Portland Open Space Vision

Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan Stakeholder Meeting No. 5 August 5, 2015 6pm – 8pm Room: Portland City Hall, Room 24 ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Welcome and introductions (5 minutes) 2. Review of work completed and underway (45 minutes) a. Characterizing the current conditions i. Park evaluation findings (see handout) ii. Access and park quality maps for the park system iii. Funding gaps (see handout) iv. Observation re: structure/administration of park and recreation functions within city government b. Aspirations i. Vision and goals c. Recommendation topics i. Measurement of services provided by the system (see handout) ii. Project funding protocol and criteria (see handout) iii. Addressing gaps identified by the park evaluation and access maps iv. Additional funding streams 3. Discussion topics (60 minutes): i. A better project selection protocol and criteria ii. Strategies for addressing gaps identified by the park evaluation and access maps 4. Sub‐committee work upcoming (10 minutes) a. Park/open space public funding opportunities Pending refinement by stakeholders, steering group, and city staff, this will be a chapter in the Vision & Implementation Plan. Portland Open Space Vision & Implementation Plan Proposed Annual Budget Input Process v1 July 24, 2015 Introduction There has been some tension and confusion in the annual city budgeting process related to park and recreation function funding requests, especially for park functions. This proposal presents a recommended process and specific criteria for evaluating park and recreation‐related items for funding. The process and criteria may be useful for developing both capital and operating budget funding requests. Context Currently, there appear to be a few key dynamics that are affecting Portland’s parks, open space, and recreation budget process. The recommendations that follow give them conscious consideration in an effort to provide a useful and realistic proposal. (Please note: The following descriptions are based on TPL’s evolving understanding of Portland’s unique processes.) 1. Tension between Parks‐Specific and System‐Wide Focus in the Department of Public Services: Portland’s Friends groups are a powerful asset. Many have completed and continue contributing diligent and thoughtful work to support planning and maintenance in individual parks. It is critical that the City take advantage of and support their efforts. Simultaneously, a system is needed to tackle difficult decisions with fairness and to maintain focus on both system‐wide needs and necessary improvements of sites that do not garner the same level of attention given to Portland’s premier parks. 2. Relative Strength of the Department of Recreation & Facilities in the City Budget Process: Compared to the parks and recreation functions of the Department of Public Services, the Department of Recreation appears to be in a somewhat stronger position to make strategic planning decisions and secure needed investments to maintain the quality of their assets. This appears to be a consequence of greater resource constraints faced by the Department of Public Services and the fact that the needs of the Department’s parks and open spaces lean more toward landscape maintenance than toward infrastructure replacement or rehabilitation. 3. Separate Departmental Paths for Project Prioritization and Funding Requests: The Department of Public Services and Department of Recreation & Facilities currently have separate processes for developing investment priorities and submitting funding requests. Recommendations Besides the proposed process detailed in the flow chart on p 2 and the recommended criteria on page 3, there are other changes needed to contribute to a well‐functioning annual planning/budgeting cycle. They are as follows: Process Recommendations  The City Manager should notify all departments about any changes in the city’s project selection methodology in July. It is an ICMA best practice for cities to make their decision‐making criteria known at the start of the budget cycle.  When they submit their Final Recommended Schedule of Investments in January of each year, all departments should include submission request forms (paper or electronic) for each project for which they are requesting funds for the next fiscal year. This provides the departments with an opportunity to justify projects according to City‐wide project prioritization criteria and helps the City Manager and City Council make well‐informed decisions. Structural Recommendation:  A dedicated "Parks and Open Space Unit" inside DPS is recommended, rather than this fragmented system where the Cemeteries Division is responsible for both grounds, trails, etc. and burials and the Forestry Division is responsible for both parks tree maintenance and street tree maintenance, etc. Pending refinement by stakeholders, steering group, and city staff, this will be a chapter in the Vision & Implementation Plan. PROPOSAL I Department of Public Services & Parks Commission Budget Process (Assumes no changes to the Department of Recreation & Facilities process) JULY City announces system for selecting capital projects in next FY EARLY AUGUST ‐ LATE OCTOBER EARLY AUGUST – EARLY SEPTEMBER Department of Public Services Parks Commission Compile a List of Candidate Projects Establish the Parks & Open Space Project Prioritization Criteria (Early August – Early October)  Reviews the next FY Citywide system for selecting capital projects among Sources: Department submissions  Portland Open Space Vision &  Reviews prior year Parks & Open Space project prioritization criteria Implementation Plan  Hears recommendations about any needed revisions to the Parks & Open Space  Parks Master Plans criteria from Department of Public Services and other interested