Portland Parks Board — 2026-05-12
Supplied caption transcript; not independently audio-verified.
Names, figures and speaker changes may contain caption errors.
Bracketed M/J/A numbers identify passages in source order, not timestamps.
August material covers the regular meeting, not the later retreat.

[M0001] All right. So, I'm calling this Portland Parks and Recreation Board meeting to order. Can we have a roll call, please?
[M0002] Okay.
[M0003] All right. Ally,
[M0004] Matt,
[M0005] we'll be here momentarily.
[M0006] Adrien here. Corbin here. Sabrina Oh, here. Patty
[M0007] here.
[M0008] Bill said that he was out. Allison
[M0009] present.
[M0010] Myra
[M0011] here. Ali mentioned they would be out. Kitty. No kitty. All right, Tommy. Tommy, did I see you online? I thought I saw a hand there. We'll come back to Tommy. Jacob,
[M0012] we'll be here momentarily.
[M0013] Okay. Andre here.
[M0014] Great. And Jessica
[M0015] here.
[M0016] Wonderful. Right. Uh, do we have anyone for public comment?
[M0017] No, we do not.
[M0018] Okay. Um, for general announcements, um, we do have something for Matt, so hopefully he'll be here shortly. But with Corbin, we also have something for general uh, announcements.
[M0019] So, just announcing that I will be stepping down from the board on in June, so next month after five years of serving. Um, it's been a very interesting time serving on the board. and I am looking forward to finding new ways to support Portland and its environment. So, thank you.
[M0020] Thank you for having
[M0021] really appreciate I mean uh not just all your work but your role as chair and co-chair. You've made such a massive contribution to the board. I know you're not leaving yet so I'll just but just a big thank you for everybody. Thank you. If I'm allowed to soap box next during the next board meeting, uh just some thoughts I might want to depart on if you will allow it.
[M0022] Sure.
[M0023] Um Matt, we're ready for general announcements, so you get to go right in.
[M0024] All right. We have been earlier at that place. Maybe somebody can do a little karaoke about my notes.
[M0025] Um, Jeopardy. Sure. Um, so yeah, just a couple of budget things. I want to thank everybody for leaning in on budget advocacy. It's making a difference. So, um, let's keep at it. And, um, thank you to folks that met with counselors already. That's really important, that oneonone. Um we have a couple of folks that um haven't engaged with and what's been successful is if you reach out an email and you haven't heard back, call them. Um those those calls is when they um um we circulated talking points, use those those are quite helpful. They're really resonating. Um and budget public hearings. Um Sonia invite you to to jump in, but I think what we're hearing is May 18th is probably the best opportunity.
[M0026] Then you know more than I do
[M0027] public feedback. Okay. Um that's what I just heard from councelor Green. Um uh but yeah, that's I was thinking initially that that would be sort of the budget would be already very much baked, but apparently it's not. So that's a really good opportunity for us to to gauge. So, um let's try to coordinate on that as we have those talking points and then um people that attended budget listening sessions um did um there
[M0028] yeah thank you that also made a real difference. Um I think that's all I have. So um you know we're we're we're close. still don't let up and uh continue with the advocacy. So,
[M0029] and I will say this here more than others, it seems like they have read the letter and are responsive even just the responses and maybe it used to be Michelle would send those. So, maybe she got them and didn't know but um council members are definitely responding and they're uh yeah, I don't know how your meeting went but
[M0030] yeah, it went really well. Um, I was surprised at like what a friendly audience it was. But it was also just a reminder that like actually the vast majority of meetings I've ever done with lawmakers are friendly audiences because they have a vested interest of making sure those meetings are cordial and go well and it was was an easier lift than I expected. So if you haven't signed up to meet with your city councilors, I would you you should.
[M0031] Thank you. Um uh one just quick note I will be have to head out five minutes before the meeting ends. So Matt is going to close us out. Heads up as I close out of the room.
[M0032] Yeah.
[M0033] Um one other general announcement which is very exciting. Uh we have a new uh parks chair. Jacob is going to be taking on the role starting this summer. So, I am very
[M0034] not until the summer though. You're on the hook for a couple.
[M0035] No, I know. But we're close.
[M0036] Anything you want to say?
[M0037] It's been a pleasure like working with all of you so far. Really looking forward to stepping into the role and continuing to work with all of you. Um, yeah, that's that's it for now. I'm going to give some thought between now and this summer retreat about um the direction we all want to take the board in. I think there's been a very consistent set of things that we want to improve and a very consistent set of things that we think we're deal doing well and I think that gives us like some pretty clear direction.
[M0038] I can't wait.
[M0039] Awesome.
[M0040] All right. And Corbett,
[M0041] just really quickly, how was the process for the chair? How did it come about? Did the board vote on that?
[M0042] I don't believe the board uh Oh, I guess he does need to technically be voted in. So, apologies. Uh, but that won't happen, I guess, at the June meeting that will be. Um, but Jacob is nominated as the next board chair. My apology. Thank you for the process. Um, okay. Um, let's go on to approving the April minutes. If you are not present, please abstain. Uh, do I have a motion to accept the April meeting minutes? Thank you. So, do I have a second?
[M0043] Second.
[M0044] Any discussion?
[M0045] Uh, and those uh in favor of approving the uh meeting minutes, please raise your hand online or in person. Anyone abstaining? are you abstaining?
[M0046] No. Okay.
[M0047] Nope. Just
[M0048] Sorry about that.
[M0049] That's okay. Uh am I remembering correctly that we didn't approve the March meeting minutes because we didn't have enough folks didn't feel they had enough time to review. I'm remembering that
[M0050] March meeting minutes said that they were approved, but there was a typo and a correction and then the motion was carried.
[M0051] Okay, great. Uh then let's move on to the director's report with Dr. Okay, I have um not much for you today and you um offered a nice preview. Jenna has the slide. Um most of which will be familiar although I have grayed out budget dates which are behind us to show progress.
[M0052] Yay.
[M0053] Um unless you heard differently, anyone who is in a meeting with a counselor, I understand that the first kind of most formal deadline for counselors to put amendments forward is Thursday. Uh although anything can happen frankly up into their June hearings and adoption vote but um most likely things that are going to be developed will be by Thursday and they'll be known Monday. Um for services realignment that's carryover from last time and still moving forward. There was a council work session last Friday. Um so folks are feeling I think a little more familiar with the process and dates and um we're preparing for a lot of rewiring soon. Next item is new after a very um a full day a full day and a half of conversation with levy oversight committee applicants. We have a proposed roster that we um shared with our council office chiefs of staff last week. Asked for any final feedback this week and then we are still moving. We're on track toward seating those people this month to begin onboarding and be ready to be uh the opposite of co-terminus with the levy on July 1. Over on the left, council engagement. This is uh again very lean and pretty pretty budgetoriented. So of course um you know Monday through Wednesday is approved budget hearings. I don't know that there is a precise agenda within that yet. I do know that technical amendments will be taken up Monday um brought in I think a a collected package by the council president. Uh the idea being that they can batch with those quickly and get to the um council office originated changes. Uh, I suspect they'll be done um maybe after hours on the 20th, but I I feel confident that those are the dates. Um, I may be an update behind. Uh, Jen, if you know offhand of precise dates for the urban forestry commission appointments and heritage tree updates, you could chime in here. Otherwise, I just know that those are on the docket coming up soon. And that's a hold over from last time. The final item I have is that we are soon going to be talking with counselors about the portion of the new levy that is for capital maintenance. The referral described a process of consultation and conversation with counselors about where they would like to see that money go with an idea that it would be broadly distributed by district. they would get to review some right-sized projects for the amount of money that there is, which is modest, but there's room for real high impact work there. Uh, and then give us feedback about what they'd like to see um, selected and advanced in the subsequent fiscal year. So, um, this year, because, you know, wasn't passed until November, we are behind where we will be next year in this conversation. and you can probably piece together. We are not going to be able to identify the projects in the approved budget next Wednesday. We may be able to do it before Thank you, Jen. Maybe Jenna can share that in a moment. We may be able to get them in there by the adopted in June. Um although we don't need to. Uh and it it's technically fine either way, but we'll certainly be in that um rhythm for next cycle. heritage trees have so both of these have committee dates. They're going to different committees near the end of May. Uh but and then the council date will be identified probably at the close of those committee meetings.
[M0054] Thank you.
[M0055] Any Oh, sorry. Any questions?
[M0056] Any questions? Okay. All right. Um,
[M0057] we're going quickly. So, this is actually great for the financial sustainability conversation. Um, on to the working group uh reports. Um, and again, this is just one or two minutes, but uh what you talked about, if there's anything of note, again, you don't have to anything of note from your last uh working group meeting and uh what's on deck for the next one if it's something that you think would be of interest to the um anyone else on the board. Um I can start with the board affairs working group which is really I mean it's planning so I don't have much to share. We planned this board meeting and talked about the retreat as well. Um uh and uh we will be going into that also uh working on transitions um with the transitional time. I will kick it to Suen for land use and infrastructure.
[M0058] Yeah. um our group we um see this is the agenda for next time. Sorry. Uh we had a um good briefing on the water front park project um and um in North Portland Park center and we also talked about Harbertton um where it is standing. uh really have too much to talk about because it's um the um legal process there. And then um for our next meeting agenda, we will be talking about postpone topic on the pocket park um idea that was proposed by um counselor. Um and uh we will also be talking about vandalism. um about benches and art removal that's been actually a little bit too happening too frequently. Uh we'll be talking about capital project SDC deferral pending approval um that area of um discussion and then we'll be a a very brief update on the steel bridge skate park which they actually have a community engagement will take place on June 4th.
