Memorandum 
 
To: Brett Henry, Parks Division Manager, Lane County Parks; Rebecca Lewis, Associate 
Professor, University of Oregon 
From: Katie Fields, Emerson Hoagland, Amelia Rhodeland, and Laney Wood 
Date: December 11, 2019 
Re: Deferred Maintenance Funding Strategies 
 
Overview 
This memorandum is in response to a request from Lane County Parks for potential revenue 
sources to address maintenance backlog and to provide suggestions for sustainable long-term 
maintenance funding for Lane County Parks. The following sections provide context for this 
memorandum, case studies of comparable Oregon parks departments and districts, three potential 
funding packages for Lane County Parks, and the recommendations based on our findings. Also 
provided is a matrix along which we evaluated our funding packages. 
Context 
Lane County Parks faces a $20 million maintenance backlog for its 69 parks and open spaces. 
The parks division currently relies on revenue from service fees, transient room tax, and car 
rental tax. The division reports that this is “inadequate for the maintenance, capital, staffing, and 
resource management needs” of operating the parks (Henry, 2019, p. 6). The parks division 
needs innovative solutions in order to address the maintenance backlog. The majority of 
maintenance issues exist at the county’s five campgrounds and three marinas (B. Henry, personal 
communication, November 5, 2019). 
In July 2019, the parks division convened a special task force to identify such funding sources. 
The county is legally able to explore a variety of taxes and new construction fees as possible 
sources. The parks division has also explored a number of funding options including donations, 
bonds, Systems Development Charges, a Local Improvement District, timber revenue, grants, 
public-private partnerships, trusts, exchanges of property, naming rights, park adoption, and 
intergovernmental agreements (Henry, pp. 10-15). 
The funding task force will sunset after 18 months, while funding strategies identified may be 
implemented for the full term of the current parks master plan, which is in effect until 2038 (B. 
Henry, personal communication, November 5, 2019). 
1 
 
Case Studies 
The​ purpose of this section is to explore parks budgeting through detailed case studies. The case 
studies explore how Clackamas, Douglas, Linn, and Tillamook Counties have structured and 
funded their parks divisions so as to provide information on how Lane County can modify how 
they run their parks department. The case studies examine community characteristics of the 
jurisdictions, the governmental organization of the parks departments, and state-enabling statutes 
on parks and park districts. They also discuss the budget process for funding parks.  More 
information on the case studies in this report is provided in the appendix.  
 
 Context Governance Revenues Capital Expenditures 
40 parks, 25 North 50% of revenue $2 million has $6.6 million for 
natural areas, Clackamas from dedicated been allocated administration 
Clackamas 15 miles of Parks & tax base levy for land 
trails Recreation acquisition 
District 
9 campgrounds Parks  $1,500,000 in $640,000 for $1,413,144 for 
and 40 parks Department camp fees restroom personnel 
Douglas and Parks restoration 
Advisory 
Board 
30 County and Board of Largest source  $753,886 for Personnel 
6 US Forest Commissioners of revenue is capital outlay largest 
Linn Service sites sets the online expenditure 
policies reservations category at 
50% 
6 campgrounds Parks Primarily fees Included as a Over $2 
and parks, 21 Department from park special revenue million, the 
Tillamook boat launch and Parks usage and state fund bulk is land 
sites Advisory grants acquisition 
Committee 
  