stakeholders  Unfunded requests from prior years  Makes revisions as necessary, and approves prioritization criteria for Department of Public Services use  Departmental knowledge  Requests from Friends Groups and other public stakeholders Submit Materials to Parks EARLY SEPTEMBER – LATE OCTOBER Commission Public Stakeholders Land Bank Commission* (Late October)  Department of Public Services issues call to  Reviews available budget  Full list of candidate projects Friends and Neighborhood Groups and the  Creates candidate projects  An initial draft of project priorities public for project ideas. Request includes: list and a 5‐year and a 5‐year investment schedule, o The approved prioritization criteria to investment schedule, with with justifications enable respondents to justify requests justifications  Revenue estimates (also submitted to o Upcoming budget estimates to establish appropriate expectations  Late October: Sends to the City Manager in November) Parks Commission as an FYI  Submission Deadline: Early October EARLY NOVEMBER – EARLY JANUARY Parks Commission Reviews, Hears, and Scores All Project Proposals  Conducts a public meeting to hear from Departments, Friends Groups, Neighborhood Associations, and other interested Stakeholders  Reviews project rankings produced by the Scoring and Ranking Scoring and Ranking Subcommittee Subcommittee  Applies the project prioritization criteria to  Reviews draft 5‐year schedules and justifications (including opportunities score all candidate projects, including additions to acquire funding matches and other time sensitive factors) made by the Parks Commission  Produces Parks Commission Recommended Schedule of Investments for  Creates a ranked list of project priorities the Department of Public Services and the Land Bank Commission, based on all findings from hearings, project rankings, and schedule considerations. These recommendations are provided to the Department of Public Services and the Land Bank Commission for review and revisions prior to DPS’ submission to the City Manager.** JANUARY City departments submit project priorities to the City Manager’s Office * The Land Bank Commission is included in this process only for purposes of coordination. They inform the Parks Commission about their plans and give the Parks Commission an opportunity to comment on those plans. The Land Bank Commission retains all decision‐making authority for their work. ** We believe that the Parks Commission should submit their recommended schedule of (ranked) investments (aka funding priorities) to DPS, not to the City Manager. DPS should submit the Final Recommended Schedule of Investments (FRSI) to the City Manager. In advance of submitting their FRSI to the City Manager, DPS should make a reasonable effort to align their FSRI with the Park Commission recommended funding priorities. Additionally, the DPS’ FRSI submitted to the City Manager should include the Parks Commission recommended funding priorities as an attachment. Assumptions:  The process timeline begins immediately after the prior year’s budget is adopted.  In order to allow adequate time, work must continue during the summer months, though key aspects of public engagement have been pushed to late summer/early fall. (It was requested that the engagement of Friends Groups happen earlier than the Fall, and it was simultaneously suggested that engagement is not effective during the summer months.)  This process assumes that 1) the City may revise its allocation decision‐making methodology from year to year and 2) the parks and open space project prioritization criteria may need refinements based on the experience of prior years and changes in citywide expectations. PROPOSAL II Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Project Prioritization Criteria This proposal focuses on providing a set of project prioritization criteria for making parks, open space, and recreation investment decisions. The 23 project prioritization criteria below would be implemented by the Department of Public Services, the Department of Recreation and Facilities, and the Parks Commission. We would like this list to be in alignment with City Manager and City Council criteria for making overall funding decisions as part of the annual municipal budget process. In the absence of having current citywide criteria upon which to base our draft departmental project selection criteria, we have developed this list based, in part, on a review of past citywide criteria used in Portland as well as criteria used by other cities. When the City Manager and City Council develop criteria for selecting projects for funding as part of the annual citywide process for preparing the Capital Improvement Plan and Municipal Budget, we hope that this list may be useful. We hope they will also consider including the following two criteria to support and reward the thoughtful efforts of departments that make strategic and judicious funding requests. 1. Advances the objectives or strategic priorities of adopted/articulated visions, plans, or policies (for example, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan, etc.). 2. Project is ranked as a high priority by the department submitting this request, assuming the department has utilized an objective prioritization system (and has not simply submitting a wish list or requests that are more responsive to political pressure than long range strategic planning). Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Project Prioritization Criteria Essential 1. Addresses public health and safety; reduces city liability (Highest score for projects that address an imminent public safety need) 2. Fulfills a legal mandate (compliance with local, state, and federal laws, such as ADA or Title IX) Articulated Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Objectives 3. Advances the objectives or strategic priorities of adopted/articulated visions, plans, or policies (for example, the Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan, Athletic Facilities Task Force Plan, or Eastern Promenade Master Plan). 