Parks Levy Oversight Committee (PLOC) Meeting April 2025

Attending 

Oversight Committee Members – 

• Alescia Blakely, not in attendance (meeting materials shared)
• Silas Sanderson
• Zay Conant
• Mary Ruble
• Tim Williams

Parks Board Liaison – Casey Mills

Vibrant Communities and PP&R Staff – 

• Adena Long | PP&R Director
• Todd Lofgren | Deputy Director
• Sarah Huggins | Sustainable Future Program Manager
• Claudio Campuzano | Finance, Property & Technology Manager
• Claire Flynn | Parks Levy Coordinator

Members of the Public – 

• None

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

Administrative Items

Claire shared that the PLOC recruitment was extended by two weeks, to close on April 21 and asked the committee to share recruitment information.

She noted that this would be Alescia Blakely and Zay Conant’s last meeting as formal members of the PLOC. Director Long thanked Alescia and Zay for their time on the committee.

Claire also asked if there were any questions about the Year-to-Date financials that were sent in advance to the committee.

• Silas Sanderson asked what the header “Licenses and Permits” meant, noting that there was a large jump from FY 2022-23 to FY 2023-24.
  • Claudio Campuzano, Finance, Property & Technology Manager, explained that the category is primarily made up of Non-Parks Use Permits, which are permits for coordination of activities on PP&R property, usually utilities, but sometimes other private entities. The large jump was due to a couple of large payment from Pacific Corps for staging on PP&R property for a Willamette River project.
• Tim Williams asked what the difference is between External Materials and Services and Internal Materials and Services.
  • Claudio shared that external is payments to external vendors, from small material supplies to large contracts. Internal Materials and Services consists of payment to other City of Portland bureaus to provide central services like City fleet, technology, risk, facilities, printing & distribution, etc. 

Funding Framework & FY 2025-26 Budget

Sarah Huggins, Sustainable Future Program Manager, shared an overview of the Parks Levy funding picture. 

While services for Recreation for All, Protect and Grow Nature, and Community Partnerships have increased and been enhanced because of the Parks Levy, costs to deliver the services have also inflated beyond Parks Levy and General Fund revenue growth. With enhanced and expanded programming, General Fund and Parks Levy supported Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees grew from about 540 to just under 700 in the past four years. The average cost per hour worked for FTE increased by 35% over the first three years of the Parks Levy. Additionally, General Fund cuts, lower Parks Levy revenue than expected, and the Parks Levy covering operations and maintenance for new assets have significantly impacted the bureau’s available operational resources. 

Sarah shared survey and polling data that speaks to what Portlanders value from their parks and recreation system. Parks and natural areas are generally the highest valued for Portlanders, as well as one of the top attractions for U.S. adults when choosing a place to live. Themes related to access to parks and nature, well-maintained parks, and environment poll high and PP&R sees higher usage of parks and open spaces than of community centers and programs. For recreation programs, outdoor arts and culture programs, nature programming, fitness, and swim were rated most important.

PP&R estimates that a Parks Levy at a higher rate would be needed to sustain current levels of service, given the increased cost and revenue factors. Sarah shared what staffing levels would potentially look like with an increased levy, a renewal at the current rate, and no levy—including staffing supported by the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF). She also showed an example of costs to deliver services based on types of services (parks/nature, recreation, partner programs), and how reductions in service in a scenario where the levy was renewed at its present rate, including a forecasted initial $23 million gap that would need to be closed in FY 25-26, as well as a future additional $27 million reduction in FY 26-27 could impact services.

• Mary Ruble asked how much money PP&R gets from PCEF.
  • Sarah shared it is about $152 million over a 5-year window for four main project areas, including taking over street tree maintenance from private property owners. She also shared that, in addition those new resources, PP&R swapped out and reduced some General Fund allocation to be balanced out with PCEF. The net result of that additional swap was not new resource, but a change in resource.
• Mary also asked what percentage of the Parks Levy goes to day-to-day maintenance like trash pick-up, cleaning bathrooms, etc.?
  • Claire shared that 41.2% of the Parks Levy went toward commitments supporting basic park maintenance (Parks Levy commitments C5, D4, and D5), as noted in the FY 2023-24 Parks Levy Annual Report.
• Tim asked how the 2024 summer survey compared to the general population demographics in Portland.
  • Sarah shared that the 2024 polling was a voter poll,  representative of likely May 2025 voters. That survey is not generalizable for all Portlanders. However, PP&R has separately contracted Portland State University to conduct polls that are generalizable for the Portland population, including the 2017 survey information shared in the meeting, and a recent community survey conducted in 2024, with a draft report anticipated late April.
• Mary asked how much of the City’s General Fund goes towards maintenance in parks—and if the split on daily maintenance is roughly the same for the Parks Levy versus the General Fund.
  • Sarah noted that the total FY 2023-24 bureau operational expenditures on a very narrow definition of basic park maintenance (excluding trees, programs in parks, admin, etc), was $39 million and the Parks Levy paid for $21 million, with General Fund covering the remaining $18 million.
• Silas asked for more information about the “partner-funded” service category and if things like Preschool for All are included.
  • Director Long shared that PP&R was approved for about $1 million as a Preschool for All provide for the FY 2025-26 school year and are transitioning the current preschool classes over to Preschool for All to be county-funded.
  • Claudio noted that, in addition to saving $1 million, the program will increase overall expense and effort, changing the model of service delivery with more support for families.
  • Director Long shared this includes longer days and higher salaries for the teachers.
  • Sarah noted that other “partner-funded” contributor include intergovernmental agreements PP&R does on behalf of other bureaus, as well as the start of PCEF funding.