2 
 
Potential Funding Strategies 
Three proposed funding packages incorporate a variety of sources, including traditional, 
innovative, and recreation-focused funding sources.  
Package 1, Traditional Sources 
The first funding package is comprised of traditional revenue sources. The largest source of 
revenue in the first funding package are the fees and charges from the potential implementation 
of a special parks and recreation district, which could generate up to $1.8 million for Lane 
County Parks (North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District). Fees and charges are only one 
possible source of revenue from a special district, with others being concessions, donation 
campaigns, support from local governments, and tax revenue. The model used to generate the 
revenue estimation for a special district implementation came from the North Clackamas Parks 
and Recreation District, adjusted for population of Lane County (see Appendix A, Table 1 for all 
adjustments made in Package 1).  
Figure 1. Traditional Source Funding Package 
Estimated Financial Yield of Traditional Funding Sources 
Funding Source Proposed Potential Yield 
Park Usage Fees 10% increase $87,400 
Camping and Camp Lane Reservations  10% increase $83,600 
Educational Programs Expansion $1,689,130 
Timber Sales Implementation $254,545 
Special District Implementation Fees and Charges $1,806,170 
Land sales Implementation $200,000 
Total  $4,120,845 
Sources: See reference list. 
The second largest source of revenue in the first funding package comes from educational 
programs which could be implemented by the County Parks Department. This model comes from 
Charleston County Parks, where they invest in programs such as camp registrations, accessibility 
programs and dances as well as custom and public courses. Adjusted for population, this could 
bring in a potential $1.6 million for Lane County Parks (Charleston County Parks). Moreover, 
this would be a sustainable source of revenue to put toward maintenance backlog. Other revenue 
sources in this package include a conservative 10 percent increase in all park usage fees, such as 
fees from parking, moorage, and picnic reservations. Alongside this is a 10 percent increase in all 
camping and Camp Lane reservations, with all increases totalling $171,000 (Lane County Parks). 
Further research suggests Lane County Parks could receive revenue from timber sales and 
management, totalling $280,000, based on a model from Clackamas County. Lastly, revenue 
may be generated from land sales, as seen in other Oregon counties such as Douglas County. 
3 
 
Potential revenue from the sale of one park, which is 99 percent undeveloped, may be up to 
$200,000 (Lane County Property Portal).  
Package 2, Innovative Sources 
The second funding package focuses on innovative funding sources, including the use of park 
facility naming rights, a Park & Ride program, a parks foundation, and a greenhouse native plant 
program. The variety of funding sources in this package provide stability through revenue 
diversification.  
Figure 2. Innovative Funding Package 
Estimated Financial Yield of Innovative Funding Sources 
Funding Source Proposed Potential Yield 
Greenhouse Program Implementation $30,836 
Parks Foundation Implementation $34,262 
Park & Ride $2.50/space, 5 lots with 300 spaces $1,500 
Sponsorships Implementation $205,573 
Boat Rentals Implementation $249,578 
Gift Shop Implementation $76,364 
Golf Course Implementation $181,742 
System Development Charge Implementation $6,223,106 
Total available for deferred maintenance $779,856 
Source: See reference list. 
A major source of funding would be the use of a system development charge (SDC), a fee that is 
charged to new development or expansions to offset the increased burden on local infrastructure. 
In this situation, the SDC would be charged to help cover costs of increased usage of Lane 
County parks and recreation services. It could not be applied directly to the existing Lane County 
Parks maintenance needs, but would assist with the costs of new or expanded projects, allowing 
revenue allocated for this purpose to instead be used for deferred maintenance.  
The SDC estimate for Lane County is derived from the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation 
District SDCs, which yield about $17 million. The Clackamas SDC yield was divided by 2.78, a 
number that was derived through comparison of the number of 2018 new construction permits in 
Clackamas County (1,794) to that of Lane County (645), resulting in an estimated yield of $6 
million for a Lane County SDC. The permit numbers were obtained by searching the county 
databases and counting up relevant new construction permits.  
The remainder of the funding sources in this package were calculated using population 
comparisons (see Appendix A, Table 2 for the calculations behind the estimates included in 
Package 2). King County was a source of many estimations through their King County Parks 
Business Transition Plan, developed and adopted in 2002 in response to a $52 million general 
4 
 
