Correcting Public Misconceptions – Update 2 (CFO Section)

As part of our ongoing effort to ensure everyone has accurate information, this update focuses on several public statements made by the City CFO about PP&R’s budget and the 2025 Parks Levy. Some of these statements created confusion about PTC’s financial status. This summary explains what was correct, what was incomplete, and what the City’s own financial documents actually show.

Understanding the City CFO’s Statements on PP&R’s Budget and the 2025 Levy

Several players have asked why different financial numbers were mentioned during City Council discussions about the Portland Tennis Center and PP&R’s budget. This update summarizes what PP&R has confirmed and how the City CFO’s framing created confusion.

PTC’s Real Operating Cost and Revenue

PP&R has confirmed that PTC’s operating cost is $1.63 million. 
This is the true cost to run the facility, including staffing, utilities, and maintenance.

PTC generated $882,458 in earned revenue, including all discounted‑pass rates.

The $2.2 million figure is not PTC’s operating cost. 
It came from a City CFO cost‑allocation process that added Citywide overhead and systemwide expenses shared across many Parks facilities. Because these added costs are not specific to PTC, using $2.2 million as PTC’s operating cost is incorrect.

 How the CFO Framed PP&R’s Budget

The CFO’s public statements suggested that:

• PP&R was “structurally insolvent.”
• Rising costs reflected inefficiency.
• PP&R “did not generate enough revenue.”
• The levy represented a “75% increase.”
• Discounts were “not tied to means testing.”
• The City “spends $2.2M per year to run PTC.”

Key context was not included, such as reserves, inflation, labor contracts, or Council policy decisions that shaped PP&R’s budget.

 
What Was Incorrect, Incomplete, or Misleading

• PTC is revenue positive; the $2.2M figure is not its operating cost.
• PP&R’s earned revenue is among the highest in the nation for a parks system.
• Discounts are means tested, and the levy backfills them.
• Cost growth was citywide, not PP&R‑specific.
• The “75% increase” lacked context about the base rate.
• Rising costs were linked to inefficiency rather than inflation and labor obligations.

Why This Matters

The CFO’s framing made PP&R appear unstable and inefficient, which does not match PP&R’s financial reports.
Understanding the difference between direct operating costs and bundled allocations helps the community interpret the numbers used in Council discussions about the 2025 levy.