3 Financial Considerations 4. Cost avoidance: For example: (a) Prevents costly infrastructure failures or unrecoverable deterioration of a functional or historic amenity; (b) avoids serious costs that could result from delaying the project; or (c) Will measurably reduce O&M costs, including potential savings from energy and water use. 5. Leverages external funds or benefits from significant cost sharing (for example, from federal matching funds or a private matching grant) 6. Meets requirements to access special funding streams (for instance, project is eligible to use impact fee revenue or funds for water quality improvements) 7. Funding has been identified for ongoing O&M costs that will result from the project Timing/Efficiency 8. Seizes an acquisition or funding opportunity that may be lost if no action is taken 9. Can be bundled with other projects to achieve cost efficiencies (for instance, a roadway project that also replaces a deteriorated storm drain) 10. Project readiness: Project has a clear timeline, reliable estimates of costs for each major milestone, and no anticipated major hurdles likely to lead to schedule delays. 11. Project is already under development (partially built) or part of a prior commitment 12. Has a high potential for partnership/collaboration across departments in terms of implementation, maintenance, or funding 13. Advances multiple priorities simultaneously; addresses more than one need within a department or across departments 14. Will ready a project for implementation (for instance, completion of an engineering plan or cost estimates) 15. A minor investment that would have a big impact on the character of a park System Equity & Community Livability 16. Improves geographic distribution of parks and recreation facilities; brings or improves a park or facility to an underserved area; brings a facility for a neighborhood for a first time before improving or expanding an undersized but existing functional facility elsewhere 17. Improvements will serve an area with a very high population density or a high percentage of low‐income residents, children, or seniors 18. Supports program offerings for multiple user groups and age cohorts 19. Prioritize improvements to underperforming or deteriorating parks over improvements to higher functioning parks 20. Improves multiple sites simultaneously 21. Promotes health, wellness, and active lifestyles 22. Promotes environmental education, stewardship, and sustainability 23. Promotes personal and community enrichment and overall community livability 4 Portland Open Space Vision & Implementation Plan Summary of Parks & Open Space Budget Requests and Allocations: Fiscal Years 2014 ‐ 2016 July 17, 2014 The following summarizes: • All parks, open space, and recreation capital project allocations for fiscal years 2014 (2013‐2014), 2015 (2014‐2015), and 2016 (2015‐2016) • All parks, open space, and recreation capital project requests and operating funding requests and allocations for fiscal years 2014 and 20151 Capital Budgets In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the Department of Public Services and Department of Recreation & Facilities requested over $8 million for 30 parks, recreation, and open space capital projects. During those two years, the City allocated just over $1.3 million combined for twelve of those projects and two additional projects that originated from sources other than departmental requests. Another $1.3 million was allocated in fiscal year 2016 for one new project and to continue work on two previously funded projects. Information on departmental requests for fiscal year 2016 could not be located. The tables on the following three pages summarize funding requests, recommendations, and allocations for parks, open space, and recreation capital projects for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. These tables include all projects classified under “Parks, Fields, Trails” (which includes Recreation) and those related to the golf course or ice arena, typically listed under Facilities. The only Recreation projects excluded are those pertaining to Hadlock Field since the stadium functions as a professional rather than community or recreational sports facility. Projects recommended for funding in future years of the five year Capital Improvement Plan cycle are included for context (in grey), but requested dollar amounts are only shown for current year projects requests. 1 Due to the facts that the 2016 Municipal Budget is not yet publicly available and that the 2016 CIP did not contain a list of departmental capital funding requests consistent with the 2014 and 2015 CIPs, we could only provide summaries of the information listed in the second bullet for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. 1 Fiscal Year 2016 Capital Budget Requests & Allocations Departmental City Council Approved CIP Appropriated Project Difference Request2 Recommendation3 Funds4 Department of Public Services Western Promenade Walkways unknown (annual fund financed) $50,000 $50,000 unknown Complete Eastern Cemetery “Dead House” Restoration unknown (annual fund financed) $20,000 $20,000 unknown Capisic Pond Park Improvements unknown (bond financed) $565,000 $565,000 unknown TOTAL: Department of Public Services unknown $635,000 $635,000 unknown Department of Recreation & Facilities Ice Arena Bleachers Replacement unknown (bond financed) $100,000 $100,000 unknown Payson Park Softball Field “A” – Amenity and Field Upgrades unknown (bond financed) $200,000 $200,000 unknown Lyman Moore Sports Complex Renovation unknown (bond financed) $275,000 $275,000 unknown Golf Course Rehabilitation unknown (bond financed) $100,000 $100,000 unknown TOTAL: Department of Public Services unknown $675,000 $675,000 unknown Land Bank Land Bank unknown $73,000 unknown unknown 2 There was no tally of requests in the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan FY 2016 – FY 2020. 