Today, we stand on the edge of what could be a monumental step forward in the creation of a parks and special services district for East Multnomah County.
Spending on parks and recreation has not kept pace with East County’s growing and increasingly diverse population (our population is approximately 6 percent African American, double the region’s rate, and 17 percent Hispanic, 1.5 times the region’s rate). The small slice of the city’s budget pie allocated toward parks is not nearly enough to develop future parks, yet alone maintain existing ones.
Gresham doesn’t even have a recreation program.
That’s right: Other than a few summer offerings, the fourth largest city in Oregon has no recreation program.
In reaction to pandemic-caused budget constraints, city leaders in the fall of 2020 doubled a temporary utility fee that largely funds police and fire. A small part of that fee — which is applied to every Gresham household, from the toniest house in Persimmon to the smallest apartment in Rockwood — is allocated to parks and recreation.
City leaders are pledging to spend approximately $300,000 from the parks-and-rec-share of that fee increase to create a recreation program.
Some speculate the city will team up with community groups like PlayEast! to support enhanced and additional recreation programs.
It’s a start.
We love that this approach leverages shared resources, a concept that the foundation of a park district would be based upon. For example, the city could partner with the Rosewood Initiative and the Boys & Girls Clubs in Rockwood to build on what is already being done well to maximize investment and growing success.
Diagram of district concept
By using existing infrastructure, or investing in improving what we already have, park districts are an efficient way to fund park and recreation programs.
But let’s be honest: $300,000 is not nearly enough money to fund a robust recreation program to serve Gresham’s population.
Plus, that $300,000 is one-time funding.
It comes from a temporary increase.
A temporary increase to a temporary fee. Even the proposed fiscal year 2021-22 budget described the funding as “seed money” for the re-establishment of a potential recreation program. Seed money is not true funding.
A district would provide stable, predictable, dedicated funding for recreation, parks, and other services the public deems desirable. Like perhaps a senior center. After all, seniors comprise 13 percent of Gresham’s population. Or programs specific to the needs of our area’s youth. A quarter of all Gresham residents are younger than 18.
This community building was made possible by the North Clackamas Parks District, which uses the building for everything from classes on tax preparation to events for seniors.
Take Middle School sports: most have been cut from our local schools. Kids who want to join a team sport need to go through a private provider, but with 20 percent of East County families living in poverty, many families can’t afford that.
Yet our kids can’t afford not to be athletic. Sports keep kids out of trouble, makes graduating high school more likely and lowers drug-use rates.
The 2018 graduation rate for East County’s 4-year high schools was 73 percent, down from Multnomah County’s rate of 77 percent and Oregon’s rate of 79 percent, according to ECO Northwest.
During the 2018-19 school year, 43,481 students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch in East County’s three districts. That’s a 36 percent increase since 2014-2015 in just four years. In 2017, 65 percent of East County students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Successful parks and recreation programs can provide children with a critical link to food during summer months, which is important because children in poverty have higher health risks, greater academic failure rates and more delinquency. Programs for children to recreate or learn before or after school provide educational and social support, while parks and recreation offer summer job opportunities and a safe place to engage in sports and play.
Honestly, residents of all ages need recreation programs. Only half of Americans get enough exercise.
Plus, parks provide those who live in Gresham's many apartments with a place to play, exercise or just relax. Gresham has more than 111,000 residents living in more than 43,000 housing units citywide. Of those housing units, approximately 47% are multifamily units, which is higher than the regional rate of 38%, and slightly higher than the rate in Portland of 44%.
So, we need to squeeze every penny’s worth of value from this $300,000 and figure out a way to multiply it, so consistent, reliable recreational programming can be offered to East County children, teens, and adults.
Gresham has just created a citizen advisory group for parks and recreation. Its mission is it to weigh in on how to best allocate the $300,000, use community feedback to prioritize park projects for construction in coming years (if the money is ever available) and to explore ways to pay for more parks and recreation services long-term.
Long-term is the kicker.
Today’s system of property taxes funding parks – with occasional cash infusion from regional Metro levies — isn’t working. That’s because Gresham has one of the lowest tax rates in the state, at $3.61 per $1,000 of taxable assessed property value. Some neighboring communities have twice that amount, such as Portland at $7.24. Only one has less: Wood Village at $3.49 cents.
The lion’s share of that money goes to police and fire, and even they are not properly funded.
As for parks, that department is only budgeted to receive around $4 million out of the city’s $77 million general fund operating budget, according to the proposed 2021-22 budget.
Some might be tempted to think a levy is the answer to stabilize funding for parks and recreation. While it could be a way to retire the community service fee on utility bills, levies require renewal and again, only property-tax payers chip in to pay for them.
Special districts are permanent. Funding levels are whatever the community is comfortable with to fund whatever it deems valuable: $2 a household including multifamily units? $2.50? Can we hear $3?
Which is why the council-approved parks district feasibility study must get off the ground. It is the only way to determine whether a parks district is a viable option to fund these needed services. Although city councilors approved spending $100,000 on the study in 2020, it has yet to be commissioned. Other projects/consultants have since siphoned away those funds.
Gresham’s new parks and recreation advisory committee is tasked with a big job in exploring best funding strategies for long-term investment. There are trail systems that need money for completion. Gresham has at least 9 city parks that are underdeveloped or undeveloped. And although the most recent budget calls for improvements to Gradin Sports Park, funding is pending as the previously awarded Oregon State Lottery grant was put on hold due to COVID-related impacts to lottery revenues, according to the city’s proposed fiscal year 2021-22 budget.
This grass-roots-community-led effort is worthy of more than improvement, it needs to be completed. Until then, the region is striking out on potential economic wins from hosting youth and sports tournaments. Gas, food, lodging – it all adds up to stimulate our local economy.
Members of Gresham’s new parks and recreation advisory committee have a tall order ahead of them. We encourage them to seriously considers the district concept.