[M0059] Thank you. Uh Adrian for financial sustainability.
[M0060] Yeah, I think what we'll do is give the time to our presentation tonight. Makes a lot more sense.
[M0061] Um Sabrina, community engagement.
[M0062] Saw Sabrina's name up there earlier.
[M0063] Okay. I don't I don't remember seeing her. Um she was
[M0064] she was not at the last meeting.
[M0065] Okay. Do you want to share anything, Corbin, or anyone else from community engagement? I could Patty, did you want to also contribute to the conversation?
[M0066] Um, you can go ahead if you miss something. I'll chime in anytime.
[M0067] Thank you. Okay. Um, yeah, we did talk about a lot and I think because of the particular type of group we are um really thinking through what um board engagement, community engagement looks like. And part of it is really trying to bring folks into um the civic engagement that I hope the board um continues to endeavor with. Um one of the things that we did talk about is creating a pipeline from the board to the mayor and city councelor. We are an advisory board. It is written in city code. We are supposed to also be the public forum for folks to participate around discussions and decision-m around park and recreation issues and that pipeline has not been established although I know Jenna has been working on that. Um, we did talk about the city council policy committee and maybe the public works policy committee is the one that we want to establish our pipeline to so we can actually advocate and have some sort of efficacy in the work that we're doing which will bring community members into our board meetings so we can have more engaged discussions and actually get feedback from the community when when topics come up. Um the other piece is um really thinking about what are the different ways we want community members to engage. Um, so really thinking about the board packet again, making sure that it gets out a week before, make sure that it has the links and the established information for not only us as a board to be able to um engage fully with the material or with the content or the topic, but also informing and educating the public on what we're talking about. Um, so we did talk about a lot a lot of things. One more thing I would say and then Patty, I would love for you to chime in is really questioning at what level we're we're having our conversations and maybe that is a deterrent around why we don't see more community members um engaging in the work that we're talking about. Um so just something to consider. So I'll pass it to you Patty. I think the one thing also we talked about is in the board meeting having time to have in-depth discussions on a specific topic or topics because we kind of go through this agenda but we never can get to each of an issue. Um, we talked also about, you know, like you were talking about the topics for the retreat that, you know, we get a draft and so we have input on what the topics are or should be. So, um, to me that was important that I I feel like we didn't we don't have the opportunity in the board meeting to have, you know, presentations and hear a lot of information, but I feel like sometimes we need that in a dialogue. large.
[M0068] Um, usually the so the board retreat is planned by the chair. So if Jacob, our nominee, is voted in, it'll be planned by Jacob. Um, and usually it's done in collaboration with folks on the board affairs working group. So that's the head of all of the different working groups. So if you all
[M0069] um have opinions on what that should be, please have those conversations to be able to bring that to the board of
[M0070] Right. But I even with all the groups maybe put it all together and we all kind of digest it together instead of the different silos. I just think that way maybe we can make sure the retreat captures a lot of topics that are any retreat that priority list to
[M0071] I hear you also not me. So I'm just not it but um yeah thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Yeah. Hello. Um I'll just add that um similar conversations have been taking place at the culture nature recreation working group around pipeline to city council and pipeline directly to community. Um so if we can have those topics come at our upcoming retreat um I think that would be that would be seconded by our working group as well. Um but at our last meeting we had the pleasure of welcoming Laura Nimi from the city nature programs uh manager of city nature programs. Um we also had Maximo there and Tanya and Jenna folks in the room. Thank you all for joining that conversation. Um and we had a pretty rich discussion around access to environmental education and specifically Nature Day camp. Um Laura shared with us a presentation about city nature programs and cost recovery. Um specifically when it comes to summer day camp registrations being cancelled, families being able to recover the full cost, which is a good thing, but then spaces um in the day camp being left open leading to revenue loss and loss for potential additional youth participation. Um so we were looking at that together and um looking at kind of the issue stemming from uh lack of administrative capacity to manage a a weight list and that issue stemming from lack of funding for the program. Um so we know that of course budgetary issues are impacting everything um at PPNR. Um, so we did some brainstorming on whether there could be alternative funding opportunities um for environmental education and nature day camp um perhaps through a fundraising campaign through the foundation. Um, and so I think there's some interest in uh potentially meeting with Jessica in the future to learn more about how fundraising campaigns come to fruition. Um, and just kind of looking at the nuts and bolts behind all of that. Um, but our next up on the docket, our next meeting is this Friday at 9:00 a.m. Um, and looks like we'll have Jamie Sadness from um, I believe from City Connect who presented um, at April's meeting um, for some follow-up discussion about the recreation advisory question that came out of that meeting. Um, so yeah, I'd welcome anyone else from the committee to chime in if there's anything I left out and always want to put out the invitation uh for folks to join us on Friday morning. All right. Uh, now Oh, sorry. I left out an important um detail. Um, because of Memorial Day, um, the next land then use and infrastructure working group meeting has moved up to May 19th. So, um, that that's an information that I don't know where else it happens if people want to participate, but it's May 19th instead of the following week.
[M0072] And if someone does want to join in on a a working group for the next meeting, just email the chair and make sure so they can count and make sure that we have capacity because you do have a limit to how many board members can be in one space at a time without it being public. Uh Corbin,
[M0073] uh I guess one point that I want to make that has come out of uh culture, nature and recreation as well as the community engagement committees is really thinking through what is the relationship to with for the board um the parks foundation and PPNR bureau um and really thinking through what that looks like. Um I think there there's a lot maybe a lot of missed opportunities that we haven't fully engaged. Um parks the parks foundation as well as the board were created at the same time. We're about 25 years into the establishment of both of these um bodies and there hasn't been to my knowledge um a really good understanding of how we can all three work together to um support parks.
[M0074] All right. Uh Jessica update from foundation.
[M0075] Um yes. Okay. While I'll start out with my thank yous because that's fun. Um, we are in sort of our grant award season among events as well. And um, we just went through our Joey Pope uh, leadership award process and we had Matt and Sonia both on the selection panel. So, thank you for participating in that. I hope that was a rewarding process for you. I always
[M0076] recommend.
[M0077] That's awesome.
[M0078] It's a So, for those of you who don't know, the Joey Pope Award for Parks Leadership um is an award for emerging parks leaders or initiatives. And um we did a campaign and actually raised money for an endowment for it. And so we receive um annual distributions to fund two grants the size of $10,000 each to emerging leaders. Um and then it's wonderful. We have um Parks and Parks board and somebody from our board and some community members and a member of the Pope family um in honor of Joey Pope, our founding board chair who all get to participate in the selection. And for any of you who have been on like grant committees and things like that, it's such a good insight into um projects and initiatives that are happening out there. So, thank you. But it also requires a lot of additional review time. Um so, thank you to that. I also want to give just a major shout out to this person who's sitting next to me, Jenna, who is everywhere right now, absolutely everywhere in our world. Um she helped put together a phenomenal event on Friday which was celebrating the opening of um one of our playgrounds that we did in partnership with PP&R out at Raymond Park. Um, and it had, I think, like over 12 or 15 community partners, all from East Portland. I think we had at least over 300 kids coming through. We were able to um give free ice cream and hot dogs. We had DJ Smoky Dan. It was just a lovely event. Started at 2:30 and nobody wanted to leave at 5:30 when it was over.
[M0079] It was on the news.
[M0080] Oh, we were was it was on the news there.
[M0081] There's always somebody who catches it. Um, was Robin there? Was Robin Wilcox speaking?
[M0082] I don't know. You were talking.
[M0083] Okay. I told Robin, project manager and and Dylan Pickle may have also been there, too.
[M0084] Uh, anyway, and then I, you know, you're involved in the project, the water front, and you're here. Just want to give a shout out. The PBR staff is working an incredible amount to keep things going. So, um, it's been fun working with you. You know, we put together the Elk event. It had its own kinks because there were so many inter bureaus and it just made me realize how smooth it is to work with parks on partnership events like this.
[M0085] So, a little shout out to all of that.
[M0086] Yes.
[M0087] Um, so that's great. Uh, let's see what else I want to just say. are we just closed out um we relaunched the uh North Portland community grants this cycle or this spring um which are um funded through the Portland International Raceway Race Promoters. They go into mitigation fund that have been put on pause for many years. The foundation has been engaged with the North Portland community um for the last many many months to re relaunch it in a way that felt good for well for as many people as possible. We received um 50 grant uh submissions and um I believe Andre you are on are you on that committee?
[M0088] Oh no, Bill is is Bill not on the board anymore? Bill is not here today, but Bill Bill is on our committee. Um, it's made up of it's stat like it's statutoily restricted to North Portland community members. There's a whole selection process, but Bill actually is on that selection committee. Bill's not here to know that he has 50 grants to review in the future.
[M0089] What's cool?
[M0090] How much money?
[M0091] Um, so this year we have 80,000 to give away.
[M0092] Wow.
[M0093] Yeah,
[M0094] that's amazing. Um so they're they range people um requested between $3 to $10,000. Um and then we have three years of that and then it promoters. So there's there's 250 it's a three-year grant agreement for 250,000 um over the course of three years.
[M0095] Yeah.
[M0096] Um so more on that that will that selection process is happening at the end of June. Um but we were very happy with the turnout for that and the process. Um and then my last thing for right now is just to um encourage you all if you are able to join us on Thursday for our spring friends and ally summit where we will gather with around 200 parks friends and partners um at the Laurelhurst Club. We will be celebrating all of our volunteer nominees and our emerging leaders who are nominated this time. So, it's just a really great opportunity. I always say this, but to connect with the community. Um, so stop by if you can. Registration is still open, so get a ticket so we know you're coming. It's free. Um, and it's on Thursday
[M0097] and we will have Sonia sharing some lovely remarks and we'll have our wonderful uh MC's on our board, Jr. Lily and Silus Anderson and there'll be some shareouts from some community members and then we'll be able to announce our recipients for the um volunteer and emerging leader awards. And it's just a lovely event to um maybe take a break from all the budget conversations and celebrate all of the partners.