Claudio presented an overview of the FY 2025-26 Budget picture including the $23 million gap-closing proposals that PP&R developed, resulting from: two General Fund reductions (5% in FY 2024-25, 8% in FY 2025-26) and projected lower revenue from the Parks Levy, combined with increased expenses. In addition to bureau cuts, Citywide strategies and staffing in procurement, human resources, technology, budget and business operations, communications, engagement, and equity are also being reviewed for efficiencies. 

• Mary asked if PP&R anticipates increasing costs due to the consolidation of services such as communications, technology, etc. particularly when internal materials and services have been increasing.
  • Claudio shared that it depends on the implementation and the established rates, but acknowledged that City adjustments of rate methodologies have not benefitted PP&R.

Claudio also noted that a summer restoration package that will allow PP&R to continue some programs throughout the summer that are already planned for, and in some cases, hiring has already begun. The affected packages, if included in the Adopted Budget, would go into effect September 1, 2025.

Claudio gave a deeper dive into the rising cost and expense drivers. Cost per full time equivalent increased due to cost-of-living adjustments, PERS increases, and new labor agreement. over a three-year period from the beginning of the Parks Levy, PP&R experienced a 35%—or 11% annualized—increase in the cost of every hour worked. External materials and services grew, particularly because of substantial inflationary pressures, particularly on utilities. Internal materials and services saw significant increases to fleet costs, facility costs due to the Impact Reduction Program, technology, and risk. The increases include operations & maintenance (O&M) for new facilities and assets. Over the first five years of the levy, an estimated $12.2 million in O&M is projected to have been covered by the Parks Levy. This includes escalation. 

Claudio then went through the budget timeline, including upcoming work session and the Mayor’s budget, expected to be released on May 7. 

Todd Lofgren, Deputy Director, walked through the PP&R budget packages that were part of the City Administrator’s draft budget. Parks Levy impacts include eliminating and/or reducing Recreation programs such as youth summer camps, PP&R SUN Community Schools, citywide sports, teen service grant funding, and closing a neighborhood community center. Daily park maintenance and care, as well as facility and asset repair, and City Nature and Urban Forestry community stewardship programming is reduced or eliminated. Community engagement and communication capacity is decreased and community partnership grants are eliminated. 

Committee Discussion and Questions

Mary asked if each listed item in the presentation was a budget package.

• Todd shared that packages were rolled up for the presentation where possible and that there are more than 80 different decision packages in the City Administrator’s draft budget. 

Mary asked if PP&R has the opportunity to prioritize the packages and identify where the bureau thinks cuts should be.

• Todd shared that, in coming up with the $23 million worth of gap-closing proposals, Director Long and Deputy City Administrator Sonia Schmanski gave guidance to PP&R Divisions Managers to come up with recommendations. Those recommendations were then given to the City Administrator who selected which packages to put forward in the draft budget. The Mayor will develop his budget in a similar way.
• Director Long added that she directed Division Managers to prepare initial 8% reduction packages equally and did not weigh it among the Divisions. Her guidance was to retain mission critical services with safety in mind and using an equity lens—and to provide that information to City leadership to make an informed decision. Director Long also added that City leadership is hearing from the community about why PP&R’s services and programs matter.
• Todd also shared that, for Vibrant Communities Support Services, communications, Human Resources, finance, etc. grew in the last few years with the Parks Levy and, with limited budget, will constrict accordingly. However, employee safety and community safety also grew but won’t take any reductions because of how important and critical those positions are.

Casey Mills, Parks Board Liaison, brought up that the City Administrator’s draft budget was not balanced and had a budget gap. He noted that the current $23 million cut may be more, particularly if City Council doesn’t want to cut public safety.

Tim asked why the decision packages listed only add up to $16 million if PP&R was asked to cut $23 million. 

