Supporting the audit recommendations
In October 2025 the City Auditor gave Portland Parks six recommendations, and the bureau agreed with every one. Here each is linked to analytical work the Atlas could support. These prototypes do not constitute the City’s completion of any recommendation. Possible sources of missing inputs require confirmation.
The Board discussed three service futures: anticipated funding, maintaining current services and advancing service goals. This tool does not cost those scenarios. See the sourced planning structure and inputs needed →
How 17 proposed analytical components could support the six audit recommendations.
This is the Atlas’s interpretation of useful supporting work. It is not an audit implementation scorecard. Data owners and record availability need confirmation.
- Recommendation 1A fiscal sustainability plan
- Long-range financial forecast with conservative projections
- Fiscal strategies assessed for impact and feasibility
- Implementation action plan with owners and timelines
- Recommendation 2Communicate cost-saving actions to the public
- A public accounting of every claimed saving
- Recommendation 3A level-of-service plan
- Inventory of all assets, including irrigation, open space, and benches
- Condition of existing assets
- Maintenance cost of existing assets over time
- Goals for the condition and number of assets
- A strategy for affording the desired system
- Engagement on what the community is prepared to pay for
- Recommendation 4Investment proposals judged against systemwide goals
- A transparent ranking of the published gaps
- Where each gap is — the geography behind the counts
- Population-weighted access
- Demand and utilization by site
- Recommendation 5Funding plans for lifecycle costs of new assets
- A mandatory cover sheet for every new asset
- Lifecycle estimates for the current pipeline
- Recommendation 6Update Financial Policy 2.03
- Define the equity exception operationally
All 17 parts: what each needs, and possible sources of missing inputs
A fiscal sustainability plan
“Develop a fiscal sustainability plan in partnership with the CFO, City Budget Office, City Administrator, and Council.”
- Long-range financial forecast with conservative projections
The auditor notes Parks created a 10-year financial plan the audit did not evaluate. It is not available to this Atlas.
Possible source · PP&R Business Services — request the 10-year financial plan by name
Input unavailable to this Atlas - Fiscal strategies assessed for impact and feasibility
The six-label taxonomy, applied to the published cut list, offers an initial reading of budget packages; outcome and cost evidence are needed to establish productivity gains.
Our model - Implementation action plan with owners and timelines
The phased roadmap on this page, with entry gates and exit criteria.
Our model
Communicate cost-saving actions to the public
“Communicate the scope and impact of cost-saving actions to the public.”
- A public accounting of every claimed saving
The taxonomy is the format: every claimed saving published under one of six labels, so a service reduction is never called an efficiency.
Our model
A level-of-service plan
“Develop a level of service plan in partnership with Council.”
- Inventory of all assets, including irrigation, open space, and benches
Our facility index covers 50 facilities across 315 of 316 parks and the condition atlas covers 17 asset layers. The Atlas does not currently include a complete inventory of irrigation, underground utilities, or electrical systems.
Possible source · PP&R Asset Management — the MicroMain asset register
Our model - Condition of existing assets
Published built-asset assessments are mapped in the condition atlas, with the current count and family-level assessment dates.
Public-data tool - Maintenance cost of existing assets over time
Asset-level replacement values and cost-to-restore are not available to this Atlas; the 2024 Citywide Assets Report provides category totals.
Possible source · PP&R Asset Management; City Budget Office Capital Asset Management Group
Input unavailable to this Atlas - Goals for the condition and number of assets
Counts are published in the LOS Guidance. A condition goal is not — we state one as a share of assets in fair-or-better, for debate.
Our model - A strategy for affording the desired system
Requires the long-range financial forecast.
Possible source · PP&R Business Services; City Budget Office
Input unavailable to this Atlas - Engagement on what the community is prepared to pay for
The LOS Guidance notes this is not yet surveyed.
Possible source · PP&R Community Engagement; City Council
Input unavailable to this Atlas
Investment proposals judged against systemwide goals
“Base asset investment proposals on systemwide goals established in the level of service plan.”
- A transparent ranking of the published gaps
The dial on the allocation manual ranks all fifteen LOS gap types under any stated value set.
Our model - Where each gap is — the geography behind the counts
The LOS reports counts citywide and names East Portland as the largest gap region, but the underlying per-gap map is not available to this Atlas.