fund shortage (King County, 2002). Using population size adjustments, King County’s numbers 
were used to estimate yields from the Greenhouse Program, Parks Foundation, Park & Ride 
program, and Sponsorships program.  
The estimated yield of the boat rental program was based on the Zilker Park Boat Rental in 
Austin, Texas, which includes rental of kayaks, stand-up paddle boards, and canoes (Austin 
Parks and Recreation, 2018). The gift shop yield is based on the 2019 budgeted net revenue for 
the Nicholas Conservatory gift shop in Rockford, Illinois (Rockford Park District, 2018).  
Clackamas County’s Stone Creek Golf Club Program was developed “with the intent to generate 
a long-term sustainable revenue stream” for Clackamas County Parks and represents an 
intriguing model for revenue generation (Clackamas County, 2019, p. 168). Over the past three 
budget cycles, the Stone Creek Golf Club has produced an annual average of 118% cost recovery 
with revenues consistently exceeding expenditures. From this, about $200,000 of the golf club’s 
net proceeds are budgeted to be passed along to the County Parks division for ongoing 
operations (Clackamas County, 2019). We adjusted this number for population differences. 
Package 3, Recreation Enhancement Sources 
Package 3, the “Recreation Enhancement” package, incorporates some elements from each of the 
prior packages (see Appendix A, Table 3 for detailed calculations for these estimates). The 
majority of this package consists of educational program offerings, which are anticipated to yield 
$1.7 million in revenue. In addition, the park usage fees and special use fees that are included in 
Package 1 have been increased from a 10 percent increase to a 20 percent increase, resulting in a 
combined yield of over $340,000. Boat rentals, a gift shop, and a golf course —all from Package 
2—comprise the remaining $670,000 of Package 3. Package 3 yields an estimated total of $2.7 
million in sustainable revenue streams which could all be useful in addressing Lane County 
Parks’ current needs of maintenance backlog funding, while simultaneously enhancing the 
amenities offered at Lane County’s parks.  
  Figure 3. Recreation Enhancement Funding Package 
Estimated Financial Yield of Recreation Funding Sources 
Funding Source Proposed Potential Yield 
Educational Programs Expansion $1,689,130 
Park Usage Fees 20% increase $174,800 
Camping and Camp Lane Reservations 20% increase $167,200 
Boat Rentals Implementation $249,578 
Gift Shop Implementation $237,743 
Golf Course Implementation $181,742 
Total $2,700,193 
    ​ Source: See reference list. 
5 
 
Evaluation Criteria 
We evaluated our proposed funding packages using six evaluation criteria (Lewis, 2019). The 
following section defines each criterion and evaluates our packages in regards to these criteria 
(see Table 1 on page 7 for a visual display of each package’s ratings). 
Definitions  
First, ​equality ​addresses the impact of revenue generation strategies at different income levels 
and within specific income groups. Second, ​administration​ looks to the ease or difficulty of 
obtaining revenue from the perspective of Lane County Parks. For example, if a revenue stream 
requires a policy decision, development of a fee collection system, and additional hiring, it 
would rank lower in administration than a revenue stream that relied on existing protocols. Next, 
neutrality​ pertains to behavioral effects for users. For example, if a fee increase would make a 
visitor more likely to visit a city park or adjacent county park with a lower fee. P​ roductivity​ rates 
how much revenue the package is likely to generate for the purpose of addressing the 
maintenance backlog. ​Certainty​ refers to clear, evenly-applied rules of revenue collection. 
Finally, ​convenience​ addresses the ease of payment by end-users. 
Package Evaluation 
Packages 1 and 3 are rated as “very good” for equity while Package 2 is rated “excellent” 
because Package 2 relies exclusively on benefits-received revenues, whereas Packages 1 and 3 
include user fee increases that may disproportionately impact lower-income parks users. 
Packages 1 is ranked highest for administration because it does not require development of 
additional programs or revenue collection mechanisms. In assessing neutrality, we considered 
the fact that services like educational programs, golf courses, and greenhouses are likely to draw 
new users to facilities that may not be available elsewhere. However, some users may visit city, 
state, or adjacent counties’ parks instead of Lane County parks where similar amenities exist if 
fees are lower, therefore all three packages are “fair” for neutrality.  
Package 1 generates the largest amount of revenue overall and therefore has the highest 
productivity ranking. Package 2 generates the lowest amount of revenue without inclusion of the 
systems development charge. The systems development charge could only be used for new 
maintenance and capital projects and could not be directly applied to the maintenance backlog 
(Lewis, personal correspondence, November 2019).  
All packages rank highly for certainty because revenue sources can be stated simply and applied 
evenly. Finally, Packages 2 and 3 rank “excellent” for convenience because associated costs can 
be paid at the time of use. Package 1 involves more complex land sales and special districts but 
ranks “very good” because the revenue streams do not cause additional difficulty for users and 
taxpayers. 
6 
 
