Choose one question and request the smallest existing sample that could change the answer. First ask whether an existing publication answers it and which office maintains the relevant records. The source systems and possible custodians named below are leads to confirm, not proof that a finished dataset exists.

Specify the selected sites and fiscal year. Request aggregate attendance or program totals rather than individual patron information. If a requested field is unavailable, record that limitation and use a smaller existing export or published summary. Review the sample before deciding whether more data would be useful.

The formal request template below remains available. Select only the relevant items; P1 identifies maintenance topics, not a recommendation to request the entire block. No request is submitted by this page. Timing, fees and release decisions depend on the actual records and review required; consult the City request guidance.

These are Atlas proposals for small existing-record samples, informed by the Board's questions. Confirm the responsible office and whether a publication already answers the question before requesting records. Use aggregate participation information; no individual patron data is needed.

Likely contacts to confirm include partnership/property and finance staff for agreements, recreation staff for program data, asset management and capital staff for pool records, planning staff for the study, and the Board liaison for meeting records. These are leads, not confirmed custodians or assumptions that all requested fields exist. Review one sample before expanding the request.

To: City of Portland / Portland Parks & Recreation — Public Records From: [Your name], [Portland Civic Lab / affiliation], [email], [phone] Date: [date] Re: Public records request — parks asset, condition, maintenance, partnership, and program data

Under the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311–192.478), I request copies of the records listed below. This supports a non-commercial, public-benefit civic project (a free, public Portland parks transparency and advocacy tool), so I request a waiver or reduction of fees in the public interest under ORS 192.324(5).

Format preferences (apply to every item):

• Existing electronic records in their native machine-readable format — CSV, XLSX, JSON, or GIS (shapefile / file geodatabase / GeoJSON). Please do not flatten to PDF if a spreadsheet or database export exists.
• Please include any data dictionary / field definitions / codebook that ships with each export.
• I am not asking the City to create new records or perform new analysis — only to export records that already exist. Where an export is burdensome, please suggest a smaller existing sample or published summary before proceeding.
• If any item is already published (e.g., on PortlandMaps or data.portlandoregon.gov), a link is a complete response — see "What we already have" below so you can skip those.
• If cost or scope is a concern for any item, please contact me to narrow it rather than denying it; I'm happy to prioritize the items marked P1.

The public PortlandMaps layers give us asset inventories and a 0–5 condition rating, but no costs and no replacement values. These are the records behind the publicly quoted "$550–800M maintenance backlog" and the 2024 Citywide Assets Report.

1. Asset-management system (MicroMain EAM) export — a selected asset-family or site sample of the register and work/needs records, including for each asset: asset ID, type/category, park / location, install or construction year, condition score + assessment date, replacement/current replacement value, deferred-maintenance / cost-to-restore estimate, and any priority or risk ranking. (If asset costs live in Cartegraph or another system instead of/in addition to MicroMain, please pull from whichever system holds them, and tell us which system that is.)
2. The deferred-maintenance / "backlog" line-item list — the itemized list that underlies the cited backlog figure (e.g., the ~1,200-item list reported at ~$615M in 2023; the current ~$550–800M figure cited in the 2025 City Auditor "Parks Fiscal Management" audit). Per-item: description, park, asset, estimated cost, condition, year added, and current status.
3. Underlying data for the 2024 Citywide Assets Report — the per-category replacement-value table (Amenities, Buildings & Pools, Recreation Features, Built Infrastructure, Green Infrastructure) and the Facility Condition Index (FCI) methodology + per-asset or per-category inputs.
4. Condition-assessment methodology & vintages — the documentation defining the 0–5 condition scale, assessment protocol, and the survey date/vintage for each asset family (buildings 2018, bridges 2021, playgrounds 2020, fences 2022, etc.), including families not yet rated publicly (pools/aquatics, fountains, irrigation, underground utilities, electrical).

This data is understood to be kept in spreadsheets across the property group, customer service center, and recreation teams (community centers, aquatics, sports), rather than in a single system.