Possible source · PP&R Planning — the Level of Service GIS analysis
Input unavailable to this Atlas - Population-weighted access
Parks are the wrong denominator; households within a walk is right, and requires demographic layers joined to park geometry.
Possible source · PP&R Planning; Bureau of Planning & Sustainability demographic layers
Input unavailable to this Atlas - Demand and utilization by site
Needed to dial the Responsiveness value at all.
Possible source · PP&R Recreation — ActiveNet registrations; Visitor Services — ranger call logs by park
Input unavailable to this Atlas
Funding plans for lifecycle costs of new assets
“Create funding plans for estimated major maintenance and lifecycle costs when approving new capital projects, as City policy requires.”
- A mandatory cover sheet for every new asset
The ten-question gate, with question 7 answered before Council sees the project.
Our model - Lifecycle estimates for the current pipeline
The auditor found only 5 of 8 reviewed projects had them and 0 of 8 had a funding source.
Possible source · PP&R Capital Development
Input unavailable to this Atlas
Update Financial Policy 2.03
“The City Administrator should update Financial Policy 2.03 so funding decisions consider the condition of current assets and systemwide goals.”
- Define the equity exception operationally
The auditor's exact critique: the policy lets new assets jump the maintenance queue for 'equitable provision' without defining it. Define it as population below the capability floor, measured — and the exception becomes a rule.
Possible source · Office of the City Administrator
Our model
- One part is built. 14,138 built assets carry a published 1–5 rating, mapped in the condition atlas.
- 8 parts are modeled. The six-label taxonomy, the ten-question gate, the ranking dial, and the phased roadmap are this project's work, labeled as such.
- 8 parts wait on records. Each identifies a possible source to confirm. Start with a small sample to establish whether comparable inputs exist.
- The bureau agreed to all six. The auditor's October 2025 report records the bureau's agreement with every recommendation.
For youWhen the bureau publishes a level-of-service or fiscal sustainability plan, these 17 parts are the checklist to read it against.
What the auditor found, and how the parts are defined
In October 2025 the City Auditor reviewed Parks' fiscal management and issued six recommendations. The bureau agreed with every one.
The components follow the auditor's own definitions. A level-of-service plan, for example, needs an inventory, asset condition, maintenance cost over time, goals, an affordability strategy, and community engagement on cost.
Of eight recent capital projects the auditor reviewed, five had lifecycle estimates and none had a funding source, which City Financial Policy 2.03 requires.
A budget reduction can combine productivity changes, service reductions, new revenue and transfers.
The taxonomy is an initial interpretation of published packages. Establishing an efficiency requires comparable before-and-after costs and service outcomes. The available package descriptions do not settle that question.
These package-level interpretations are provisional. A package can mix reductions, transfers and productivity improvements. Comparable costs and delivered-service outcomes are required to establish savings.
Published changes include centralization and position reductions. Net savings and effects on service require before-and-after evidence.
One-time reserves help close a gap but do not establish a recurring productivity improvement.
These items change who funds services. Net fiscal effects and changes in access require separate evaluation.
The package includes fewer positions and closure days. Their service effects and any offsetting productivity gains need measurement.
Reduced repair capacity may defer work. The affected work orders, future costs and service consequences are not established by the package description.
Less care is less service.
Shorter hours and a cancelled project remove service; the fee increase shifts cost to users.
Removed coverage is removed service.
A reserve moves to another program; Parks' costs are unchanged.
- Two labels are real savings: a productivity gain (same outcome, fewer resources) and an avoided future cost (spending now that removes larger spending later).
- One helps the City budget, not society: revenue substitution moves the bill to users, a partner, or the County; the service costs the same.
- Three are not savings: service reduction, cost transfer, and deferred maintenance change how much service there is, who pays, or when.
- This year's 9 packages: 4 service reduction, 3 cost transfer, 1 revenue substitution, 1 deferred maintenance. Budgets must close; the labels say what closed this one.
For youWhen a saving is announced, its label tells you whether your service stays the same: only a productivity gain or an avoided future cost does.
How the packages were classified
The packages are the FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget's own summary of budget decisions. The classification is ours: each package is labeled by what changed, which is how much service, who pays, or when.