 
Table 1: Evaluation Criteria 
 Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 
Equity Very Good (2) Excellent (3) Very Good (2) 
Administration Very Good (2) Fair (0) Good (1) 
Neutrality Fair (0) Fair (0) Fair (0) 
Productivity Excellent (3) Poor (-1)* Fair (0) 
Certainty Very Good (2) Excellent (3) Excellent (3) 
Convenience Very Good (2) Excellent (3) Excellent (3) 
SCORE 11 8 9 
 
Recommendations  
Because Package 1 has the highest overall score using our evaluation criteria and is “very good” 
or “excellent” for all criteria with the exception of neutrality, we recommend this as our selected 
revenue package for Lane County Parks. This recommendation comes with a caveat: if a systems 
development charge were implemented, as in Package 2, and freed additional revenue sources to 
address the maintenance backlog, overall productivity would be higher. Additionally, many 
elements of the packages could be recombined with elements from other packages. 
Outcomes and Observations 
Based upon the case studies and the information contained in the funding packages, the 
following suggestions and recommendations can be made to improve the fiscal aspects of Lane 
County Parks.  
The first important case study is Linn County. While Linn County relies on typical sources of 
revenue such as fees, grants, and intergovernmental transfers for much of its funding, some 
smaller, more innovative revenue streams may be informative to other parks districts such as 
Lane County’s. The two primary such strategies utilized by Linn County include boat rental 
facilities and a donations-based memorial paver program. Lane County could scale and adapt 
both types of programs for its own geography and user populations.  
Tillamook County provides some instructive models for park funding, as well. Because fees play 
a large role in parks as a revenue source, one of the most useful tools Lane County Parks could 
implement or potentially improve on is a tiered fee for overnight parks usage, as well as fee 
add-ons such as pets, number of vehicles or boats, tents used, or buildings rented. Moreover, 
7 
 
Tillamook County has made this a very accessible and transparent service done online in a 
user-friendly portal. While Tillamook charges $67 per night for a cabin rental, Lane County 
charges $43, which means Lane County could implement a small price increase to generate 
greater fee revenues as well (Lane County Parks). The sustainable revenue generation of fees 
would be especially useful for the maintenance backlog that Lane County is currently facing, 
whereas sources such as grants may better utilized more in capital projects, such as in Tillamook 
(Tillamook County Parks). There are no other current practices which Lane County should avoid 
that Tillamook County is engaging in. Overall this case study has provided valuable insight into 
the budget practices and funding sources of a county parks department and how those could be 
applied to Lane County Parks in the future.  
A review of Clackamas County’s funding strategies for parks is valuable, to some extent. Given 
that about 50% of the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District (NCPRD) budget comes 
from property taxes, it is somewhat difficult to compare the District’s funding to Lane County’s 
parks program. NCPRD’s complaint about the lack of bond funding for their capital projects 
yielded a helpful suggestion -- a general obligation bond. In addition, NCPRD generates about 
$2 million in fees and charges in one year. Compare this to Lane County’s fees and charges 
revenues of just over $100,000. This discrepancy isn’t a result of Lane County having fewer 
parks or fewer residents, as the County has more of each. A deeper dive into Lane County’s fees 
and charges is in order. 
A big takeaway for Lane County is that Douglas County does not fund its park system from its 
general fund.  While this strategy could potentially have drawbacks in practice, such as leaving 
the Parks Department vulnerable to decreased funding and unpredictability, it also offers a model 
for how to run an organization without the politically tricky task of directly raising or 
re-appropriating taxes.  Douglas County appears to have successfully created a user-based 
revenue system that provides substantial income for the department.  In addition to this, the 
Department has leveraged large amounts of funds from the State of Oregon’s Parks and 
Recreation Department.  
User based fees and grants provide a better template for Lane County going forward than 
Douglas County Parks’ other main source of revenue: selling off its land. It is possible that this 
land represented an unneeded excess, and that selling it off was smart resource management. 
After all, the sale did generate substantial short-term revenues. However, if the goal of Lane 
County Parks is to maintain or even increase its level of service, it is probably uninterested in 
auctioning off large swaths of its holdings. Additionally, it is unclear what the long-term revenue 
potential of the property sold was to Douglas County. It is possible that the land would have been 
more valuable over time as a continuing source of user fees than it is as a one-time sale. 
Ultimately, emphasizing consistency and future-oriented thinking will generally provide a better 
result than otherwise doing so.  
 