[M0098] I'm checking out now.
[M0099] Oh, good. Yeah, check it out.
[M0100] I was going if you want. Yeah. So,
[M0101] any questions for death?
[M0102] It's great.
[M0103] Okay. Uh thank you. I love in a world that's hard. It's nice. You know what I mean? Like when you get to recognize good work and like it's a hard world. It's really nice when you get those moments.
[M0104] Yeah, it Thursday is really nice. It's just like there's walls that are lined with summaries of all the volunteers and the emerging leaders and you get to learn about their work and it's a great way to just network the partners.
[M0105] And now uh and we're really early so you all have the hour and a half that you wanted which is great. So I'm going to pass it to Sarah Huggin. um and Adrian as well uh who are going to bring us into a present day really just a I want to preface this is the start of a conversation a much longer conversation on financial sustainability for parks which has been a big question mark and challenge for as long as I've been here but I'm sure much longer
[M0106] fantastic thank you and Adrian's actually going to kick us off
[M0107] excellent yes very happy that this could be a conversation again what we were thinking would be the most productive and probably know that Sarah Huggin is the program manager for financial sustainability. I think I know everybody online in here. So, um so uh you know what hopefully this will be the beginning of kind of a work plan that we can do together and um there's a lot of detail that we won't be able to include tonight and I'll I'll kind of say where we're going to hone in tonight and hopefully you could help us do that. So the first thing that we'll be talking about is you know what are we what are we solving to what are the services that we provide the assets and the funding and potentially what are some of those gaps and what have we heard from voters what does the community want from their parks and how do we know that um what might be still missing about what we might want to hear later on. um talk about again the other piece of the history of what are we solving to is what's the history of parks funding and where have the gaps been um and maybe some of the successes too. Um we'll start the conversation tonight of talking about benchmark park systems. Uh Sarah did an amazing job of looking at national data and really pulling out very specific financial data and comparisons. We probably won't be able to go into the all the detail of that tonight and that could be basically part of another presentation but we will give you some highle information on that and um then uh the long range financial plan itself. We'll talk about the outline of that and again at another time we'll be delving into each aspect of that with you as we develop it with the financial sustainability uh workg group. Um, and finally, the thing that we really wanted to leave that time for a conversation, Patty brought up the need for that, Corbin did, um, is what is a parks board role and what are the things that it can be, what should it be, so forth going forward. So, I'm going to turn it over to Sarah and we'll just dig right in. Oh, I also wanted to mention that let's try to stay strategic because I want to make sure that we actually get to the parks board role and so write your questions down around any very specific I mean we have plenty of time for questions tonight but if there's a lot of kind of specific detail we may need to deal with that later. So
[M0108] all right good fantastic. Um, and before I start flipping through some of this content, I just want to reiterate that the content that went out in your board packet includes a few more slides that I'm going to plan on going through tonight. So, some of the benchmarking content or funding options that we're looking at, um, you have that in your board packet, but I'm not planning on showing it. I'm happy to answer questions. Um, but just in the interest of time, um, we can sort of pick it up next time or again, always happy to answer questions offline. All right. So, just starting with a little bit of kind of context. What is the Portland Parks and Recreation Park System? This is a slide that we sometimes use really to show the breadth and the variety of all of the different types of facilities or programs or ways that Portlanders interact with and access in sort of this park system. Um, from trees to splash pads to free lunch and play sites, there really is sort of a wide variety of what we all together are working to provide as Portland parks and recreation.
[M0109] We track a number of ways in which we look at both what services we do provide and where we have significant service gaps across our park system. So in this one um since the 2000 uh the 2020 vision was adopted in 2000 we've been tracking household access within a half mile of a park or natural area. This is a map that shows where we have service and where we have service gaps. And you can also see in that top table we have um significant differences in access and service when you look at it geographically. So, District 1 is far less served than other districts comparatively and significantly lower than the citywide average. On the bottom table, I included results from our 2024 community needs survey. Um, and so you can actually see uh sort of similar results in who's accessing parks and natural areas frequently. So this is looking at people that visited a park or natural area two or more times per week. And you similarly see district one has lower um frequency of access to parks and nature which is perhaps unsurprising given sort of lower physical access there. At the top I also included from the community needs survey citywide um the percentage of people who at least once a year visited a parks park or natural area is very high at 96%. In this next one, we're looking at access to community centers and to programs. So, the map on the right is showing um geographic three mile service radius from full service community centers and that corresponds to the table in the upper left show. So, that shows the percentage of households that are within that three mile radius of a full-ervice community center. Um here we have district two is lower than the other districts and the citywide average for that. In the bottom I'm showing a chart again. This is 2024 community needs survey. So this is the percentage of people who said that they uh participated and accessed a recreation program at least once in the past year. One thing notable here that I'll mention is that district one is actually the highest in terms of participation compared to the other districts and citywide where we saw it lower in terms of frequency of access to parks and nature.
[M0110] Um we've also continued to track where we have tree canopy uh citywide. So, we know that roughly 80% of Portland's population lives east of the Wamut River. And we have significantly lower citywide tree canopy coverage. This is both by council district on the left and at a slightly finer grain uh neighborhood level on the right. So those are just some of the ways in which we look at kind of what it means to provide park service and what in which we also look at sort of who has park service and who doesn't. So in this slide I'm doing a highle summary of the bureau's kind of financial picture over a fiscal year 27 through 31 time frame and that aligns with the time frame of the 2025 levy. So that fiveyear window. um thinking about kind of services we provide now in terms of the color of money if you will that funds them. I have three main lanes here. So the first is general bureau operations. Um right now we're in a position again in this forecast window where operations are largely dis sustained. It depends on you know city budget decisions. Um, but we have about 5050 in terms of percentage of general fund and fee revenue funding and parks levy at this point in the forecast. And over those five years, that ranges from about 170 to 210 as kind of the the approximate size of that operating budget for the bureau. For operations, we're talking about all of the work that we do, sort of providing programs, doing that daily care of our parks and natural areas, planting trees, all of that is sort of operational service, excuse me. In the second row, um we know that we need to maintain assets that we have in our park system. And so we track uh what we call the capital backlog or the unmet funding need of assets in our park system. that's standing at around $747 million right now. Um the primary sources of funding for this are the general fund. So we received just under $5 million a year from the general fund for this work and now the parks levy in this time frame. So three cents of the rate that went to voters was earmarked for capital maintenance. That's around $2 million a year. So together those add up to about $7 million a year that we can anticipate we have for capital maintenance. I sort of put a put a circle around the box on the right, the funding gap here. Um, we are working to ensure that when we talk about the funding gap, we're in alignment now that we're more of a one city approach with our chief financial officer and how other departments within the city are approaching what their funding gap is for their own assets. But generally a good practice is to invest between two and 3% of the replacement value of the system that you're maintaining. For us, that's about $2.5 billion. At the low end, that would be about $40 million additional that we should be investing in our assets. At that higher 3% end, it's about 70. So, we anticipate with their guidance that we'll fall somewhere in here. And being able to talk about what our goal is for investment in our system based on the size of the portfolio that we manage. I put a yellow box around it because that is a sort of the most significant area of mismatch between what we should be investing in this five-year window and where we are today. Capital growth. So, this is where we um acquire land or build new parks or sometimes add features to add capacity to an existing park, adding a playground or adding lighting to a sports field so that it can be used more seasonally. Right now um system development charges have been our primary source of funding. Um there is a moratorum for this work through September 30th of 2028. So there are no new system development charges coming in to fund this work and all the existing system development charges have been allocated to existing projects underway. So there's not sort of an available balance for new projects again until that September 28th time frame. What I put here in the annual funding available was a look back in terms of historically how much on average have we been bringing in to be able to invest in the park system. So that's around 22 million. I put zero to 22 just given the question marks and around the moratorum. And then of course how how much we think we should be investing in growing the park system depends on some conversations that we need to have around kind of what are the desired service levels that we're looking to achieve. what's sort of a reasonable pace to achieve them and that would inform what we see as an annual gap.
[M0111] Oh yeah,
[M0112] I have a quick clarifying question if I can ask that. Um you you said that there is um for no deficit regarding the general fund. Does that include inflation over time or is that a set amount?
[M0113] Um yeah. So the um assuming the reductions that are in the mayor's proposed budget are taken, then there is no further deficit over the five-year forecast window, that does take into account um assumed cost inflators. So, we have different inflators for personnel versus um utilities, things like that. So, that does take into account those inflators over that five-year window.
[M0114] Great. Thank you so much.
[M0115] Yeah.