• Todd clarified that the included packages are the budget cuts that the City Administrator decided to put in his budgeted, which sums to $20.7 million, even though PP&R prepared $23 million in cuts.
• Claudio also shared that there are other technical variables that impact the numbers like how the Parks Levy is spent and the Summer 2025 buy back.

Tim asked if there will be additional cuts that will need to added.

• Todd noted that, with an $0.80 Parks Levy renewal, the two-year target for cuts is $50 million (an additional $27 million on top of this year’s $23 million).

Mary asked if PP&R was making any progress in using PCEF more broadly than what is being currently allocated to PP&R, particularly with the connection between natural areas and forestry and climate resilience.

• Sarah shared that, in the last year of the Parks Levy, the Parks Levy contribution to Urban Forestry is just under $3 million.
• Director Long noted that some City Councilors share the sentiment about expanding PCEF use. She noted that, while it seems like there is a good amount of PCEF funding available, everything has been allocated or assigned. PP&R did apply for PCEF funding for programs outside of Urban Forestry such as wildfire mitigation, natural area restoration, etc. and those proposals were not selected. 

Zay asked about the proposed cuts to SUN Community Schools and community centers and what was not being cut, as well as what options are still available to youth to stay engaged.

• Sarah clarified that in the Administrator’s budget, the large, full-service community centers that support the most programming and have the highest attendance numbers are being preserved. She also shared that there are other, past examples of nonprofit or partners organizations taking over a neighborhood community center to still offer community access and programs at those facilities (ex: Sellwood Community Center, Fulton Community Center). It is not a guarantee, but something that has been successfully explored in the past.

Zay also asked what district of geographic location the cuts would be going to.

• Sarah shared that the three smaller community centers that have been mentioned are St. John’s in North Portland, Montavilla Community Center near East Portland Community Center, and Peninsula Community Center in North Portland.
• Todd acknowledged that every person will bring their different value set to what is important in parks and what to cut and encouraged Zay and PLOC members to consider what they value. 

Tim asked for more detail about how the budget decisions get made and who has authority.

• Todd noted that City Council approves at the position-authority level. The Mayor will propose a fine-level budget by line item with every position. City Council will deliberate and any seven (majority vote) members could vote to amend line items, positions, funding, or disregard the Mayor’s budget.
• Tim acknowledged that City Council saving one program, like SUN Community Schools, would mean finding that same budget to cut elsewhere. 

Casey shared that, in the District listening sessions, both SUN Community Schools and Goldenball were mentioned frequently and pondered whether that would be reflected in the Mayor’s May 7 budget.

Zay asked if there were polls or community input that are being used to inform budget decisions.

• Sarah referred back to the previous voter polling and community survey feedback that PP&R shared and noted that the next large community needs survey (done every 5-7 years) will be shared this year. However, City Council is not doing a specific budget survey on each line item or budget package and is, instead, collecting that feedback through listening sessions and written testimony. 

FY 2025-26 PLOC Budget Letter to City Council

Claire solicited feedback on the budget letter writing process and next steps, then summarized what PLOC members had shared in the meeting that could be included in a budget letter. Claire also grounded the group in the 15 commitments made to voters in the Parks Levy ballot language. 

Casey provided context about the Parks Board letter and the overall theme that the Board is communicating to City Council.

Mary offered including language around PP&R taking a significant load of the budget shortfall while other bureaus are held harmless.

Zay agreed and asked to emphasize how the cuts will impact community health, especially in that many people don’t understand how critical PP&R services are.

Silas wanted to acknowledge that there is a budget gap that needs to be filled and also mention that parks are a draw for people to come to and move to Portland—making sure parks are clean, safe, and beautiful is important to bringing people here and people wanting to stay. He also emphasized the importance of the levy commitments and making sure that Parks Levy funds are able to take care of what Portlanders voted for. He expressed concern that the cuts will undercut the public’s trust that what they voted for will happen.

Mary pointed out that cutting maintenance of current assets and facilities by not cleaning, repairing, watering, etc. will mean a higher price in the long term, versus keeping some of the maintenance going—this will increase the major maintenance backlog further. She also asked to include a request that the City get creative with other funding sources, such as PCEF—particularly in seeing the success of pulling in County funding for Preschool for All. In regards to cuts, Mary noted that she would rather see a few big cuts rather than lots of small cuts all across the board, small cuts that reduce overall capacity and critical services. She said that it is City Council’s responsibility to choose what to meaningfully cut.

Tim agreed with Mary and noted the challenge picking what to cut, sharing that he personally valued programs that have far reach like SUN Community Schools over neighborhood-specific assets, like small community centers. Tim emphasized that the entire City, not just PP&R, has a funding crisis and the current funding structure is not sustainable—especially when PP&R would have to increase the Parks Levy rate to just sustain current service levels. Tim echoed the idea of using PCEF funding and also expressed the need for a better funding source for PP&R.