  
8 
 
References 
Austin Parks and Recreation Finance Contract Compliance Staff. (2018). Annual Concession 
Report [Contracts and Concessions Committee Meeting]. Retrieved from Austin Parks 
and Recreation website: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=310317 
 
Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission (2017). Annual Report. ​Charleston County 
Parks and Recreation Commission, 3-10.  
 
Clackamas County. (2019). About Clackamas County. Retrieved from Clackamas County 
website: https://www.clackamas.us/pga/about.html 
 
Clackamas County. (2019b). Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2019-20—Clackamas County, 
Oregon.  
 
Descriptions of Linn County Boards, Commissions and Committees (2019, January 1). Retrieved 
from 
http://www.co.linn.or.us/Comm/Descriptions%20of%20Boards%20Commissions%20and
%20Committees.pdf ​  
 
Douglas County. (2008, February 27). Your County Government. Retrieved from Douglas 
County: http://www.co.douglas.or.us/org_chart.asp 
 
Douglas County. (2019, June 26). 2019-20 Budget. Retrieved from Douglas County: 
http://www.co.douglas.or.us/finance/documents/2020/FY19-20GeneralInfo.pdf 
 
Douglas County. (2019, April 11). Douglas County Parks Advisory Board. Retrieved from 
Douglas County: http://www.co.douglas.or.us/parks/minutes.asp 
 
Douglas County Park Department. (2007, November 2). Policy Manual. Retrieved from Douglas 
County: http://www.co.douglas.or.us/parks/pdfs/PolicyManual11-2-07Final.pdf 
 
Douglas County Parks. (2017, December 15). Douglas County Parks. Retrieved from Douglas 
County: http://www.co.douglas.or.us/parks/about.asp 
 
Guevarra, E. C., & Mapes, J. (2018, March 22). Lawmakers Revive Funding For Rural Oregon, 
But It's No Long-Term Solution. Retrieved from Oregon Public Broadcasting: 
https://www.opb.org/news/article/timber-county-funding-oregon-federal-aid/ 
 
Henry, B. (2019, July 9). ​ORDER/ In the Matter of Forming a Lane County Parks Funding Task 
Force to Implement the Lane County Parks System Master Plan. ​ Lane County Public 
Works.  
 
Johnson, K. (2018, October 17). Anti-Tax Fervor Closed Their Libraries. Now Residents Are 
Trying to Go It Alone. Retrieved from New York Times: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/oregon-library-taxes.html 
9 
 
 
King County. (2002). Business Transition Plan: Phase II Report [Parks and Recreation Division]. 
Retrieved from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks website: 
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/recreation/parks/documents/about/2002_Parks_Bus
_Plan_Final_PhaseII.ashx?la=en 
 
Lane County Parks (2012). Lane County Parks Special Use Permit Application. ​Lane County 
Parks, 1-3.  
 
Lane County Parks (2019). Lane County Property Portal. ​Lane County Parks.  
 
Lane County Parks (2019). Parks Online Reservation Portal. ​Lane County Parks.  
 
Lewis, R. (2019, October 8). ​Revenue Choices: Principles ​ [PowerPoint slides]. School of 
Planning, Public Policy and Management, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 
 
Linn County Board of Commission (2019, April 1). Public notice. Retrieved from 
http://www.co.linn.or.us/Comm/Publicnoticesboardofcommissioners/March2019.pdf ​  
 
Linn County Budget 2018-2019. (Cited as “Budget”). Retrieved from 
http://www.co.linn.or.us/financials/LinnBudget_2019.pdf 
 
Linn County Parks and Recreation. Paver Programs. Retrieved from 
https://linnparks.com/general-info/paver-programs/ ​  
 
Linn County Parks and Recreation. Plan Your Visit. (Cited as “Visit”). Retrieved from 
https://linnparks.com/visit-linn-county/plan-your-visit/ 
 
MIG, Inc. (2009, January). Linn County Park and Recreation Master Plan. Retrieved from 
https://linnparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FINAL_Plan_01_2009.pdf 
 
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District. Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Adopted Budget Book. 
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District, 73-83.  
 