[M0116] Um here I'm just because capital maintenance is such a significant gap, I just wanted to further sort of emphasize where we have been. So the bar chart on the bottom shows what we've been able to invest in capital gains as an organization by fiscal year. That line in the top shows you where we would be here. I used a midpoint. So two and a half% if two to three is is the desired range um based on the size of the portfolio we manage. A few things I'll flag here. One, we've we've never hit the line, right? So, we've we've been significantly underfunded um even even historically as we look back and that's partly why we now have a backlog that we're managing. A few other pieces um that I'll highlight here. One, that kind of lightish yellow color on the top that was the 2014 capital replace the bond. So, with that resource, you can see that actually bumped up investment levels pretty significantly. That's now fully expended. So, we've completed that 2014 replacement bond. There are no new revenues remaining. On the bottom, that major maintenance fund allocation has really held steady at just under $5 million, but the blue color is general time uh general fund one-time investments in the park system. And we have received those sometimes. uh council has a policy to invest at least 50% of their one-time capital set aside from the budget process each year citywide in capital maintenance. When they sent the levy to the ballot, they reaffirmed their commitment to follow that policy. there wasn't any available resource this year, but that has contributed that blue investment level has come out of council one-time allocations to the bureau. In addition to that, just under five million ongoing, I'll also flag here um the green color that you start to see showing up in fiscal year 24, that's Portland Clean Energy Fund. Um, so that is sort of a new potential revenue source um that we are uh receiving some investments from. Big project I'll highlight here was the Mount Scott Community Center and making sure it was sort of energy efficient and um so that that is sort of a new emerging trend. Okay. So I'm moving now from kind of high level where are we at to what we've heard. So, we have a lot of ways in which we've um listened to community and and informed understanding of what people want and need from their park system. In the subsequent slides, I'll kind of summarize what we actually heard, but here I wanted to just review each of those sources. So, in healthy parks, healthy Portland, so that's the bureau's strategic framework. Um there was a lot of community engagement that took various forms. I think I even may have done some some tableabling with you at summer events to listen uh listen to people that roughly occurred over the 2021 to 2023 time frame and that really informed kind of outcome goals and the mission vision values that um were included in that strategic plan. We periodically do surveys. Um so here I'm I'm highlighting things we've heard from a 2019 um city budget officeled community insight survey from the PPNRE 2024 community needs survey and then I put an asterisk there's another city budget office survey um that will be going out later this year and we have asked some resource uh questions as well in that survey. We're hoping to have results back by the end of December or early January of 2027. So, we have some good survey information. Um, we have done multiple uh rounds of voter polling. So, that's that is like surveys but specifically of people who are likely voters. So, those are different than kind of what do Portlanders generally want from their park system. Um, but they have helped inform ballot measure development and can help answer the question of kind of willingness to pay. Um we have also done a lot of community engagement and listening uh as the bureau developed its level of service guidance for sort of what people want in terms of access to parks, natural areas and the various experiences like sports or water play within those. And then the final one um I wanted to call out was the Portland urban forest plan. So, this is the the brand new one just adopted by city council, but um there was a lot of community engagement in that planning effort and it set um some really specific service level goals for our urban canopy. So, here I'm taking sort of what we heard and summarizing just some very highlevel key points as a takeaway. So within the category of sort of providing parks and nature generally from our strategic plan we all of our strategic plan outcomes really lead with seeking equitable outcomes. Um so you'll see that show up again and again in the slides but seeking equitable outcomes in terms of having clean well-maintained parks close to home. um having healthy natural areas and the bureau and those natural areas and natural features playing a role in supporting climate resilience. From service uh surveys, we've heard almost all Portlanders use parks and natural areas. Again, 96% of people visited park or natural area within the last year. We also typically see that Portlanders really like and value that park system. Uh in particular, people value basic access to open space, trees, pathways, picnic and playground areas when we have asked questions around kind of how important are various things in the park system. And we also tend to hear about clean bathrooms. More specifically, from voter polling, we've heard that a majority, so four out of five, said that parks were extremely or very important to their quality of life. in particular, maintaining water quality, preventing wildfires, uh protecting wild wildlife habitat, cleaning restrooms was extremely or very important priorities for people to fund. And then majorities also wanted to fund field trips, science, education, and connections to nature. So shifting and looking at our urban forest and trees from the strategic plan, we have outcomes to work towards equitable outcomes and equitably distributed also increasing healthy tree canopy. also providing essential services during weather emergencies. From surveys, trees and shaded areas, natural areas, um are three of the most important things that people said were important to them in their parks and natural areas. Uh 73% of voters said that maintaining existing trees was extremely or very important for them to fund. And then again, I mentioned there are some very clear service goals articulated in the new Portland urban forest plan around percentage of land that should be covered by tree canopy. Um what that looks like on a neighborhood level. If you recall the neighborhood map, there's a lot of inequity in terms of how neighborhoods have access to tree canopy. And then street area as well. So, specific level of service targets that were set in terms of activations and programs and services. Um, working towards equitable outcomes, providing a variety of programs, serving Portlanders from all backgrounds, ages, and abilities, not having cost as a barrier to access to programs and services, and also being a good partner. So, community organizations and volunteers wanting to work with the bureau. From surveys, um, of all the kinds of programs we offer, outdoor arts and culture events, fitness programs, and nature environmental education classes were the most important types of programs. And as you saw in the prior slide, about a third of Portlanders participated in a program in the last year. Voter polling again like the strategic plan reaffirmed that free and lowcost recreation programs for kids and families experiencing poverty was extremely or very important to fund. So that was true for 67% of voters. Majority of voters also supported funding for field trips, access to nature, preventing community center closures, programs for youth and seniors and parks ranger programs. So built assets, taking care of assets. We uh from Healthy Parks, Healthy Portland, we work towards equitable outcomes. Um we've identified that Portlanders should have a variety of things near where they live. Facilities should be clean, well-maintained, and accessible to people with disabilities. From voters, we heard that over 60% of voters would rather pay significantly or some more to repair and preserve park facilities, outdoor spaces, and natural areas, and in ensure clean and maintained restrooms. From level of service, we have heard that halfmile access to parks and playgrounds are what people really want closest to home. So, reaffirming, if you will, of that goal that we've been progressing towards since 2000. For other experiences, we heard people are willing to travel further. And that level of service guidance includes a range for different experiences of one to three miles. And then for that full service community center experience, a three mile service level goal. Okay. So that's a highle summary of what we've heard uh from community from those various listening and learning. The park system that we have today um has been supported by general fund and by fee revenues with voterapproved ballot initiatives. So this is showing a little timeline going back to the first levy in 1901 that supported the park system. Um I went back 30 years. There may have been other failed measures longer than 30 years, but I went back 30 years and there was one that I'll flag here. So we did have one bond that just barely failed. So at 49.5% as a yes vote in 1998, but other than that, these are all measures that have passed. And so generally, Portland voters have a history of both, I would say, valuing their park system and being willing to step up at a ballot to pay for that service that they value. Um, a few other notable things here though, these are um sort of all temporal funding resources. So these levies are limited to five-year terms as you saw with our 2025 levy of you know voters can pass two levies within you know fiveyear terms to keep that resource going. We've seen examples of uh school levies or Oregon Historical Society is on the ballot of other levies that are sort of serial levies that you may be aware of. Um but they do have that that five-year limitation and bonds are set for sort of a certain dollar value and therefore a timeline. So they're not sort of an ongoing resource as well.
[M0117] Um so we have been looking at sort of what um what tools have worked well in other jurisdictions to set up sort of a more predictable uh longer term forwardlooking uh resource. And here's a few examples that I'll highlight. They're chosen a because they're they they have ways in which they're successful and b they all are set up with different forms of government. So they're sort of different models from their outset. Um the Seattle model is a citygoverned park system but it has an independent park district jurisdiction over it. Um there are no staff that fund that or that that um are funded by that district directly. So all staff, all assets are part of the city of Seattle's park and recreation system, but because it has an independent jurisdiction district overlay, it has a permanent property tax rate resource that's attached to it. Um, a few things that they did in the Seattle model that I think uh set them up for success. one when they went to the ballot they set a higher permanent tax levy rate than they collected at the outset and they've been building into that and so that actually gave them some headroom to account for ways in which sometimes as we've experienced costs outpace property tax revenue rate. So that was one tool that they did that's been successful. Again, they're building into that maximum rate. They didn't collect it at the outset. A second thing I'll call out that was successful in that model was when they went to the ballot, they went with a city commitment to sign an agreement with the district that the level of continuing investment of general fund would be the same and in fact sort of cost adjusted um for inflation over time. So that gave them both some certainty of permanent um specific uh individual property tax revenue through the district and that general fund commitment as well. How it operates is uh the city of Seattle city council is the governing body for both. So they sort of gavel in as uh part you know gabble out I would say as Seattle um city council and gabble in as Seattle park district uh to um do that role. San Francisco uh is an example that's basically a city model. So, it's a city park system. Um however, voters did uh through charter um a ballot measure commit the general fund to a certain amount of allocation for parks. So, they sort of made um a more permanent guarantee of that ongoing funding for parks. And they did that on two tracks. one um they identified an additional kind of continuing percentage of the city's budget and they also through that charter um ballot measure required a increasing additional on top of that regular percentage contribution of general fund that had sort of an annual amount that it was intended to increase that is uh in place as it was written through 2046. Bend is an example here in Oregon of a fully independent park district. Um they were established with sort of a permanent property tax rate. They also collect impact fees or we call them system development charges to fund their growth. One thing I will say that's notable here is that they have actually experienced they have been able to manage because they're a fully independent jurisdiction um a lower expense growth curve. So I'll just flag here like 3% for personnel cost growth and for operational cost growth in fiscal year 25. That's compared to us we've seen sort of over 10% per year um in the city structure. So that has helped them be successful and stay within their the growth the typical growth rate of their property tax that they independently get. So these are three sort of different models but uh some different tools that each have used and they all seem to be um pretty successful without sort of significant budget reductions from a year-to-year standpoint and with that longer term ability to do some planning
[M0118] which ones are closest to like our size of system
[M0119] um park size system or city population
[M0120] like the parks like the
[M0121] number of parks the size of the budget
[M0122] and like the amount of assets when you quantify the
[M0123] I'll have to get back on you that uh so one of the things that I have been doing you don't see it in these slides because I'm still waiting for final validation but I have been doing some more local benchmarking around um so what I sent out was sort of national benchmarking and trust for public land is a great collector of data so we can use a lot of the data they have to be able to report in sort of an applesto apples But I have been looking also at local jurisdictions around um you know Gresham and and Bbend and THPRD etc. Um but I don't want to send that until they have all given it their green light of approval that I've captured things correctly. So that's to come.
