अनुरोध गर्नको लागि 503-823-2525, रिले सेवा: 711 मा सम्पर्क गर्नुहोस्।

Chiaku me Awewen Kapas (Chuukese)

Mi annuk non ewe City of Portland pwe esap wor emon esap etiwa an epwe fiti, esap angei feiochun, are epwe kuna iteingau non meinisin an ew tetenimw kewe mokutukut, aninnis, are mwich nongonong won i chon ia, enuan, chon menni muu, weiresin inis, are pwan ew tapin aramas mi auchea are pisekisek. Fan itan an fiti Civil Rights Title VI me ADA Title II annuken pungun manau, ewe City of Portland mi ennetata pwe epwe wor etiwaoch ngeni an ewe tetenimw mokutukut, aninnis, me mwichren an aworaochu: chiaku me awewen kapas, ekkesiwin, etufich, sokonon napanap, me pwan ekkoch minen awewe me aninnis. Ika ka mochen ekkei pekin aninnis, kokori 503-823-2525, Fon Fan Itan Ekkewe mi wor Ar Osukosukan Manau: 711.