5. The full partner roster — every partner organization the City tracks (the "~700 partners" list and the subset with formal agreements, ~250), with: partner name, type/category, the park(s) or program(s) they serve, relationship type, start date, and formal-agreement status.
6. Partner agreements — copies of (or a structured index of) current partnership agreements, MOUs, intergovernmental agreements, and stewardship agreements (redacted as required); at minimum a table of agreement, parties, scope, term, and renewal date.
7. Quantified partner value — whatever the City tracks for each partner / partner group: volunteer hours, events/programs delivered, dollars raised or contributed back into the system, and maintenance/operations the partner performs that the City otherwise would (incl. the small uncaptured in-kind contributions where recorded).
8. Friends-groups roster — all friends/stewardship groups, the park each is tied to, public contact info, and active/inactive status.
9. Historical partnership tracking spreadsheets — the year-over-year tracking workbooks, as-is (even unstructured).

10. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list — current and recent parks capital projects with: project name, park, scope, status/phase, estimated total cost, funding sources, City vs. partner/match funding, and timeline. (Real example raised: the Montavilla picnic shelter, ~$1M, with a City/partner match.)
11. Community-proposal / "park proposal process" records — any tracked queue of community-initiated project proposals and their status (the process the City wants to bring back), and the list of ~22 comparable partner-match projects.
12. Bond / levy / SDC-funded project lists tied to parks, with budgeted vs. spent amounts where available.

13. Volunteer program data — exports from the City's volunteer system (volunteer.portland.gov / Galaxy Digital): events, hours, volunteer counts, and the park/site for each, for the last [3–5] years. Aggregate by park and by year is fine if individual records are sensitive.
14. Levy KPI / performance dashboard data — the volunteer-metric and partner-count KPIs reported for the Parks Local Option Levy and to Council, including the definitions/targets.

15. Program/service records coded by provider — the recreation program catalog with a field distinguishing PP&R-delivered vs. partner-delivered offerings (so access delivered by partners can be separated from bureau-delivered access). The public ActiveNet catalog (which we already ingest) does not carry this coding.
16. Reservable-facility inventory & fees — the authoritative list of reservable picnic shelters, athletic fields, courts, and community-garden plots, with capacities, fees, and the booking system/URL for each. (We currently hand- transcribe the annual picnic brochure; a structured source would be ideal.)

17. Leases & managed-property agreements — City-owned, partner-operated sites, with operator, term, and the service the partnership preserves. Named examples to include: Sellwood Community House ("The Shack"), Friends of Overlook House, Rosewood Initiative, Fulton Community Center, and the large leases — Portland Japanese Garden, Lan Su Chinese Garden, Leach Botanical Garden.
18. Level of Service (LOS) / equity data — the planning team's LOS dataset: walkability standards (park within ~0.5 mi, community center within ~3 mi), proximity layers (splash pads, pools, courts, trails, canopy), and any equity score inputs/outputs by geography.
19. Service-reduction / budget-cut records — services reduced or cut by budget that partners/volunteers now mitigate (for the "what would we lose without partners" analysis), if tracked.

20. Trust for Public Land (TPL) ParkScore inputs — the data the City submits to TPL, so the public counts can be reconciled and corrected.
21. GIS boundary layers (if not already public): official City Council district boundaries, park property boundaries, and any park service-area polygons.
22. Parks operating budget / O&M — current parks O&M budget by program/area, and cost-per-acre or per-facility figures if maintained.

So the City doesn't duplicate effort, we already ingest:

• PortlandMaps ArcGIS — park boundaries/properties, the amenities layer, and the ~17 Parks Condition Assessment + inventory layers (buildings, bridges, playgrounds, fences, retaining walls, sport fields/courts, pathways, light poles, picnic areas, plazas, docks, skate parks, golf, water features, trees, natural areas). We have the inventories and 0–5 condition — we're missing the costs/replacement values (items 1–3).
• Portland.gov park pages (descriptions, amenities, hours, photos, documents).
• ActiveNet public program catalog (~4,250 programs) — missing the provider-coding in item 15.
• Portland.gov events + Summer Free For All listings.
• The annual picnic brochure PDF (hand-transcribed) — item 16 would replace this.

