In an email newsletter last week, Portland City Councilor Dan Ryan came out against the ballot measure that would create a new, increased levy to help fund the city's parks system. In the newsletter, Ryan—who oversaw Portland’s parks bureau for a period of time prior to the city’s government transition—said he supports the city’s parks. Still, he made the “hard decision” to vote “no” on the levy. 

"Parks needs a shakeup and a no vote is what is necessary to wake us up and deliver reforms," Ryan said in the newsletter, which was distributed through his official city email address and social media accounts. 

Ryan’s message came just days before Election Day. Measure 26-260, which would raise the current parks levy rate by 75 percent and be in effect for five years, is the only item on Portlanders’ ballots. In July, Ryan was one of 11 councilors to vote “yes” to refer the measure to the November ballot. 

The levy has received widespread support from organizations across the city, including from groups typically at odds with one another when it comes to lobbying interests. The Portland Democratic Socialists of America chapter supports the measure, as does the Portland Metro Chamber. None of Ryan’s 11 fellow councilors have come out against the measure, and several have endorsed it, canvassing for the levy on the weekends. 

Ryan’s comments denouncing the parks levy were met with criticism from some of his Council colleagues, as well as others who support the measure. Some critics pointed out that Oregon statute doesn’t allow public employees to promote or oppose the adoption of a measure during working hours or while acting in their official job capacity. The rules don’t apply to elected officials themselves, but may take effect if members of Ryan’s staff assisted with the messaging. State rules dictate that an elected official may advocate a political position in a public agency’s newsletter “so long as public employees did not alter or edit the content in any substantive way.” 

Spencer Raymond, Ryan’s communications director, told the Mercury that Portlanders have been inquiring for months about the councilor’s perspective on the parks levy, but he remained undecided until last week. 

“Our office worked thoughtfully to share his perspective with the community,” Raymond said in an emailed statement. “In the event that issues about our communications process are found, our office will be transparent in addressing them." 

Other members of City Council have also taken an official perspective on the levy, but have distributed their messages about the policy through their campaign accounts. 

In his newsletter, Ryan said he was concerned with the 75 percent increase to the current levy, writing that such an increase is “not acceptable” in 2025. The new measure would set a tax rate of $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed property value, costing the average Portland homeowner roughly $310 per year. It’s a jump from the 80 cents per $1,000 of assessed value Portland property owners currently pay, but parks leaders—and city councilors—determined the increase was necessary given the bureau’s current needs. 

Ryan said he thinks Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) should attempt to secure funding through other means before turning to a tax increase. In particular, he said he thinks the city isn’t taking full advantage of the potential for public-private partnerships to fund parks bureau services. He also suggested tweaking the bureau’s program that allows Portlanders to access activity fee discounts of up to 90 percent. PP&R doesn’t require proof of income to access such discounts, but does offer guidelines. Ryan says he’s asked about the program multiple times, and received “baffling” responses. 

“We’re leaving money on the table, and as a result, our earned revenue is much lower than it should be, which in turn limits our ability to expand financial assistance for those who truly need it,” Ryan wrote. 

Parks bureau staff have said they believe the access program, which was established through the 2020 parks levy, is worth it as a way to encourage people of all incomes to participate in parks and recreation activities. 

Ryan also criticized the state statute dictating how System Development Charge (SDC) funds are spent. SDCs are one-time fees on new development projects, which fund parks and recreation infrastructure. The city has historically interpreted state rules around SDC revenue to require the funds only be used on capital projects that expand the parks bureau’s capacity, such as acquiring land for and developing new parks, or expanding existing parks—and not on maintenance. 

A recent report released by the City Auditor’s Office highlighted the parks bureau’s major maintenance backlog, and pointed out how the SDC system incentivizes the city to invest in new parks developments without considering future maintenance needs. In Ryan’s email, he said he was “flabbergasted” when he found out about the SDC spending restrictions. 

“If this rule was not the letter of the law, I would have invested in deferred maintenance when I was Parks Commissioner in 2023,” Ryan said. “I will continue to ask the Mayor and Government Affairs to ‘fix’ this nonsensical law.” 

Ryan is not the only councilor with concerns about SDC spending rules and parks maintenance. In fact, when the City Council voted in July to refer the parks levy measure to voters, they also agreed to look into ways to alleviate the restrictions on SDC funds—perhaps by reevaluating how the city interprets state statute—so they could be spent on capital asset maintenance. 

To some of Ryan’s City Council colleagues, his decision to denounce the parks levy is puzzling, particularly because he said he supported the measure only a few months ago. In July, Ryan voted with the rest of Portland City Council to send the measure to the November ballot, saying he was “thrilled with the crisp performance measures” included in the levy. 

It’s unclear why Ryan changed his mind in the months since. In his newsletter, he said he “voted to send this levy to voters with the hopes that the bureau would begin needed reforms,” but he has “yet to see meaningful changes.” 

“I wouldn’t have sent this to voters if I knew now what the audit has told us, and I trust many of my Council colleagues would have done the same,” Ryan wrote. 

But Ryan’s Council colleagues largely appear to remain supportive of the levy. They say the problems identified in the audit are legitimate, but denying the parks bureau necessary funding won’t be what solves them. 

“Frankly, I’m shocked that my colleague Dan Ryan isn’t supporting this levy. He should have been part of the solution back when he was Commissioner-in-Charge of the Parks Bureau in the old form of government,” Councilor Jamie Dunphy wrote in a newsletter of his own. “Don’t worry. The rest of the new Portland City Council is eager to fix the mess that was left for us. But we can’t do that if we immediately have to cut the bureau in half.” 

Councilor Mitch Green, who has endorsed and canvassed for the levy, said he’s “sympathetic to the cost-control arguments and [recognizes] our asset management problem.” But, he said, “those problems don’t go away if you don’t pass the parks levy.” 

“I’m going to support it,” Green said in an interview with the Mercury. “With the federal government attacking and taking away our social safety net, we need to be standing up for our public goods in the city of Portland.” 

Green also pointed to Ryan’s previous role leading the bureau, saying he “had opportunities to engage in cost-control” back then. The auditor’s report alluded to decisions Ryan made when he was the commissioner in charge of PP&R as well, though it didn’t mention the councilor by name. 

The auditor’s report specifically pointed to a 2023 decision to invest in upgrades at North Portland’s University Park, calling it an example of “ad hoc decision-making” that reflected political pressure instead of long-term service needs. Ryan was the commissioner in charge of the parks bureau at that time. He has highlighted the work at University Park as part of a set of North Portland parks improvement projects. 

In 2024, Ryan directed $15 million in SDC revenue toward a skatepark project in Old Town, which the auditor’s report cited as an example of the city’s habit of investing in new parks and recreation construction without adequate planning for their longstanding maintenance needs. 

“To come out now, after voting in favor of the resolution referring a new levy [to the ballot], it just feels like it’s unserious,” Green said.“We’re not going to deal with the oversight and structural changes we need to make to the parks system by using our official office resources to campaign against the parks levy.” 

Election Day is today, November 4. Early results will come in shortly after the polls close at 8 pm. If Portland voters opt against the new parks levy, PP&R will face a $90 million budget shortfall.