Revenue substitution is real relief to the City budget. Users, a partner, and the County now pay for services the City funded, so the service still costs society the same.
One-time reserves count as a cost transfer because they cover an ongoing shortfall; nothing costs less next year.
Four phases over twenty years, each with a gate to enter and a gate to leave. Upkeep runs through all of them.
This is the sequence under a floor-first, durability-bound value set. No amounts appear; the order is the product.
- Obtain every dataset in the register
- Adopt the ten-question gate for all new assets
- Hold the condition of critical assets — no capability losses
- Begin activating existing parks under the same value set
- Enter ·
- Council resolution adopting systemwide goals
- Exit ·
- A population-weighted access model exists and is public
- Close the ½-mile and 1-mile gaps: play areas, developed parks, courts, gardens, spray play
- Sequence by the dial under the adopted value set
- Every project carries a funded lifecycle plan
- Enter ·
- Population-weighted access model
- Exit ·
- Every household within the ½-mile and 1-mile standards
- The four full-service community centers
- The two lighted field complexes (East and Southwest)
- The 2-mile assets
- Enter ·
- Each project passes question 7
- Exit ·
- 3-mile standards met citywide
- Optimize on utilization, health, climate resilience, revenue
- Destination investments where citywide benefit justifies them
- Enter ·
- Floor achieved citywide
- Exit ·
- Investment ranked on measured return
- Maintenance at a condition-holding rate
- Programming activation directed by the same dial
- Foundation first. Years 1–2: obtain every dataset in the register, adopt the ten-question gate, hold critical assets' condition, and begin activating existing parks.
- The floor before the destinations. Years 2–7 close the ½-mile and 1-mile gaps; the community centers and lighted field complexes wait for years 7–15.
- Every gate is public. A Council resolution opens phase 0, a published access model opens phase 1, and question 7 of the gate opens each phase 2 project.
- Upkeep never pauses. Maintenance at a condition-holding rate and programming activation run through all twenty years, directed by the same dial.
For youThe first public sign of a sequence like this would be a Council resolution adopting systemwide goals, the gate into phase 0.
Why this order, and what would change it
The order follows the value set stated on the allocation manual: the everyday floor first, bound by durability. A different value set reorders the work inside phases 1 and 2 through the dial; the gates stay.
Phase 1 closes the ½-mile and 1-mile standards: play areas, developed parks, courts, gardens, spray play. Phase 2 adds the four full-service community centers, the two lighted field complexes (East and Southwest), and the 2-mile assets.
Question 7 asks which funding source pays an asset's lifecycle cost for its whole life. City Financial Policy 2.03 already requires that answer.
Source: PP&R Level of Service Guidance, Executive Summary · City Auditor, Parks Fiscal Management (Oct 2025)
Existing properties offer places to investigate before proposing new assets.
The City's inventories say the recorded assets across 316 properties. From that, here is which enabling assets are recorded and which additions pass a preliminary screen. Public entry, permission, and operating resources require separate review.
- Recorded assets indicate possible programming to investigate, while hours, staffing, permissions, and operating funds still need verification.
- Restroom is the most common missing piece: for evening use, league play, and markets & festivals, it is the one addition most one-away parks lack.
- Two preliminary screens to investigate: summer water play (84 properties pass the initial screen for a water feature) and all-weather indoor (90 pass the screen for indoor space).
- Every park has its own profile. Each park's page in the atlas shows recorded enabling assets and additions to investigate.
For youYour park's page in the atlas lists recorded assets and preliminary screens for what one addition might support, subject to further review.
How the roll-up is derived, and the full table
Each programming type declares the facilities that enable it, in groups where any one member satisfies the group. A location has recorded enabling assets when every group is documented. When exactly one group is unrecorded, additions are screened by property type and acreage. Unverified entry or missing evidence remains unassessed.