• A one-time export of items 1–9 unblocks the most work.
• For items that change (partnerships, CIP, volunteer hours, programs), a quarterly or annual refresh — or read access to the source export — would let the public tool stay current without repeat PRRs. Happy to discuss a standing data-sharing arrangement (directly, via this PRR channel, or routed through the Portland Parks Foundation) instead of one-off requests.

These are the records the City Auditor's October 2025 recommendations depend on and that the atlas's 20-year roadmap names as blocked. Each is a specific existing record; none asks for new analysis.

1. The PP&R 10-year financial plan referenced in the Auditor's report ("Parks created a 10-year financial plan that this audit did not evaluate") — the current version and any prior versions. (PP&R Business Services)
2. Lifecycle cost estimates for every capital project in the current pipeline — the major-maintenance and lifecycle-replacement estimates the Auditor found for 5 of 8 reviewed projects, for all active growth and major-maintenance projects. (PP&R Capital Development)
3. The Level of Service GIS analysis behind the 2022 LOS Guidance — the service-area layers and gap polygons per asset type, in GIS format. (PP&R Planning)
4. Utilization by site — ActiveNet registrations, drop-in attendance, and pass scans aggregated by facility and by month, for the last three fiscal years. (PP&R Recreation)
5. Ranger calls for service by park, for the last three fiscal years. (PP&R Visitor Services)
6. Programming inventory by site — recurring programs, hours, and provider (PP&R or partner) per park or facility. (PP&R Recreation)
7. Operating cost by park or facility, to whatever granularity cost centers exist. (PP&R Business Services)
8. The current SDC-CIP 20-year project list with each project's status and allocated SDC amounts. (PP&R Planning)

Please provide the existing records underlying the 2026 Partnering for Portland’s Public Spaces presentation and FY2025–26 Partnerships & Volunteerism Progress Report, including:

• The inventory behind the reported 100+ agreement-based organizations, 40 site partnerships, and approximate division counts, with stable organization, agreement and asset identifiers, dates, status, roles, and cross-division duplication rules.
• The period, program scope, prior-year baseline and valuation method behind 485,391 hours, 22.5% annual growth, 7.3% growth over FY2019, and $16.9M in community value. Please include revisions explaining the difference from the previously published 397,283 hours for FY2024–25, and any available district breakdown.
• Existing agreement schedules specifying City and partner operating/capital contributions, fee or space subsidies, maintenance/renewal responsibility, access and affordability requirements, insurance, risk allocation, review and termination terms. Please distinguish cash receipts, pledges, in-kind estimates, City grants, and one-time capital.
• The small-capital-project pipeline and process records, including status, budget, funding commitments/gaps, approvals, timelines and acceptance for the named projects, particularly Everybody Plays at Rose City, George, Raymond and Portland Heights, and Wilshire/Patton Square play repairs.
• Existing staffing allocations for the listed partnership roles; implementation plans and milestones for standardized reporting, the centralized partnership database and annual impact report; and launch/usage records for Get Connected.
• Supporting records for program participation and satisfaction trends, including survey methods, samples, response rates, results and access measures; Friends Group listening-session findings and follow-up actions.
• Records resolving source naming/district discrepancies for Berkeley Park, St. Johns Racquet Center, IFCC, and Ankeny Square/Plaza, and the exact facility identifiers for Laurelhurst Dance Studio and Colwood.

This asks for existing records, not creation of a new analysis. Please exclude unnecessary personal contact details. See the source review for page references and the specific accounting gaps.

The hearing analysis adds specific record needs: the draft partnership intake/checklist and evaluation criteria, assigned owners and delivery milestones; comparable annual volunteer data by program, including the field-use category, changes in reporting coverage, and the Independent Sector rate actually applied; coordination staffing and costs; the fall PSU District 1 project scope and deliverables; and the IFCC feasibility report when available.

For the Tennis Center, obtain the executed lease and outdoor-court license, amendments, access/discount provisions, retained maintenance responsibilities, term and renewal provisions, budget amendment and public approval history, and publicly available records explaining signing authority and engagement. Distinguish requests for existing records from requests that staff create new analysis. The hearing contains disagreement about authority, not an established legal conclusion. This is a draft records scope, not a submitted request.