3 From “Table B. Recommended 2016 Capital Projects – General Fund [Cash and Financed]” and/or “Table C. Recommended Capital Improvement Plan – General Fund” of the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan FY 2016 – FY 2020. 4 Appropriations of bond financed projects found in the ORDER APPROPRIATING $18,731,000 OF BOND PROCEEDS FOR THE CITY’S 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Appropriations for annual fund projects are assumed as the Municipal Budget for FY 2016 has not yet been made publicly available. 2 Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget Requests & Allocations Departmental City Council Approved CIP Appropriated Project Difference Request5 Recommendation6 Funds 7 Department of Public Services East End Beach Parking Lot Paving $35,000 (annual fund financed) $35,000 $35,000 $0 Water Line Replacement at Evergreen Cemetery $15,000 (annual fund financed) $15,000 $15,000 $0 Evergreen Cemetery Wall along Stevens Avenue Repair, Ph. II $70,000 (bond financed) $70,000 $70,000 $0 Capisic Pond Improvements $2,250,000 $563,000 $0 ($2,250,000) (Contingent upon receipt of (Sewer funds not grant funds and Sewer Fund appropriated) allocation) Lincoln Park Walkways Repair $235,000 Recommended for FY 2017 $0 ($235,000) Evergreen Cemetery Expansion $250,000 Recommended for FY 2017 $0 ($250,000) Deering Oaks Lighting $110,000 Recommended for FY 2017 $0 ($110,000) Lincoln Park Fence Repair $224,000 Recommended for FY 2017 $0 ($224,000) Ft. Sumner Park Lighting Improvements $100,000 Recommended for FY 2019 $0 ($100,000) Restroom Facilities at Deering Oaks $300,000 Recommended for FY 2019 $0 ($300,000) Western Promenade Walkways $51,000 * $0 ($51,000) Monument Square Rehabilitation (for FY 2015 & FY 2016) $761,000 * $0 ($761,000) Eastern Cemetery Retaining Wall Repair Along Federal Street $935,000 * $0 ($935,000) Deering Oaks Parking Lot Paving $41,000 * $0 ($41,000) Congress Square Redesign, Phase I (For FY 2016/2017) Recommended for FY 2016/2017 TOTAL: Department of Public Services $5,377,000 $683,000 $120,000 ($5,257,000) Department of Recreation & Facilities Payson Park Softball Field “A” – Amenity and Field Upgrades $400,000 (bond financed) $200,000 $200,000 ($200,000) ($200,000 more for FY 2016) North Golf Course Clubhouse ($200,000 more for FY 2016) $225,000 (bond financed) $225,000 $225,000 $0 ($200,000 more for FY 2016) Payson Park Playground and Splashpad $50,000 (bond financed) $50,000 $50,000 $0 Roof at Ice Arena $215,000 (bond financed) $150,000 $150,000 ($65,000) Softball Field at Riverton School $75,000 Recommended for FY 2017 $0 ($75,000) Golf Course Rehabilitation ($100,000 more annually) $100,000 Recommended for FY 2019 $0 ($100,000) Driving Range $45,000 * $0 ($45,000) Bleachers at Ice Arena (For FY 2016) Recommended for FY 2017 Lyman Moore Sports Complex (For FY 2016) Recommended for FY 2017 Playground at Riverton School (For FY 2016) Recommended for FY 2017 Multipurpose Field “B” at Payson Park (For FY 2016) * Dougherty Field Master Plan (For FY 2016/2018) * North Course Bathroom with Concessions (For FY 2016) * Playground at Hall School (For FY 2017) * Practice Fields at Deering High School (For FY 2017) * Lights and Irrigation at Deering Oaks Baseball Field (For FY 2017) * Softball Field “A” Lights at Payson Park (For FY 2018) * Softball Field Lights at Riverton School (For FY 2018) * Playground at Longfellow School (For FY 2018) * North Course Clubhouse Landscaping (For FY 2018) * Tennis Court Lighting at Deering Oaks Park (For FY 2019) * TOTAL: Department of Recreation & Facilities $1,110,000 $625,000 $625,000 ($485,000) Land Bank Land Bank unknown $63,000 unknown unknown * “Table C. Recommended Capital Projects – General Fund” in the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan (City Manager Recommended) FY 2015 – FY 2019 only included information for fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019. It is possible that some of these projects were intended to be recommended for funding in fiscal year 2018, but that the plan document is missing this information. 5 From “Table G. Requested Capital Projects – General Fund” of the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan (City Manager Recommended) FY 2015 – FY 2019. 6 From “Table B. Recommended 2015 Capital Projects – General Fund [Cash and Financed]” and “Table C. Recommended Capital Projects – General Fund” of the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan (City Manager Recommended) FY 2015 – FY 2019. 7 Appropriations of bond financed projects found in the ORDER APPROPRIATING $15,911,000 OF BOND PROCEEDS FOR THE CITY’S 2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Appropriations for annual fund projects found in the “Approved Capital Expenditures FY15” table on pages 9‐10 of the City of Portland Municipal Budget July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015. 