- Evening use: park lighting + restroom
- Gatherings & events: stage or amphitheater or plaza or terrace + restroom + park lighting
- League play: any sport field or any sport court + restroom
- Summer water play: splash pad or wading pool or swimming pool or interactive fountain
- Youth drop-in: playground + picnic table or bench
- Nature education: natural area or nature play area or trail
- All-weather indoor: indoor space or community center or arts or cultural center or gymnasium
- Markets & festivals: plaza or terrace or paved path + restroom + picnic table or bench
| Programming type | Assets recorded | Addition to investigate | Outside screen | Needs review | Most common unrecorded asset |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evening use Programming after dusk — leagues, classes, walks. | 78 | 43 | 4 | 108 | Restroom |
Gatherings & events Concerts, movies, cultural events. | 20 | 58 | 8 | 108 | Stage or amphitheater |
League play Organized sport seasons. | 64 | 46 | 14 | 108 | Restroom |
Summer water play Cooling and swim programs. | 53 | 84 | 71 | 108 | Splash pad |
Youth drop-in Free unstructured play with somewhere for adults to sit. | 113 | 25 | 33 | 108 | Playground |
Nature education Environmental programs and guided walks. | 188 | 2 | 0 | 126 | Nature play area |
All-weather indoor Programming that survives a Portland winter. | 25 | 90 | 93 | 108 | Indoor space |
Markets & festivals Vendor events and neighborhood festivals. | 82 | 34 | 6 | 108 | Restroom |
Source: PortlandMaps Parks asset layers (facility index inputs)
16 proposed data inputs, with possible sources to confirm.
Start with a small sample tied to a specific decision. The existence, owner, format and availability of each input need confirmation; this list does not establish that a finished dataset is held by the City.
The maintenance-cost half of a level-of-service plan; the backlog cannot be verified without it.
Turns a range into a ranked queue; a news outlet obtained it in 2023, so it is releasable.
A sample of dated work orders could establish what response-time and geographic comparisons are feasible. Confirm coverage, status definitions, and system owner.
The long-range forecast a fiscal sustainability plan starts from; the auditor confirms it exists.
'What does this park cost to run' is unanswerable today; every per-resident ratio depends on it.
Aggregate attendance, duration, and operating costs could support cost-per-participant-hour comparisons; registrations alone do not measure attendance.
A demand and safety signal already logged.
Where the 110 gaps are, not just how many.
Population within a verified walking route is one access measure; equity analysis also needs relevant demographic, affordability and service-quality evidence.
Question 7 of the gate cannot be asked without them.
Three-quarters of the workforce is one number; capacity planning needs the breakdown.
Which parks are activated today, so activation dollars go where nothing runs.
Ordinance 190827's term ended May 31, 2025; whether a successor is in force decides which school fields and gyms the public can count on.
Comparable development, access, and ongoing operating costs are needed to compare a new park with school-ground access. Confirm whether SDC planning estimates apply to the proposed sites.
Which grounds are open after hours, so a school court can be counted the way the Trust for Public Land counts it.
The legally binding growth list every capacity dollar must draw from.
- 11 of 16 suggest a records inquiry. Confirm availability and request a decision-specific sample first; the draft request offers a small initial request and a formal option.
- 4 may benefit from a data-sharing agreement. Confirm the availability and ownership of site utilization, access, and programming information before proposing a data share. Aggregate participation is sufficient for an initial pilot.
- 1 suggests a Council or bureau clarification. The current SDC-CIP 20-year project list is the legally binding growth list every capacity dollar must draw from.
For youStart with the minimum sample needed for a specific decision. The formal request option remains available if useful.
How possible sources were identified
Possible sources are an Atlas inference, drawn from the auditor's report, the Level of Service Guidance, and the adopted budget's program descriptions. Where a record's system is named in public, it is named here too (MicroMain, ActiveNet).
If a record lives in a different office, the register is corrected as the holder is confirmed.
Source: City Auditor, Parks Fiscal Management (Oct 2025) · PP&R Level of Service Guidance
Every row above is a record that exists inside the City today. If you can point to it, or share it, the roadmap gets one step closer to runnable.
Point me to a dataset →The six recommendations, their component definitions, and the eight-project finding are from the October 2025 City Auditor report. Gap counts are from PP&R's Level of Service Guidance. The gap-closing packages are from the FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget; their classification under the six labels is ours. The activation roll-up is derived from this atlas's facility index of City asset inventories. Status labels, holders, and the phased roadmap are this project's model.
The sequence above follows one value set. The allocation manual is where a set of values becomes an ordered list, with a dial you can move.