[M0124] And do you want questions throughout or would you like to wait for the end
[M0125] your prefer? I'm asking because we have I I've scored of the question I'm thinking but I also want to just if you want to get through it. Well, maybe what we could do is actually go through we're going to transition to the financial sustainability work group. So maybe at that break between the two um we could go over questions for Sarah.
[M0126] So hold on.
[M0127] So it's just a couple couple more slides unless there's a burning
[M0128] I can wait.
[M0129] Okay. Just give us a few minutes because you you might get answered.
[M0130] Okay. So yeah, I think I I just have two more things I was going to cover. And this one I just wanted to literally give you verbatim the text around our charge. So this was from the resolution that council used to send the 2025 levy to the ballot. Um and specifically they called out that they would work with parks in the community on a long range financial plan. Uh and then I also bolded at the end that we need to have it done by fiscal year 2728. So that's June 30th, 2028. So in thinking about sort of what are the uh the chapters if you will what are sort of the elements of this long range financial plan um this is another area in which your board packet I had an individual slide on each of these chapters with further detail but at a high level um really outlines the purpose. So what is our shared vision and goal for the financial plan itself the next two sort of go together. So when we think about service levels and different sort of trajectories for the bureau being able to articulate over a time 10-year time horizon uh what are our service level anticipated impacts with funding that we are forecasted to have in hand already. What would the funding be needed be to deliver something that would be maintaining at least the existing services that we provide today? And then where we're able to do the work of articulating what level of service goals we actually should be trying to deliver to meet some of those lessons learned, what we heard from the community. What would that resource delta look like? The fourth chapter would be the financial plan itself. So what funding tools and potentially what sequencing of those funding tools over a 10-year horizon would we collectively be working to enact? Chapter five, um, we want to have a section around kind of what does accountability and transparency look like for this effort. So, what sorts of annual reporting? Um, how does this show up in budget? How can council use this tool to evaluate sort of policy and budget decisions that they're making against how it uh relates to the financial plan? And then in the final chapter here, future initiative steps. So there's a lot of um really great ideas and work that could happen around sort of what is a partnership strategy. So when we think about the levels of service we deliver, what um what is sort of PPNR delivering, what is partnerled, um that is a body of work in and of itself. And so recognizing both the importance and connection of that and giving it sort of a timeline um to land as part of this effort asset transition plan is another one. So we have a number of assets in our park system that may not ultimately align with our level of service goals. And so what is a what is an actual plan timeline for a plan to review all of those and identify what is the best future path for those assets. levels of investment for grants, philanthropy, external funding and that support of the park system. Um and then finally thinking about some design and operational standards. So, are there ways that which we can develop and grow and change the park system that would help us to be um more cost-effective in terms of designing for things that have a lower overall maintenance cost associated with them and more sort of predictability in terms of um that wonderful variety that makes up our park system. So those are all things that we envision describing as future efforts but not being sort of uh part of the plan itself. The last thing I'll flag on this, there's a number of other sort of citywide efforts that will either inform the long range financial plan or we may inform some of those efforts as well. So, there is a um chief financial officer citywide five-year funding stabilization plan. Again, that's at a citywide level. There is work going on around citywide asset management. There are conversations citywide around a potential citywide bond effort. There are conversations beyond just parks around system development charges. So potentially looking both internally at code changes we could make and externally at state legislative changes that would impact how SDC's can be used. Um there is as I mentioned earlier the moratorum currently on SDC's so potentially questions of what that looks like in the future and we will be going along with transportation to update our um system development charge methodology in the next few years as well. So these are all sort of things that have a relationship to financial plans that we'll want to sort of stay in alignment with. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I do have one more slide. So this one is just introducing at a high level what some of those big steps would be in the development. Um I mentioned per the council resolution, we do have sort of a final deadline of having this done by June 30th of 2028. I think depending on the steps and sort of the approach to development of this plan um we could actually complete it in somewhere between sort of a nine to 25 month range. That 25 months would be the the sort of final deadline. Um envisioning this as sort of a guiding document rather than a extremely detailed or prescribing document. Um part of the goal with that is that um we want to be able to iterate and change and continue listening and learning and incorporate that as opposed to adopt a plan now that is really um rigid and doesn't accommodate that sort of continuing growth changes in voter preferences over time for example um but at its foundation that it builds on what we've heard that people really want and need from their park system. So the the main phases would be sort of project scoping making sure that we all are in alignment and our executive leadership at the city is in alignment with what are we working to develop. Doing a lot of work identifying identifying and defining service levels and sort of building all of those chapters and building blocks for the financial plan. Putting together a draft plan and adopting it. And then really that ongoing work of continuing to refine, implement, iterate, evaluate how it's working.
[M0131] Now truly a good breaking point because we're going to move on to the work group and some of the things that came out of that and so why don't we take yeah questions.
[M0132] Um Corbin you had your hand up and folks want to raise their stuff if they want to get in the queue please.
[M0133] So thank you for that. I guess my question is, have you run the numbers or have any information on how much time and effort it takes, labor it takes every time a levy is is I guess uh presented because it seems like every so often so much energy and time and labor is put into this levy. And do we have numbers? Have we quantified that in any way? So when a more sustainable process is in place that we can say that we're recouping costs or more money is going to stay within the government or stay within parks and wreck in any way.
[M0134] Great question.
[M0135] Yeah, it is a great question. I have not quantified. I could certainly make estimates for how much um like PPNR staff time um but I know it's way more
[M0136] pre-referral pre-referral.
[M0137] Yeah. No, just I'm sure it's would be
[M0138] it would be significant but and I would say I guess a question to reflect back would be it would it be more important to reflect that value in terms of potential government resource savings because there's a huge amount of time that is not like government staff time that wouldn't be government I'm looking at Jessica across the table there's exactly right
[M0139] partners and volunteers put forward way more time than staff did on this effort um and that's that's tremendous and massive too. So,
[M0140] but it's also the cost of also the cost of surveys and
[M0141] working through those numbers and presenting that at
[M0142] in multiple locations and you know engaging community like that's a lot of work and it's done over a long period of time and for that to be quantified and put an time, energy and cost associated with it as maybe a a good uh I guess selling point for a more sustainable long-term plan.
[M0143] We should try that. And however precise we can get is great. And if we fall short of absolute precision, which I know will, I think the point still will be made and people will be able to like intuit it the cost and the level of effort.
[M0144] So I really like that Corbin. Um the aspect too as you were talking that I was thinking about is it you know it's a huge distraction for staff and it becomes this sort of a so um you know a culturation that you're always um working on just in time funding versus the kinds of things that you could do when you're working on long-term strategies you know so
[M0145] that and my and if I can loot the other the other piece is when you're doing the sustainable plan is a master plan accompanying it
[M0146] or is it a standalone plan?
[M0147] Let's see. Um, tell me more about what you mean by a master plan. So a vision of what the park is going to be, all the assets where we want it to be in a certain point, how much money needs to like is there we haven't had, from my understanding a master plan from Portland Parks and Recreation for a long time. And so I'm wondering if a master plan along with um a a long-term sustainable plan with these models all look very promising, right? Some of them it sounds like it they might need uh state approval or reconfiguration for them to be viable. But um is that a thought of doing this in tandem with a master plan or is a master plan even thought about within this process?
[M0148] Yeah. Um, the areas in which I think this would get close as I'm recommending it are in articulating and using this process to um to have community and council agreement about level of service goals in these various areas. I don't think it would get to the level that you're describing of sort of specific facilities and where, but it would it would get to the level of um are we pursuing 100% household access to a park or natural area within a half mile? And it would tell us what are sort of the building block costs associated with that and how fast do we think we could uh anticipate within a funding plant horizon moving that needle if that's the right service area goal. Same thing with our Oh, excuse me. Yep. Looks like you're ready to speak.
[M0149] The only thing that I would say I although I think it's a very important goal and we've been using that like a 10-minute walk for or roll to to park as an indicator of access. There's two points of access getting to it and then being able to benefit from whatever resources are there. Um, but I think looking at it at scales, three scales, neighborhood scale, your district, and then the being able to connect to your park system because not all all of our resources are readily made available at the neighborhood level. But we can still close service gaps through, you know, integration or or conversation with TRAT and other sort of public transportation possibilities. Yeah, that's a great point.