3 Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Budget Requests & Allocations Departmental City Council Approved CIP Appropriated Project Difference Request8 Recommendation9 Funds 10 Department of Public Services West Commercial Street Trail Design and Construction ($200,000 $70,000 (bond financed) $70,000 $70,000 $0 more for FY 2015) ($170,000 more for FY 2015) Eastern Cemetery “Dead House” and City Tomb Repair $25,000 (bond financed) $25,000 (B)* $25,000 $0 Western Promenade Walkways and Retaining Wall Construction $100,000 (bond financed) $60,000 (B)* $60,000 ($40,000) (Retaining Wall Only) Evergreen Cemetery Wall along Stevens Avenue Repair $90,000 (bond financed) $20,000 (B)* $20,000 ($70,000) Western Cemetery Fence and Section of Retaining Wall Not specified $20,000 (C)* $0 Not specified Replacement Public Park at High Street and Spring Street Design and $25,000 $0 $0 ($25,000) Construction ($225,000 more for FY 2015) Evergreen Cemetery Expansion $250,000 $0 $0 ($250,000) Lincoln Park Walkways Repair $235,000 $0 $0 ($235,000) Back Cove Trail (North Side) Realignment and Retaining Wall $165,000 $0 $0 ($165,000) Removal Lincoln Park Fence Repair $224,000 $0 $0 ($224,000) Lighting Improvements at Ft. Sumner Park $100,000 $0 $0 ($100,000) Eastern Cemetery Retaining Wall along Federal Street Repair $935,000 $0 $0 ($935,000) Water Service into Eastern Cemetery Extension Not requested (bond financed) $15,000 (B)* $15,000 n/a Sidewalls and Roof Fort Allen Gazebo Reconstruction and Not requested (bond financed) $30,000 (B)* $30,000 n/a Repainting Capisic Pond Park Improvements Not requested (bond financed) $80,000 (B)* $80,000 n/a Capisic Pond Park Improvement (For FY 2015/2016) PACTS Martin’s Point East Coast Greenway Trail Connection (For Recommended for FY 2016/2017 FY 2016/2017) Parks, Field, Trails (Other) Recommended annual allocations for FY 2015‐2018 TOTAL: Department of Public Services $2,219,000 $320,000 $300,000 ($2,044,000) Department of Recreation & Facilities Turf and Track Replacement at Fitzpatrick Stadium $1,050,000 (bond financed) $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $0 North Golf Course Club House Facility Improvements $150,000 (bond financed) $150,000 (B)* $150,000 $0 Golf Course Club House Restaurant Area Improvements $70,000 (bond financed) $70,000 (B)* $70,000 $0 Payson Park Playground and Splashpad Replacement/Repair $50,000 $0 $0 ($50,000) Lyman Moore Sports Complex Renovation (For FY 2015) Playground at Riverton School Replacement (For FY 2015) Playground at Longfellow School Replacement (For FY 2015) Softball Field at Riverton School Renovation (For FY 2015) Multipurpose Field “B” at Payson Park Renovation (For FY 2015) Ice Arena Roof Refinishing (For FY 2015) Ice Arena Bleachers Replacement (For FY 2015) Playground at Hall School Replacement (For FY 2016) Practice Fields at Deering High School Renovation (For FY 2016) Lights and Irrigation at Deering Oaks Baseball Field (For FY 2016) Softball Field “A” Lights at Payson Park Replacement (For FY 2017) Softball Field Lights at Riverton School Replacement (For FY 2017) Deering Oaks Park Tennis Court Lighting Installation (For FY 2017) TOTAL: Department of Public Services $1,320,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 ($50,000) Land Bank Land Bank unknown $73,000 unknown unknown * Projects recommended for funding in fiscal year 2014 should be listed in both “Table B. Recommended 2014 Capital Projects – General Fund” and “Table C. Recommended Summary 2014‐2018 Capital Projects – General Fund” of the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan FY 2014 – FY 2018. Unfortunately, these two tables contain entirely different 2014 parks and recreation project listings. Table B lists ten 2014 projects under the “Parks, Fields, Trails” and “Golf Course” headings. Only two of those projects are similarly reflected in Table C. In addition, Table C lists one project that is not listed in Table B. All projects listed in either table are shown here. Letters in parentheses indicate if a project was listed in only Table B or only Table C (rather than in both tables). 8 From “Table F. Requested Capital Projects – General Fund” of the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan FY 2014 – FY 2018. 9 From “Table B. Recommended 2014 Capital Projects – General Fund Financed” and/or “Table C. Recommended Summary 2014‐2018 Capital Projects – General Fund” of the City of Portland Capital Improvement Plan FY 2014 – FY 2018. See note above. 10 An Appropriation Order for the 2014 CIP could not be located online. Due to the inconsistency noted above, a call was placed to the City Manager’s office to identify which projects were actually funded. 4 Operating Budgets Between fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the general fund budget increased by 3.2% from just under $171 million to over $176 million. During the same time, the funds dedicated primarily to parks, open space, and recreation functions increased by 4.2% in the Department of Public Services and 4.7% in the Department of Recreation.11 The Divisions of Cemeteries, Forestry & Horticulture, and Districting are those that primarily serve parks and open space functions in the Department of Public Services. The budgets of these Divisions make up less than one‐fifth the total Public Services budget. In the Department of Recreation and Facilities, the Divisions primarily serving parks and recreation functions are the Ice Arena, Athletic Facilities, Recreation, Aquatics, Therapeutic Recreation, and the Golf Course. Together, the budgets of these divisions are approximately 37% of the total Recreation and Facilities budget. Projected Public Services tax levy revenue was $12.2 million in FY 2015 and almost $12.6 million in FY 2014. Projected recreation and facilities management tax levy revenue was $3.6 million in both FY 2015 and 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Operating Budget Requests & Allocations12 The gap between what the Department of Public Services requested for parks and open space management and what they were allocated was over $193,000 in FY 2015. Unfunded requests include the salary for an additional full‐time maintenance worker in the Cemeteries Division and costs for temporary help and contractual services across all three Divisions. Unfunded parks and recreation requests for the Department of Recreation and Facilities were relatively minor in FY 2015 and primarily affected contractual services. City Allocation Percent of Departmental Percent Percent of