By Francesca “Frankie” Silverstein
The Portland Parks Levy on the November ballot has unofficially passed, although the results won’t be certified until Monday, December 1. Measure 26-260, colloquially known as the Parks Levy, is a five-year tax of $1.40 on every $1,000 of assessed property value. According to Mark Ross, Public Information Officer for Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R), the levy will “fund maintenance and cleanliness of neighborhood parks…protect nature in a changing climate…[and] preserve free and discounted access to recreation programming.”
This is accomplished through a dual funding method: $1.37 for each $1,000 assessed will be spent on maintaining operations for PP&R, while $0.03 will be allocated to capital maintenance. Ross explains, “$1.37 was the rate forecasted to sustain current operational (FY 2025-26) service levels over a five-year period. City Council decided to add an additional $0.03 for capital maintenance to address small but high-impact capital maintenance needs.”
The forecast he’s referencing was completed by Portland State University’s Northwest Economic Research Center as part of a contract with PP&R. Minor repairs are folded into the operational cost, while larger repair projects are considered capital maintenance.
This levy allocation has proved controversial due to what an October city audit described as an “infrastructure crisis.” PP&R reported that 86 percent of their assets are in poor or very bad condition and that it would require $550 to $800 million to restore them to “a reasonable level of wear-and-tear.” Opponents of the levy cite concerns that the funds raised will not be able to meet the demands of this backlog.
Bob Weinstein, who describes himself as a NW Portland community advocate and submitted an argument in opposition for the voters’ pamphlet, states, “Dedicating three cents of a $1.40 rate to capital maintenance guarantees the backlog will grow. With a $600 million maintenance backlog and one in five assets projected to fail or close within 15 years, setting aside only $2 million a year for capital needs is not a serious response to the documented infrastructure crisis.”
The capital maintenance funding will be evenly distributed between the four City Council districts toward a list of projects proposed annually by the PP&R Director. City Council members will recommend which projects from the list to advance. For SE Portland, examples of capital maintenance needs include fixing drainage issues in Mt. Tabor Park and replacing the play structure at Sewallcrest Park so that it meets safety standards, according to PP&R’s capital maintenance project map.
Another aspect of the controversy is the raise in taxation from the previous levy. The 2020 levy had a $0.80 rate, none of which was permitted to be used for capital maintenance. The levy website attributes the raised rate to increased service costs, decreased property values, decreasing tax revenue and planned expansions including community partnerships.
Yet frustration remains. Jason Williams, the executive director and founder of the Taxpayers Association of Oregon, who submitted an argument in opposition for the voters’ pamphlet, argues, “Raising taxes (over 70 percent for this levy) only makes housing more unaffordable.”
Higher costs is one potential reason for the marked shift in support. As of November 18, 56.01 percent of voters were in favor of the 2025 levy, while 63.94 percent were in 2020. The close vote highlights the precarious state of Portland’s parks. Without the levy funds, around half of PP&R’s budget would have been cut.
Numerous efforts to combat community concerns were included in City Council’s 2025 Parks Levy Resolution. First, PP&R will be collaborating with City Council to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate the levy’s performance. Ross elaborates, “During the development process with City Council, a dashboard or presentation format of the chosen KPIs will be determined.”
The next transparency measure is a community oversight committee, which will produce annual reports that review the levy’s spending. “We will be working with City leadership to identify and seat the next levy oversight committee and support a strong connection with Council,” says Ross.
Finally, to address the intense backlog of capital maintenance, the measure requires City Council to adopt a long-range financial plan before the end of the 2027-28 Fiscal Year.
Accountability has emerged as the common theme in levy discussions. In an email to city staff, Deputy City Administrator Priya Dhanapal states, “In the months ahead, we will continue to work closely with the Portland City Council, the levy oversight committee and our community partners to ensure levy resources are managed with accountability and transparency.” The theme is present in Weinstein’s words as well—he summarizes, “The levy is now the law; accountability must be the work.”