[M0150] Um, couple question uh statement. Want to follow up with Dr. Corbin's um capturing term master plan. Maybe I'm I'm more a urban designer to me. Um it refer back to someone was questioning um this is back in uh when director Long was still here. Someone say where is Portland Parks and Recreation's vision plan right there's there's a where do we want to go what is our vision how do we move forward um and then and then I I see that is very much like a master plan there's something more than just trying to make sure things don't fall down or we maintain uh sustainability um sustainability Um there's something is calling almost as if we're just trying to stay afloat or there's a growth plan. Where is our growth plan? And and uh that can be physical um asset or program, but there's something grander that that guides us to the next 20 years or 40 years. Um, and it will be nice to have something like that that we can always refresh, refer and see how we match up because that may allow us to say this time if we have a bond or a levy, we need to go to higher level because we have to catch up to a broader u vision. Um and just on the very side I say we're where supporting the bureau of planning in terms of what what they have that we we can kind of tap into as a bigger planning strategy especially now everybody's all the bureaus are under one kind of an umbrella. Um, the other thing I I thought it was uh very curious because I met with had had conversation with um um counselor Tiffany uh Ben and um her head of staff and her strategies, policy strategies, they said that when I mentioned SDC when it's taken away from parks. You will have that to be accountable for planning forward with the budget. Um and then SDC is actually um funding to also support the housing development that's going to come in. There will be more user. There are going to be more wear and tear. there will be more demand on that particular neighborhood that SDC is allowing public transportation and and all that kind of like ramp up to support the growth of that um area and they were looking no one talked about that. We we all voted for a moratorum for SDC because we think it is very important to have affordable housing and they said they did they were not told that SDC is going to have such an impact on parks which I thought well we had the letter but I reread the letter it it was not phrased in the way that is going to shove it in front of them and say, "Look, park's going to be affected tremendously." And when I mentioned that to um councelor uh he said it's it's done. We vote for it and parks should not have more, you know, money to build new stuff. Well, that money is not here to build new stuff. Is to be able maintain or wipe wipe away so we can build something bigger to deal or sustain the needs. And and so there's a um when when the message coming back to me, I realized the counselors were probably having louder voices from the developers, their architects, and saying that this is going to be great. We're going to have we don't want SDC and it and it's like would you like to have free lunch? Right. and and so is there a way that when you're going to re re-evaluate maybe re- um coach the importance of SDC and how to allocate that funding come back to parks um there's something more important about how um SDC and parks um is much much more um um affected than just saying that oh park should not build new stuff. Well um this is going back to the master plan or the vision plan. Uh are we just staying there to stay afloat with a inflated raptor or do we actually have a grander approach to where we should go in the sense it's a little bit like a grand scale of the waterfront park type of project but it's at the city scale. I do think the healthy parks healthy Portland that you all worked on um you know does a nice job of articulating what the park system outcomes are. I think there's 25 statements of sort of future outcomes that the city should experience. Where I think this financial plan could tie in and bolster that is reaffirming some of those with um more specific goals. So where we have for example an outcome around um having you know accessible equitable outcomes in terms of access to accessible, safe, welcoming spaces. Um we know kind of the the charts and graphs I showed that we don't have that today. It's inequitable, right? We have neighborhoods that are uh and and district one is less served from that outcome standpoint. Uh we also know our parks are not in good condition, right? So we can articulate sort of what a level of service goal would actually be for the condition of park access. So, I think I think that provides us with a really good starting place along with some of the other sort of things we've heard that Portlanders want, but to be actually able to attach um some specific service level goals to those higher level statements and some sort of funding tools and a sense of what the the funding cost is to deliver those goals. So I I see it as a really good um foundational starting piece, but I do agree that sort of more specificity to be able to articulate what is the tradeoff that we're that that reasonably could be achieved and what does that look like um would be helpful.
[M0151] All right, that is
[M0152] Dr. Corbin Andre and then Corbin. Um
[M0153] I just wanted to loop in what was just said, but if we can just put a pin in that because I'm going to come back to it.
[M0154] Okay, great. Um, also just say to that, you know, I know the healthy parks, healthy Portland and kind of the vision for parks has been iterative for a long time and I think that's also a hard thing to get the public excited about is an iterative process. Um, so you know, some some branding on that might be helpful to get folks. Um, so I have two questions. Um, one going back to the different models uh that you showed, do you know when they were working to pass those models in Seattle, San Francisco, Bend uh because everyone wants guaranteed general fund money, right? Like that is not unique to parks. I'm sure every single other would love that to be a thing. Do you know um how they were able to do that if there was major opposition from other bureaus who also want guaranteed funding politically? how that went as a as a opportunity to have more wealthy people.
[M0155] Well, Seattle is limited.
[M0156] So, Seattle 2012 was when they took their district to the ballot. They That was the culmination of I believe roughly 10 years of them engaging both statewide and more locally in conversations around how to support parks funding and what funding tools uh they should be looking at. So there was sort of a statewide task force and then I believe that spun off into a more local Seattle focused series of conversations. Um I would have to go back off off the top of my head I don't remember sort of the passage rate. Um there were certainly um oper you know opposition in the ballot uh itself. I would say primary concerns that were listed were um transitioning for them from five-year levies to something more permanent. there was opposition concern that that would reduce transparency and sort of what they perceived as a built-in like every five-year accountability cycle. Um so those were some of the things I recall about the Seattle. Um San Francisco was more recent uh in the last couple years they did that charter maybe within the last five. So I can get back to you on the exact timeline for that one. Um Bend has been a district an independent district for quite a long time. Uh it's the 50s or 70s. THPRD and then one of them is the 50s and one of them 70s. So, um I don't I don't know too much about sort of what the political um headwinds were at that time.
[M0157] I'd be curious to dig into kind of how those went, what opposition there was, how other bureaus reacted. That would be what messaging was used. I think as we get in deeper to this, that would be
[M0158] um one other question then I'll pass to Andre. Uh there was a big gap between 2002 and 2014 for levies. Um, and that had the, you know, 2008 economic downturn, you know. So, I'm wondering, uh, what happened there with park funding to not require a levy in that pretty big 12-year gap.
[M0159] Yeah. Significant service reductions and, um, increase in general fund. So, um, after the 2002 levy, the bureau, I believe, conducted some voter polling and, um, it didn't look as though sort of the successor levy was highly favorable or it didn't have the political will to move it forward, um, at that particular time. And so for certain programs, uh, team force I believe was one of them, the general fund stepped in and gave the bureau additional general fund allocation in I think 2007 8 207. Okay, something right around there um to continue and not discontinue that program that had been started under the levy. Same thing with uh the Ranger program. I think the general fund stepped in and um helped fill that gap. So and and then in other ways there were service reductions. That's helpful to know that there wasn't the appetite, right? It's not just that they didn't some failed, you know, one failed and then the rest passed. It was also they didn't have confidence that one would pass during that time. So that's
[M0160] well a big chunk of recession.
[M0161] Yeah, totally. Yes. Um, so with uh the like a new funding model and then the end of the new uh levy, are we looking to find a different funding model to replace the levy once it's done? um or because it's it feels like for the different kind of funding models, it's going to take there's a long lead time whether that's like through state legislature or through local government or a combination of both. Um because Santa mall sounds wonderful. Um but uh I I was just kind of wondering like once the levy the current new levy ends, are we looking to transition to something more or are we just gonna try to pass another levy possibly? So, Andre, maybe I'm going to suggest since we have um a couple of potential options to kind of go through that.
[M0162] Just kidding.
[M0163] We'll try to loop back to that.
[M0164] Um we have uh Corbin and then Patty. Um we have 33 minutes left. So, time check. How are we doing for the rest of the presentation?
[M0165] Yeah, let's you know make them brief questions. How's that?
[M0166] Great. Corbin
[M0167] and and Suen jump in if I if I'm reading the conversation that we were trying to have is we're looking at financial sustainability for the parks and recreation system. With that said, what are we sustaining? Are we sustaining what we have now or what we actually need in the future? And I think that's where the master plan part comes in because I think there there tends not to be a conversation on certain neighborhoods can hold fast because they have adequate green space, park, recreation facilities, and then there's places that are at a deficit or underserved that really need we need to factor in future investment because it's going to constantly be a an issue moving forward. So um what are we financially sustaining the current system or the system that we need? And I think that is the inherent question that that I have and maybe Suen you're also thinking about.
[M0168] Yes.
[M0169] And I think that clarity could be very helpful um around this this process.
[M0170] Do you want to start on that?
[M0171] I can start on that. Um, so and this is in your packet. So if you wanted to reference sort of the second chapter of the proposed plan around financial and service level goals or context, um, I'm recommending doing modeling and articulating what the service and financial impacts would be for three different possible outcomes of the park system. We did something similar in 2019 when we facilitated that conversation. So the first one again is what kind of service levels can we expect at just present funding levels. So we know that funding is going to be insufficient to deliver even the service levels that we have today over a 10-year horizon. So what what can we expect in terms of service reduction effectively for the second one articulating how much more funding would we need just to to maintain the system as we have it today. And then in that third one would actually be articulating if we're on track to make progress towards meeting identified service level goals. So that might be like new parks in areas that don't have parks today or more trees planted in areas that don't have tree canopy today. Um how much funding would be needed to deliver that? And that is intended to support a conversation that community but also council will have around what is then given kind of those um different trajectories that the park system could be on. What is sort of a a right level of funding to aim for? Do you see Seattle as a a a good example where they may already have some kind of road map or the master plan, vision plan that we can start either learn from their mistakes or learn from their success and that we can reference something that is beyond just staying afloat. to stay afloat is not
[M0172] it's donkey paddling it's tiresome and the voters gets very tires like again well every every time there's a levy pool forget that was five years ago but people feel like I I can't I can't support because we have other things that ask for my money
[M0173] yeah um I have not in sort of the research that I did found a service level tied more specifically to funding level plans so I've seen more detailed kind of service level or master plans, but that more loosely reference sort of needed funding or financial plans, but that don't really directly tie back to levels of service. So, if anyone has more examples, happy to look at those. Um, I think there are good examples out there of um more like master plans that include things like um prioritizing or sequencing so that it's not sort of all service levels are equal potentially if you were starting to to work down a list. Here's from where you know where you would start from. um our own 20, you know, 2000 document for 2020 laid out pretty specifically like which facilities in which area. I would say a downside to that was that it um kind of became out of date and then there wasn't really a process to like make it more upto-date as things changed. So I think there are different ways to certainly approach kind of how we want to think about what are the service levels and at the right levels and in which order of priority we would recommend leading in and this is probably one of the most important questions to talk to the board about in the financial sustainability work group. It's like what should be in these different modeling scenarios and you know there's a lot we already know. Basically the public has said they want maintained um for example um you know so that baseline what is that baseline that we would and then what would be a the plus baseline plus you know that we could be managing to so it'll be an ongoing discussion
[M0174] I think yeah
[M0175] um Tommy we're going to take Patty and then we're going to wait on questions so we can uh finish the presentation Since now we're at Yeah. Uh, so Patty and then we'll move back on.