Department/Division (from Municipal Difference City General Request Unfunded Dept. Budget Budget) Fund Budget Department of Public Services $18,082,944 $16,331,323 $1,751,621 9.7% Cemeteries $670,472 $586,028 $84,444 12.6% 3.6% Forestry & Horticulture $693,495 $658,815 $34,680 5.0% 4.0% Districting $2,114,821 $2,040,611 $74,210 3.5% 12.5% TOTAL for Parks, Open Space, and $3,478,788 $3,285,454 $193,334 5.6% 20.1% 1.9% Recreation Functions Department of Recreation and Facilities $11,948,579 $11,732,029 $216,550 1.8% Ice Arena $533,013 $533,013 $0 0.0% 4.5% Athletic Facilities $793,084 $772,084 $21,000 2.6% 6.6% Recreation $1,615,139 $1,605,139 $10,000 0.6% 13.7% Aquatics $404,512 $404,512 $0 0.0% 3.4% Therapeutic Recreation $159,168 $159,168 $0 0.0% 1.4% Golf Course $790,569 $784,069 $6,500 0.8% 6.7% TOTAL for Parks, Open Space, and $4,295,485 $4,257,985 $37,500 0.9% 36.3% 2.4% Recreation Functions Fiscal Year 2014 Operating Budget Requests & Allocations13 In FY 2015, unfunded requests for Department of Public Services parks and open space functions totaled $121,000. The majority of these funds were requested for temporary help. The gap between what the Department of Recreation & Facilities requested for parks and recreation functions was almost $200,000. Over half was an unfunded request for golf course supplies. The remainder represents a mix of supplies, contractual services, and temporary help requests split across all parks and recreation serving Divisions. City Allocation Percent of Departmental Percent Percent of Department/Division (from Municipal Difference City General Request Unfunded Dept. Budget Budget) Fund Budget Department of Public Services $18,059,684 $16,916,779 $1,142,905 6.3% Cemeteries $604,192 $589,617 $14,575 2.4% 3.5% Forestry & Horticulture $615,264 $590,514 $24,750 4.0% 3.5% Districting $2,054,429 $1,972,349 $82,080 4.0% 11.7% TOTAL for Parks, Open Space, and $3,273,885 $3,152,480 $121,405 3.7% 18.6% 1.8% Recreation Functions Department of Recreation and Facilities $11,384,183 $10,829,178 $555,005 4.9% Ice Arena $518,567 $515,429 $3,138 0.6% 4.8% Athletic Facilities $750,922 $737,172 $13,750 1.8% 6.8% Recreation $1,580,026 $1,566,426 $13,600 0.9% 14.5% Aquatics $399,007 $394,007 $5,000 1.3% 3.6% Therapeutic Recreation $160,313 $157,763 $2,550 1.6% 1.5% Golf Course $854,412 $694,527 $159,885 18.7% 6.4% TOTAL for Parks, Open Space, and $4,263,247 $4,065,324 $197,923 4.6% 37.5% 2.4% Recreation Functions 11 In the Department of Public Services, the Divisions of Cemeteries, Forestry & Horticulture, and Districting are being defined as those primarily serving parks, open space, and recreation functions. In the Department of Recreation and Facilities, the Divisions of the Ice Arena, Athletic Facilities, Recreation, Aquatics, Therapeutic Recreation, and the Golf Course are being defined as those primarily serving parks, open space, and recreation functions. 12 From City of Portland Municipal Budget July 1, 2014– June 30, 2015. 13 From City of Portland Municipal Budget July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014. 5  Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation Objective: The Trust for Public Land created a rapid assessment tool to evaluate the public parks’ accessibility, active amenities, educational uses, supportive facilities, aesthetics, safety and maintenance conditions. The Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation is meant to provide a snapshot‐in‐time analysis to help assess comparative current park quality; provide a baseline for future evaluations; and inform decision‐making regarding future investments. The Trust for Public Land understands that park quality is not solely based upon these factors and that there are other elements that could be included in a comprehensive analysis (such as park design and/or surrounding land‐use conditions), however due to resource constraints and our desire to provide a replicable and affordable tool, we developed and deployed this rapid park quality assessment tool to evaluate Portland’s parks. Process: A total of 61 parks were evaluated over five days in mid‐June by three staff from The Trust for Public Land.1 Staff began with a three hour calibration session to assure consistent scoring between evaluators. The Trust for Public Land staff then met with two City of Portland staff to field review the tool with them. (Note: the tool had already been vetted with city staff and a subcommittee of the Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Stakeholder Group, and it had been previously beta tested in the field). Each park was evaluated for the following factors: accessibility; trails; park features; supportive facilities; safety and maintenance; and aesthetics. For parks that did not have certain features present (e.g. trail, active amenity, supportive facility, or other recreational and educational use), a N/A was denoted. All parks have the possibility of scoring a perfect score [5.0]. Additionally, while on site, the evaluators documented obvious (to the lay‐person) location‐ specific deficiencies. In tandem with the rapid assessment tool, evaluators also created an inventory of amenities (by amenity category) for each park and recorded the precise public access points for all 61 parks using GPS. This information is being integrated into Portland’s GIS system. 1 For purposes of this rapid park quality assessment, Portland city staff and Trust for Public Land staff defined a park as "any publicly owned open space in Portland that is intended to be used for passive or active recreation." Using this definition, city staff developed a list of parks for the park evaluation (See Appendix A). Trust for Public Land staff evaluated all of these parks for this evaluation except for 1 park on Peaks Island and 1 park on Cliff Island that they were not able to assess due to time constraints (denoted by asterisks). Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 1 Recommendations: This section focuses on conveying overarching recommendations for city staff and other stakeholder consideration for improving the quality of Portland’s parks. There are some suggestions for individual parks that the evaluators noted during the field work, and those will be transmitted to city staff separately. 1) Promote park character. Although the majority of parks are in good condition, many lack individuality or character; and taken together, the park system therefor lacks diversity. We recommend creative place‐making on an individual park basis. Besides improving the user experience, creative place making can greatly enhance the aesthetic value of the parks. 2) Improve signage. Consider using signage to create a brand identity for the Portland park system. Every park should have a branded “City of Portland Park” sign with the name of the park. Signage can also be useful to promote Portland’s history and legacy (i.e. signage for downtown plazas/squares, “Castle in the Park,” Bell Buoy Park, etc.) Signs can also help better promote Portland’s trail connectivity. There are currently several kiosks highlighting citywide trail connectivity; but additional maps/kiosks could be useful. 3) Better maintain the basketball courts, baseball fields and soccer fields. Among the athletic facilities, these seemed to be most in need of repair and improved maintenance. 4) Re‐paint crosswalks in proximity to parks and open spaces. 5) Better designate entrances and perimeters for community gardens (i.e. flagstones or pavers leading to entrance gates, upgrade fences for gardens) 6) Install more supportive facilities. i. "No Butts About it" receptacles for cigarette butts, as the vast majority of litter in the parks is cigarette butts. (Unless this is perceived as contradictory to the "Breathe Easy" signs posted at these public spaces.) ii. Trash cans, and where trash cans are not present, have "pack in/pack out" signs iii. Bike racks for parks that don’t already have them iv. Water fountains at school playgrounds / athletic fields v. Where dogs are allowed [as shown by leash law signs, etc.] have dog waste bags available (e.g. cemeteries, natural areas, etc.) 7) Address erosion of dirt trails in parks. This should be a priority for maintenance staff or consider leveraging AmeriCorps trail crews to help with trail maintenance. Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 2 Results: The value of the rapid park assessment tool is not so much in judging the overall park system, but rather in providing a comparative analysis for parks within the system. Accordingly, in the sections that follow we list the highest scoring parks and lowest scoring parks. In the first section (directly below) we provide the overall results. Then we list results by category. Overall Park Evaluation Score: This is a cumulative weighted score of park access, trails, active amenities, other recreational, fitness, and educational uses, supportive facilities, safety and appearance concerns, and aesthetics. Highest scored parks [all sites with scores 5.0 – 4.9] Back Cove Trail Boothby Square Mayor Baxter Woods Congress Square Park Longfellow Square Lobsterman Park Post Office Park Eastern Promenade Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 3.6 – 4.0] Lincoln Park Longfellow Elementary school Riverton Trolley Park Martin Point Park Trinity Park Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 3 Park Evaluation Score for Accessibility: This category evaluates park entrances, safe and convenient access to entrances, transportation access, and accessibility to all park areas. Highest scored parks [all sites with a score of 5.0] Back Cove Trail Boothby Square Mayor Baxter Woods Congress Square Park Longfellow Square Lobsterman Park Post Office Park Eastern Promenade Tommy’s Park Hall School Bayside Trail Riverton School Bell Buoy Park Bramhall Square Harbor View Memorial Park Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 3.0 – 4.0] Martin Point Park Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Riverton Trolley Park Belmade Park Stroudwater Park 1 Quarry Run Dog Park Fox Field Pine Grove Park Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 4 Park Evaluation Score for Trails: This category evaluates paved trails or paths, in addition to dirt trails. Not all parks contained trails. Highest scored parks [all sites with a score of 5.0]: Back Cove Trail Mayor Baxter Woods Post Office Park Hall School Bayside Trail Riverton School Presumpscot School Ocean Avenue School Deering HS / Longfellow Elementary Deering High School / Longfellow – Presumpscot Park Capisic Pond Park University Park Tate‐Tyng Tot Lot Payson Park Fort Sumner Park Munjoy Playground Caldwell Square Baxter Pines Nason’s Corner Park Pine Grove Park Quarry Run Dog Park Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 2.0 – 3.5] Peppermint Park Lincoln Park Trinity Park Longfellow Elementary School Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 5 Park Evaluation Score for Active Amenities: This category evaluates sports fields & courts, and other active recreational structures. Not all parks contained active amenities. Highest scored parks [all sites with scores 5.0 – 4.5] Back Cove Trail Deering High School / Longfellow – Presumpscot Park Quarry Run Dog Park Peppermint Park Adams School Playground Heseltine Park Ocean Avenue School Deering Oaks Park Eastern Promenade Payson Park Tate‐Tyng Tot Lot Munjoy Playground Lyseth / Lyman Moore School Grounds Bayside Playground Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 3.0 – 4.0] Stroudwater Playground Riverton Trolley Park Longfellow Elementary School Nason’s Corner Park Riverton School Dougherty Field Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 6 Park Evaluation Score