Gresham has a long history of protecting its natural areas and open spaces.

It has a deep and abiding love for nature, from its buttes and watersheds. Somehow, the city maintains this rich history of funding bonds to protect such resources but has not been able to fully fund parks and recreation services.

Granted, much of the funding passed to protect streams and wildlife habitat was done at the regional level through Metro Regional Government.

Then again, Gresham was one of the very first municipalities to pass an open space bond in 1990. The $10.25 million measure that voters approved in 1990 acquired 152 acres of forested buttes in the upper Johnson Creek Watershed. (Sidenote: it happens to be the same year that voters in part of Clackamas County established the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District covering portions of the lower Johnson Creek Watershed.)

Voters regionally approved more bond measures in 1995 and in 2006, protecting natural areas and lands near rivers and streams throughout the Portland metropolitan region, including East Multnomah County’s share of the Johnson Creek Watershed. 

But as Gresham’s population grew and its tax-base remained stagnant, the mix of revenues that previously funded parks and recreation — mainly property taxes, with some grants, user fees and system development charges — could no longer even begin to pay for it. 

A 2009 master plan suggested exploring a utility fee as a short-term fix for the existing park system and formation of a new park district to meet longer-term needs. 

The plan also identified almost $300 million in potential park improvements. At the top of residents wish lists — walking trails, park development and maintenance, plus a community center and a swimming complex.

Instead, deep cuts continued. Even basic level service could no longer be sustained. 

During one particularly grim summer, city staff removed old playground equipment that was no longer safe for public use. Meager funds paid for little more than mowing the grass and taking out the trash.

A short time later, city leaders floated a levy, but voters didn’t pass the tax increases needed to fully fund police, fire, and provide anything beyond the most basic of parks maintenance.

So, in 2013 Gresham began charging a “temporary” monthly utility fee of $7.50 cents per household to maintain the city's police, fire, and park budgets.

The following year, Gresham voters rejected a tax increase to better fund police, fire, and parks. And in 2016, voters failed to pass a $48 million bond to fund a community center with recreation programs, swimming, and aquatics. Instead, residents from Gresham travel west to the East Portland Community Center to swim or use the pool at Mt. Hood Community College.

In the past, Gresham has had to rely on grass roots, community led efforts to create new parks. Citizens levied grants and Metro dollars to turn neglected Nadaka into a nature park. A similar effort sparked the Gradin Sports Park.

When a Metro levy passes, Gresham residents must create a list of projects that need funding and select just one to see to fruition. 

It shouldn’t be that way.

With a city-based park district, Gresham could stabilize services and create a real recreation program. A county service district could fund parks and offer expanded recreational options, like the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District, which serves about 100,000 residents. 

A truly regional approach serving all East Multnomah County’s approximately 325,000 residents might look more like the model created by the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District in the Beaverton area. It serves about 200,000 residents and is the state’s largest such district.

Whether we go small, medium, or large with a district, such a construct would put our checkered funding past where it belongs, in the past, and bridge us to a new tomorrow.