[M0176] This is just a curiosity question. The slide where you're showing the road map levy passing. Um, I'm curious, was there a a champion mayor during these what besides the people who impacted, you know, the successful passing of those levies, was there a champion,
[M0177] you know?
[M0178] Yeah. Um, I only I only had direct experience really with the 2014 bond, 2020 levy, and 2025 levy. So, those are the ones since I've I've been around. Um, I think in 2014 the we had a parks commissioner at the time, so they played a strong role in deciding to refer it with their colleagues to the ballot. And, um, the same was true in 2020. We had a few different leadership changes in that time. Certainly Commissioner Fish kind of launched it um and had sort of a broad council work session. Um we also had um before kind of the 2019 council conversation a funding task force. So a variety of community members who came in to provide perspective and thoughts around um which were sort of the priority tools for the city to look at. Let being one of them. Um and then we had some shifts, you know, unfortunately we lost uh Commissioner Fish. So the mayor was actually uh playing the role of parks commissioner. I think our interim director within the mayor's office uh shifted over from fishes to the mayor's office strongly supporting that role. And then just before it went to the ballot, I believe it went to commissioner if my memory serves. So, we had a few different uh let um uh hats from city hall, but they all played uh key and important roles. Um we also each time had sort of highly active um campaigns that helped uh spearhead the conversations and shepherd those in a way that the city can't. So once something um is referred to the ballot, the city really has to step back and only can be that impartial neutral information providing resource. Um so having that uh sort of community partner to be able to have those conversations that the bureau and the city would no longer have is incredibly important. Um and then 2025 again so we had um you know a series of council conversations in getting that to the ballot. That one we didn't have one commissioner but we would uh I would say we had um council champions who stepped up.
[M0179] Right. Let's head back to the presentation.
[M0180] All right. Let's go ahead and just move on. So, I'm going to highlight one potential sort of option scenario that the financial sustainability work group came up with. It's not at all set in stone and so it may not be the most winning, but um it it looks pretty good. Um so, um there would be a component that would have be a general obligation bond. Um, and so that would be capital projects maintenance. Um, and that would be property tax. And you heard about the 2014 one that really bumped up the maintenance, right? So, this would be one model for doing something like that again. Um, again, you saw that there's coordination going on with the rest of the city. The city might want to go for an overall um bond for maintenance of other parts. So that's really what's in play and therefore what the timing would be of that. The other piece that kind of comes to the top of the list and and I will back up and say that in your packet there's a big list of other kinds of funding that parks have considered or done or things like that nationally. Um and um the financial sustainability work group did go through those in the past and they all have pluses and minuses, right? We'll probably talk more about those at a different time, but these are kind of the two that really had the the biggest legs when this was discussed, right? So the second piece is becoming a park and recreation special district. You heard about um three, you know, scenarios where that was the case. Um and there are others in the list of benchmark um slides that you have. There are other examples there from across the nation and it is a common route that the 12 highest performing ARC systems in the nation. It's a common route for them to take. Okay. So um that the purpose of that would be operating um or you know capital maintenance or both and um the benefit um would be the mechanism would be the property tax for a permanent tax rate. Um they al enact fees or submit bonds, levies or other funding as needed um without diverting too much. So, the Twitton Parks Recreation District, that is a um special district, miscalculated, I'm sure Sarah can say it more articulately than me, you know, and they're having to go with a levy. So, you know, I think um from from a more um sort of community uh vieworiented, it's like none of these are a silver bullet. It's very hard to predict in cities and these districts exactly what will happen and so they often bring in other funding over time. Um so the governance of that um you uh can there are different models. So you saw um Sarah highlighted a few with different models. They could be an independent um new jurisdiction um or they could be um cityrun um or sort of a hybrid of those. Now, the tricky part for us here in Oregon is that state Oregon state law um allows um county commissioners or an independently elected ward to act as a governing body but not a city. So what happened was um and and this largely I think came out of financial sustainability work group in 2023 um uh working with Sarah and others. They uh went forward and work with the uh office of government relations to try to modify the statute to allow city government special district option like the Seattle option. It didn't get it out of committee probably. I mean we won't go into details because politics basically and the the politics have changed. It looks more favorable now and of course there's a lot more knowledge about how to go about it politically. Um I do want to step back and say that that's on you know a if we want to do that for the next long session. It is on a timeline so that we would need to really have our ducks in a row this summer um and be working on it this fall. So I want you guys to kind of keep that in your thinking hats. Um so um then I want to say another thing that's very important and that is if you want to be an absolutely independent special district then there has to be a transfer of assets so that the city would have to give the parks assets to this special district and the governing board which I'm just going to say you know my opinion anyone I've sort of mentioned it to sounds That's a high bar to get to to jump over in one blow, right? So, um you know, likely, and I'm just saying that now, this needs a lot more discussion uh with everyone. Uh you know, it might be more natural to um have a cityrun special district initially. Okay. So, next slide. um what is what is the team structure um um to go forward with this? So the deciders are Portland City Council and the executive leadership, mayor, deputy city administrator, um other key collaborators um in in going forward with a very specific plan that Sarah and her colleagues would be working on. city budget office, um financial officer, um an economist and asset management areas. And so stakeholder leads, this is getting into kind of the rest of discussion we need to have beginning now and I'm sure continuing. Um, Portland Parks Board has been a huge help in these kinds of initiatives before and they seemed interested when we had initial conversations on this to be partnering um I'm sorry the the parks foundation um with us as a parks parks board and so project management would be Portland parks and wreck staff. Okay. So now um this is um very drafty material and where we need to start talking about you know what should be our role and what do we want to commit to as a group and as individuals. So um the role um would be to assist and advise staff as requested. That's uh pretty straightforward. highlight the importance of and really create a sense of urgency among leaders and staff and really during the development stage really now and going forward creating that sense of urgency and talking about okay we're talking about the budget year for urban forestry and parks and the cuts that we're having that we had last year that we had this year that we had many if not most of the years and likely to have going forward giving the given the city's financial situation um it's really important if the community says this is one of our highest values we want parks maintained we want disparities closed we need to create that sense of urgency to come up with a plan in a timely manner okay um and then really uh helping to gather interpret um and reinforce community needs we know a lot already we've talked about that is probably going to a strong role for ongoing community um conversations through um our uh community engagement work group through the foundation etc. We'll talk more about that in a second. Um advise in creating and reinforcing best practice requirements for sustainable funding plan. So, I heard a lot of interest about folks about, okay, what what specifically are these potentially benchmarking communities and parks doing and what else can we find out that we don't already know about them? And so hopefully that'll be a conversation we'll have more of in the in the future. Um and maybe most importantly, um you you heard that really the culture is in the city and um it it's been reinforced that um staff is there to uh to analyze to present data and um not necessarily to recommend or advocate. Okay. So we're the community members with um many different kinds of skills and experiences and our role in in my view and I think I've heard from almost all of you is to synthesize information and advocate and recommend. So we are going to do the hard work on that and having difficult conversations at key time points that may be uncomfortable. you know, they might be uncomfortable for staff, might be uncomfortable for leaders. Um, so what, you know, methods could we use? Really defining a systematic board work plan around this, getting specific commitments from our workg groups and from specific members. Um meeting leaders were already started that um to introduce board members and to periodically advocate um through one-on-one meetings or um through advocate advocacy letters or documents that we share. Um let me quickly uh just show you this slide which would is kind of specific roles at specific times
[M0181] for a different no I'm just trying I was trying to blow it up and make it more
[M0182] okay blow it up entirely
[M0183] and then we could say okay what do you think of that um so far can we also see the chat between Dr. Hoba and Tommy was something about
[M0184] Okay. So um basically yeah so the financial strategy work group has thought about okay there would be a role for the f full parks board in each piece of the development of this plan. Right? So um your your columns are you know the project scoping the service level and financial plan development adopting the plan and then the service level refinement um and the plan implementation and so there can get rid of the chat now squinting
[M0185] I know
[M0186] right squinting yeah so there would be a role for the full parks board um and hopefully you know this would be every few months would we be coming with updates ates and maybe specific pieces that folks are interested in. The financial sustainability work group would do more of the grunt root work. They would help to really identify that specific plan and help you know make a commitment to a specific plan be helping to refine right and um to support it. Um then you know I didn't include um a um um a row for um our um community engagement work group but I think that's also going to be an important um group to be looking at okay how are we interpreting the input that we're getting from community do we need any more and how would we do that and those community conversations would be key at certain uh time points So um for example um would uh we would you know consider um stakeholder partners identify them and their roles. We we would hope that the foundation would have a key um key role um in helping us um to do that. Um and then um maybe even framing some open houses. Um, one would be during service level and financial plan development and then again during adopting the plan and possibly having a task force of experts um that they would help us put together um who could provide you know parks expertise um business expertise I mean I'm just throwing some kinds of things out there political expertise um and so you know this is the way we have been thinking about it and let me throw throw it out to to you all
[M0187] right questions then could be on this or if you had you know remaining questions from Sarah's piece too and then Corbin
[M0188] um so thanks for for all this um what what Adrian what are you oh sorry what are you what sort of guidance are you looking for from board members and when like Well, I think we already got some good input tonight from where folks are interested and where we might hone in a little bit. Um I mainly I mean in large part would like we would like to know yeah does this seem right um for the parks board role and does it seem um like the roles for the full parks board or subgroup is the subgroup charged with continuing to lead this right? Does it sound right to um have partnership with the foundation? Right. Um
[M0189] yeah,
[M0190] great.
