Portland Open Space Vision — Portland, ME
Date: 2015-08-05

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