Mary agreed that levies and bonds, with no regular funding source, is not sustainable for PP&R.

Silas echoed the sentiment, sharing that the cycle of levies and bonds is not working, even to provide basic services.

Zay suggested advocating for complete transparency with the community so that Portlanders know how decisions are made and what inequities may come out of those decisions. They shared that, before joining the committee, they didn’t know what was happening with PP&R or why cuts would occur. Zay emphasized that being transparent with the community is important for community members to know where and what to advocate for. 

Tim noted that the essential nature of PP&R services is something that people don’t notice until it’s gone and expressed concern that it is too late for advocacy to be done for some of the programs being cut. 

Zay agreed that people don’t realize how important parks are and emphasized the importance of advocacy to save some of the programs.

Tim asked if there will be another General Fund revenue forecast done before the final budget is approved that might change the budget gap.

• Claudio confirmed that another forecast will happen in late April, right before the Mayor’s proposed budget, because business license taxes come in. He shared that the City Economist is relatively conservative in forecasting so there may be some upside to the new forecast, but that those funds would just go to gap closing at the citywide level. 

Mary noted that the PLOC can speak to the levy being spent on voter intended purposes and asked that the letter include the need to honor the commitments made to voters to support serves. The expense increase in the last few years have not just been levy-caused (to meet commitments), they’re coming from internal City structures, labor contracts, etc. Mary asked to include that the levy has been spent appropriately.

Tim emphasized that the Parks Levy pass is recent proof that Portlanders want parks and PP&R services. Mary agreed.

Mary asked the group if anyone else wanted to advocate for a few big cuts rather than lots of little cuts. 

• Zay said it would depend on what the big cuts were aimed out. Generally, yes, it is healthier to keep more programs running at full capacity, even in one or two whole programs need to be cut—but full support would depend on what is being cut.
• Silas said he was inclined to agree but asked Mary for more information.
  • Mary said she would possibly look at cutting all three old neighborhood community centers that are expensive to run in old buildings, and upsize programming at the more modern, full-service community centers. Mary emphasized that she didn’t want to make specific suggestions in what should be cut but rather that a larger cut would save capacity of more programs.
  • Silas agreed that it is something that should be considered as part of the decision making process.
• Mary asked that the draft letter have some optional language for members to review about making a few larger cuts. All PLOC members present agreed with that approach.
• Zay also asked that there be language that emphasizes the important of community engagement and agreement in what larger cuts are. 

Performance Visualizations

In response to feedback from PLOC members, PP&R put together graphs of performance measures in Years 1-3. Claire walked through a variety of graphs and asked for feedback or questions.

• Mary asked to see a graph of Access Discount use by age.
• Silas suggested grounding the graphs and numbers in a framework and context that the general public would be familiar with like maintenance hours per park. He also asked that, where possible, to share PP&R benchmarks and goals—or even national averages—to demonstrate what the number means.
• Mary asked if PP&R could use the performance visualizations to show how the proposed cut packages would impact performance.
  • Sarah shared that PP&R have done some simulations of different Parks Levy rates and what they would look like for performance. PP&R also developed, specifically for the proposed $23 million in cuts,  what the resulting performance output would be and what the change is.

Claire asked for any final questions or concerns before closing the meeting.

• Tim asked about the decision making process about sending a levy referral to the ballot—specifically that a measure was not sent for the May 2025 ballot.
  • Sarah shared that the Council President released a statement shortly after the PLOC’s January meeting that said they would look to a November ballot, citing a short turnaround to support decisions and work together as a new Council. If Council chooses to refer something to the November ballot, July 16^th is the last possible Council date.
  • Tim asked how that fits in with the budget cuts and gap discussion.
    • Sarah noted that the City Administrator’s draft budget assumed an $0.80 levy renewal, which means PP&R would need the $23 million of cuts in FY 2025-26 and an additional $27 million of cuts in FY 2026-27. PP&R predicts that a $1.60 rate would mean that no cuts would need to made this year or next and a $1.20 rate would mean $23 million of reductions this year but none the following year.
  • Tim asked if PP&R staff had any indication of rate and timing and support in City Council for the November ballot.
    • Sarah shared that the role of PP&R staff is to provide the best information and share performance, finance, etc. with Council but ultimately, City Council will decide.
    • Casey added that the budget process is a good indication about how Councilors relate to parks, not only with operations but also the maintenance backlog.
    • Mary reiterated that not only is the PLOC letter important, but also the voices of individuals to speak to budget cuts and the unsustainable nature of levies and bonds.
• Zay thanked fellow committee members and PP&R staff for the experience and working with them on the committee. 

Claire thanked members for attending, noted follow-up items would be forthcoming, and adjourned the meeting.

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.