[M0191] That's kind of the main feedback we were looking for tonight. We'll come back with more specifics on in many of these areas. So,
[M0192] just to build on that, I think the one thing that's in my mind is just there's question or a suggestion of of the board helping gather and interpret reinforce community needs. I get the last one and I guess in the first two I'm wondering about the role of there's dedicated parks outreach staff and like
[M0193] what are they doing versus what we're doing most of collaboration is that I guess where they take lead not an answer today but that's something that's coming to light for me
[M0194] yeah and can you be more specific on that
[M0195] well we have folks that are dedicated I don't know it is but um those some really great folks that are doing outreach work within parks
[M0196] so Um
[M0197] curious are we supplementing that? Are we doing something different? But um want to really highlight that resources already exist. We're not
[M0198] Oh absolutely. Yeah. I think the idea is to totally use what's there. Um hopefully you know all the staff in the city that could be helpful um at any point time of this we want to engage. Right. Yeah. Um, none of Well, I can speak to the community engagement team and there are other teams that have outreach staff, but they're very specific to their programs. Like urban forestry has an amazing outreach team, but they're very specific on getting the word out by for free trees and what urban forestry does. Community engagement team is very focused on the projects that we have in our portfolio. So, no um outreach or engagement staff are doing this work and this is work that you all are leading. But I will say that um we do have resources and tools that we like to lean on. We have contacts of people. We can make an introduction. So that might be an appropriate way to lean on staff is what resources do you need and what are we using and how can we kind of share what we've learned and if the parks board wants to take it and run with it. um that would be a great alignment with what works and then you all can carry on and move that forward as well
[M0199] because staff cannot have the advocacy voice, right?
[M0200] There are plenty of partners I mean thinking of the levy like there are plenty of partners with a lot of political capital who can do what we can't do actually which is get people to show up and testify and advocate more than just ourselves at least at this point in who we are. Um, I'm gonna say the stack and then I have to go. So, we are at Corbin and then Jessica and thank you all. And sorry, I'm leaving.
[M0201] Thank you, Ally. Um, I think this is a I
[M0202] We can't hear you for some reason.
[M0203] You're a little bit quieter. Yeah.
[M0204] Oh,
[M0205] there you go.
[M0206] I put I put my mic out up so I would stop talking, but here here we are again. Um,
[M0207] I I I would love to understand how you're defining leader in this because I don't look at our city council as leaders as much as their representatives of of the public. And I think also thinking about um community engagement um working group and community engagement in general like this could be a great way to build that platform that community members can come in and say their piece and and and really um communicate with the board in these different ways. So um I like where this is going, but I I guess that question around leaders, who are we talking about? because in the next 5 years we're going to probably have some rollover and um they they're not necessarily leading this charge. It seems like it's actually going to be coming from the board.
[M0208] Yeah,
[M0209] this is a great organizing opportunity for the board.
[M0210] Jessica, thanks. I think we'll finish up with with Sorry, who else? ever.
[M0211] Um, this is great like like there's we've needed a champion for this on the outside in a way, you know, from to help with Sarah and the bureau. So, I I love seeing all this plan. Um I have more questions around kind of execution of it and it's just also gleaming some from what we did and it would be more of a process question and how it worked for you all too on the inside at parks when we were in that phase last year of like where do we kind of start and launch for the levy referral and developing it. We hired an outside consultant to like put it all together and keep it moving forward and really like push some of the really annoying conversations and like kind of be able to be a role that maybe is harder for like us as the partners to be a role. And so I just I I asked the question like is there a is that a role that you could envision being helpful in this space or not? I don't know. And so it's wonderful of a question because I think for us in that those like six months that we worked with the consultant together, it was really helpful for because I and maybe I'm wrong here, but like the parks board is not an expert in putting together this plan. Sarah is an expert in the the plans and ideas, but like who's going to bridge kind of that process advocacy piece between like the parks board community piece, all of your and parks knowledge and move the train forward, which is really what the consultant did. It was like and and so I I don't know if there's a place, but I want to just throw that into the conversation as something to consider. Um that's all and then on that end like if it is a road to go down like where the funding comes from and stuff like that.
[M0212] Thank you for introducing this kind of work and looking forward to
[M0213] more conversations. Just for um the record we did not have any public comment.
[M0214] We did not have public comment this
[M0215] or anyone interested to public comment.
[M0216] Uh we did not have any outreach for public comment.
[M0217] Great. Um, so before we wrap up, um, I want to just do a little round robin and see if anyone is able to commit to providing public testimony on Monday at the budget hearing.
[M0218] And that is Jenna. That is both in person and virtual, right?
[M0219] Yes.
[M0220] In person of course
[M0221] sign up like first thing on Friday.
[M0222] Yeah. Um,
[M0223] just but before we do that, who's willing to who's willing and able to commit to doing that? I will.
[M0224] Okay. Matt,
[M0225] anyone else in the room?
[M0226] Yep, I can do that.
[M0227] I have Matt and Jacob.
[M0228] Anyone else? Even though it's virtual. Um, this is I'm I'm hearing we're hearing from counselors that this is a really critical point here.
[M0229] Is there a script already or
[M0230] we'll talk about logistics in a second. We will support that.
[M0231] What time is this frame?
[M0232] It's 9:30 to 4:30. And essentially, the sooner you sign up, the sooner you will be called. So
[M0233] um so clarify what the meeting is.
[M0234] So the so Monday is the first budget hearing and that's the opportunity for the public to give comment. So this would be the opportunity to share those talking points for the full council.
[M0235] You will be speaking on behalf of the board
[M0236] and you will have Yes. So you be sticking to those talking points um and you have two minutes um to
[M0237] you could coordinate.
[M0238] Yeah. I will sign up for the foundation. Okay. So,
[M0239] okay, great.
[M0240] Matt, Jacob, and Jessica, but foundation board combo.
[M0241] Anyone else?
[M0242] Other folks
[M0243] on Monday. Yeah, I
[M0244] um nice. And that was
[M0245] Andre. Okay, great.
[M0246] Um
[M0247] Tommy and Tommy.
[M0248] Well, no, no, no, no. I want to speak. I'm not committing.
[M0249] Thanks, Tommy. That's great. Mon Monday is
[M0250] Monday's tight Monday's tight.
[M0251] Monday's very tight for me, but I wanted to add that I
[M0252] We can't hear you, Tommy.
[M0253] We literally can't hear you. It's too quiet.
[M0254] Really?
[M0255] Uh, can you hear me now?
[M0256] Yes.
[M0257] Yes.
[M0258] Okay. Monday's tight for me, but I wanted to add that I am still attempting to get meetings with two counselors yet this week.
[M0259] So, hopefully that'll happen. It's a bit of a hailmary pass at this point, but
[M0260] maybe that's super. So, so logistics wise, um, 9:00 am I believe on Friday is when they post the agenda and you want to go in and Jenna, are you able to lead on sharing that out with the
[M0261] Yes, let me drop that link in the Zoom chat and we can share it out and post followup as well.
[M0262] Yeah, because I don't think anybody here is going to see that.
[M0263] Oh, that's right. Not
[M0264] So, yeah. So, if we could do an email. Yeah. So, you want to do is sign up as soon as you can because then that'll determine where you are in the queue. Um, in person is better and then we can talk offline about what points we don't want to all say the same thing
[M0265] but when they're starting public comment
[M0266] usually it's at the top of the agenda just like we do
[M0267] I would my money would be on midday
[M0268] yeah the butter down I think that noon is the overunder and like I would take the
[M0269] and I would say if um folks can just make it and not If you're not comfortable giving testimony, if you make it and you wear your parks for your strategy, we are not suggesting strategy,
[M0270] right? So, you are welcome.
[M0271] All you're doing is coordinating.
[M0272] You are welcome to wear things if you like, but we are binding our boundary carefully.
[M0273] We're not asking you to step over the line asking about logistics. And the other thing that you can do is that you can't do virtual, you can't do in person, you can submit comments.
[M0274] Yep.
[M0275] Right. So, use those talking points to submit comments. I think we can all do that, right? If you can't show up on Monday, all of us can individually
[M0276] we'll share out the best place to send those and the link for sign up and logistical.
[M0277] So Monday public running Tuesday and Wednesday are
[M0278] council right talking to each other.
[M0279] Does everyone have a bat the the green tag because there's a lot of new people who don't so
[M0280] but I mean they should probably have them too. There's a several that have mentioned.
[M0281] Great. Great. Well, we were at 71.
[M0282] Those are cool. Where did we get those?
[M0283] Were you a t-shirt? Are they
[M0284] They were from
[M0285] Ask Michelle.
[M0286] I think the prior
[M0287] The question here is how do we get more tags?
[M0288] Yeah.
[M0289] For the new people because those are I mean they do stand out when we go to events.
[M0290] This is an old person never got one.
[M0291] Um and then Jacob maybe with you and we'll coordinate on
[M0292] you what we'll say.
[M0293] Sounds good. Really, really quickly, if anyone has upcoming meetings with city councilors in person, I printed off uh more presentation packets that I need and I did a really nice job highlighting them.
[M0294] Future meetings I can I've got and we are at 7.
[M0295] Yeah, we're meeting 2 p.m. Thank you all.
[M0296] Thank you all for being here.
[M0297] Thank you everybody. Okay. Bye-bye.