The Portland Parks levy won voters’ approval last week, but city officials shouldn’t feel too victorious over its passage.

No one should celebrate a 75% increase in the parks tax rate on Portlanders already stretched thin amid an affordability and housing crisis. The fact that Portland city leaders pitched this measure as a stark choice between paying more or forcing deep cuts to programs and jobs does not bode well for how they will seek to solve the many other funding dilemmas facing the city. And the results of the low-turnout election, while easily enough for Measure 26-260 to pass, are cause for reflection: Without any organized opposition, the measure secured just under 56% approval – eight points lower than support for the previous parks levy in 2020.

City leaders should hear the message behind that lack of enthusiasm: They are on borrowed time to get Parks and Recreation’s house in order.

There’s a lot to tackle. Operational costs have ballooned so much that the massive increase in the property tax rate won’t buy any new services or programs but simply maintain what the city now offers. The tiny amount dedicated to major maintenance means that decaying buildings like the Community Music Center and the dozens of other assets in “very poor” condition remain at risk for closure. And the bureau’s irresponsible decisions to open new parks without a plan to pay for their upkeep, as detailed in a city audit, represents a significant violation of public trust, not to mention failure in financial stewardship.

So where to begin?

The 2025 measure offers one place to start – the community oversight committee, which will be tasked with examining expenditures, performance metrics and submitting an annual report to the City Council. But the credibility and strength of the committee will depend on who is appointed to serve.

Unfortunately, like the 2020 levy, the measure gives the parks bureau director authority to make the committee appointments – an arrangement that can head off criticisms or questions that the bureau needs to address. While it’s too late to fix that obvious flaw in the measure, parks’ permanent director should commit to including informed critics. There are many, such as former City Council candidate Bob Weinstein and Portland architect Rod Merrick, who laid out a persuasive argument why voters should reject the measure and press for an alternative.

Last month’s audit highlighting the bureau’s failures offers other recommendations for improvement that the city has already pledged to follow. But parks officials should commit to doing more than the bare minimum. A plan to launch a website detailing cost-savings, for example, is set to go live by the end of the year. But it should also explain why operational costs have gone up so much beyond citing “cost of services.” For example, the per-hour cost of a full-time employee equivalent has gone up 41% from the 2021 fiscal year to 2025, according to the bureau. That stems from soaring increases in pension costs – including the city’s decision to cover the 6% of salary that employees must contribute to their retirement – along with increases in health insurance, staff salaries and significant cost-of-living adjustments. The bureau must be transparent with the public about these increases – many of which affect all city bureaus – and determine how far public dollars go.

To their credit, city officials are already working on a citywide plan for addressing billions of dollars worth of deferred maintenance for assets, including up to $800 million in needed fixes at community centers, pools, restrooms and other parks bureau facilities. But considering the severe condition of some assets, the city should start a community discussion now assessing the true costs and challenges to restore some of the facilities in the poorest of conditions.

Ultimately, the city’s ability to meet its deadlines and make real progress depends on the commitment of those at the top. On that front, even “no” voters can take comfort that Mayor Keith Wilson appears to understand that the city cannot take voters’ love for parks for granted. In an op-ed in today’s Opinion section, Wilson thanked voters for buying the city time to address parks’ financial challenges and acknowledged the need to bring greater stability and transparency to parks. And critically, he called for a “clear plan on capital maintenance, efficiencies and cost savings,” while hinting at the tough choices ahead.

His ability to put the parks bureau on stronger footing will be a test of not only city leaders, but whether this new form of government will be more successful in solving thorny, politically fraught problems better than the one before. The worst outcome is if five years from now, we’re facing the same question of whether to hike taxes significantly or see fewer services.

Certainly, the measure’s passage is good news for city leaders who, arguably, did not have the time to develop a better funding solution in this first year of an entirely new form of government. Just creating committees and negotiating agenda setting have been a time-consuming challenge for the new City Council. The levy’s passage gives them and the parks bureau time to develop a strategy.

Unfortunately, too many Portlanders don’t have that same ability to stave off financial reality. Even as city leaders breathe a sigh of relief over the measure’s passage, they should not forget who is paying the price.

-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are John Maher, Laura Gunderson, Karly Imus, Helen Jung, Elliot Njus and Brad Schmidt.

Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on pressing state and local issues. We publish editorials when we believe our perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and separate from news articles.

If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.