for Other Uses: This category evaluates other recreational and educational uses. Not all parks contained other uses. Highest scored parks [all sites with a score of 5.0]: Deering High School / Longfellow – Presumpscot Park Adams School Playground Heseltine Park Eastern Promenade Payson Park Lyseth / Lyman Moore School Grounds Deering HS/ Longfellow Elementary Western Promenade Fox Field Hall School Clark Street Park University Park Fort Sumner Park Caldwell Square Baxter Pines Pine Grove Park Evergreen Cemetery Conservation Area at Evergreen Cemetery Longfellow Park Fessenden Park Bedford Park Oat Nuts Park Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Boothby Square Longfellow Square Compass Park Belmade Park Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 1.0 – 3.7]: Longfellow Elementary School Martin Point Park Lincoln Park Harbor View Memorial Park Reiche School Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 7 Park Evaluation Score for Supportive Facilities: This category evaluates supportive facilities such as permanent restrooms, sufficient number of trash cans, functioning drinking fountains, man‐made shelters/natural shade, and benches. Highest scored parks [all sites with a score of 5.0]: Eastern Promenade Payson Park Western Promenade Mayor Baxter Woods Post Office Park Evergreen Cemetery Longfellow Park Oat Nuts Park Boothby Square Longfellow Square Compass Park Belmade Park Back Cove Trail Congress Square Park Deering Oaks Par Lobsterman Park Bell Buoy Park Quarry Run Dog Park Dougherty Field Capisic Pond Park Tommy’s Park Monument Square Reiche School Harbor View Memorial Park Martin Point Park Longfellow Elementary School Peppermint Park Tate‐Tyng Tot Lot Bramhall Square Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 1.0 – 3.0]: Canco Woods Natural Area Stroudwater Park 1 Bedford Park Pine Grove Park Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 8 University Park Deering High School / Longfellow – Presumpscot Park Caldwell Square Fort Sumner Park Heseltine Park Trinity Park Stroudwater Playground Riverton Trolley Park Nason’s Corner Park Ocean Avenue School Stroudwater Park 2 East End School and Community Center Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Fessenden Park Lyseth / Lyman Moore School Grounds Adams School Playground Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 9 Park Evaluation Score for Safety and Maintenance: This category evaluates park context/surrounding environment, maintenance concerns, inappropriate park use, park design, directional signage, and nighttime safety. Highest scored parks [all sites with a score of 5.0] Longfellow Park Boothby Square Congress Square Park Lobsterman Park Fessenden Park Trinity Trail Back Cove Trail Belmade Park Deering HS/Longfellow Elementary Stroudwater Playground Caldwell Square Bedford Park Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 3.8 – 4.4] Harbor View Memorial Park Bayside Trail Compass Park Lincoln Park Martin Point Park Fox Field Bell Buoy Park Riverton Trolley Park Bramhall Square Fort Sumner Field Dougherty Field Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 10 Park Evaluation Score for Aesthetics: This category evaluates aesthetics; including: diversity of use and activity, variety and presence of vegetation, variety and coordination in programmed environments, high quality materials, sense of style, effective mitigation of noise and surrounding land uses, and history and culture celebrated by park design. Highest scored parks [all sites with scores 5.0 – 4.9] Oat Nuts Park Conservation Area at Evergreen Cemetery Presumpscot School Adams School Playground Heseltine Park University Park Pine Grove Park Eastern Promenade Congress Square Park Back Cove Trail Ocean Avenue School Mayor Baxter Woods Evergreen Cemetery Lobsterman Park Monument Square Longfellow Square Quarry Run Dog Park Lowest scored parks [all sites with scores 3.4 – 4.3] Bramhall Square Fox Field Lincoln Park Longfellow Elementary School Riverton Trolley Park Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial Trinity Park Bell Buoy Park Bedford Park Riverton School Martin Point Park Belmade Park Compass Park Tommy’s Park Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 11  Appendix A A complete park list for the 2015 Portland Park Evaluation. 1. Adams School Playground 2. Back Cove Trail 3. Barrows Park / Baxter’s Sundial 4. Baxter Pines 5. Bayside Playground 6. Bayside Trail 7. Bedford Park 8. Bell Buoy Park 9. Belmade Park 10. Boothby Square 11. Bramhall Square 12. Caldwell Square 13. Canco Woods Natural Area 14. Capisic Pond Park 15. Clark Street Park 16. Compass Park 17. Congress Square Park 18. Conservation Area at Evergreen Cemetery 19. Deering High School / Longfellow ‐ Presumpscot Park 20. Deering High School / Longfellow Elementary 21. Deering Oaks Park 22. Dougherty Field 23. East End School and Community Center 24. Eastern Promenade 25. Evergreen Cemetery 26. Fessenden Park 27. Fort Sumner Park 28. Fox Field 29. Hall School 30. Harbor View Memorial Park 31. Heseltine Park 32. Lincoln Park 33. Lobsterman Park 34. Longfellow Elementary School 35. Longfellow Park Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 12 36. Longfellow Square 37. Lyseth / Lyman Moore School Grounds 38. Martin Point Park 39. Mayor Baxter Woods 40. Monument Square 41. Munjoy Playground 42. Nason's Corner Park 43. Oat Nuts Park 44. Ocean Avenue School 45. Payson Park 46. Peppermint Park 47. Pine Grove Park 48. Post Office Park 49. Presumpscot School 50. Quarry Run Dog Park 51. Reiche School 52. Riverton School 53. Riverton Trolley Park 54. Stroudwater Park 1 55. Stroudwater Park 2 56. Stroudwater Playground 57. Tate‐Tyng Tot Lot 58. Tommy’s Park 59. Trinity Park 60. University Park 61. Western Promenade 62. Ace Ballfield* 63. City Acres Ballfield* Summer 2015 Portland Park Evaluation 13