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District. (2004). 2004 Master Plan—North Clackamas 
Parks & Recreation District. 
 
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District. (2018). Annual Report, 2017-2018—North 
Clackamas Parks & Recreation District. 
 
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District. (2019a). Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 
2019-2020—North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District. 
 
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District. (2019b). Explore Our Roots—North Clackamas 
Parks & Recreation District. https://ncprd.com/explore-our-roots. 
 
10 
 
Oregon Blue Book. (n.d.). Douglas County. Retrieved from 
https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/local/counties/douglas.aspx 
 
Oregon Revised Statute. (2018, March 30). Chapter 266: Parks and Recreation Districts. 
Retrieved from Oregon Laws: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/266 
 
Oregon Revised Statute. (2018, March 30). Chapter 390: State and Local Parks. Retrieved from 
Oregon Laws: h​ ttps://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/390 
 
Oregon Revised Statute, Chapter 266. Retrieved from 
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/266 ​  
 
Palmer, W. (2018, June 30). Comprehensive annual financial report. Linn County, Oregon. (cited 
as CAFR). Retrieved from ​http://www.co.linn.or.us/Financials/Audit%202018.pdf 
 
Rockford Park District. (2018, December 11). 2019 Annual Budget & Appropriation Ordinance. 
Retrieved from 
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599afe3a3e00be6b0e426597/t/5ce85103104c7bb1f
52f737d/1558728976070/2019+FINAL+Budget+Book.pdf 
 
Tillamook County (2019). Tillamook County Budget Book, Fiscal Year 2018-2019. County of 
Tillamook.  
 
Tillamook County (2019). County Demographics. County of Tillamook.  
 
Tillamook County (1991). Ordinance No. 43: Rules Relating to County Parks. County of 
Tillamook.  
 
Tillamook County Parks Department (2019). Campgrounds and Day Use and Boat Launches 
Map. County of Tillamook.  
 
Tillamook County Parks Department (2019). Tillamook County Public Access Page. County of 
Tillamook.  
 
Tillamook County Parks Department (2019). Tillamook North Jetty Capping Project. County of 
Tillamook.   
11 
 
Appendix A: Package Calculations 
 
Table 1: Package 1, Estimated Financial Yield of Funding Sources and Respective Adjustment Calculations.  
 Sources: See Reference List.  
 
 
Table 2: Package 2, Estimated Financial Yield of Funding Sources and Respective Adjustment Calculations 
 
Sources: See Reference List. 
 
Table 3: Package 3, Estimated Financial Yield of Funding Sources and Respective Adjustment Calculations 
 
Sources: See Reference List. 
 
12 
 
 
Appendix B: Case Studies 
Linn County 
Community & Geographic Context 
Linn County operates 30 parks and manages six US Forest Service parks within the county’s boundaries 
as shown in Figure 1. The Linn County Historical Museum also operates as part of parks and recreation. 
Note that the parks website map displays an error, so information/display may not be precise. 
Governance Structure  
An advisory commission and department director provide input on budget and policy considerations for 
Linn County Parks (Descriptions, p.3). The County’s Board of Commissioners sets the policies for the 
program. Parks and Recreation Commissioners serve for four-year terms and meet once per month during 
the spring, fall, and winter. The parks commission began in 1961 (Visit). The parks commission operates 
in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 266. The parks commission submits budget requests 
on an annual basis to the budget committee, and the board of commissioners ultimately decides on budget 
approval and adoption (CAFR, p. 30). 
Revenues 
The numbers included in this and subsequent sections of this memo come from the 2018-2019 final 
budget and the 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.  Portions of the general, general grants, 
and forest/parks grants funds comprise the budget for Linn County Parks. Between these sources, total 
revenue was $2.3 million in the 2018-2019 budget. Revenue varies by fund as shown in Figures 2, 3, and 
4. The largest source of revenue is online reservations, which make up $865,000 of general fund revenue 
(Budget, p. 18). Other significant sources of revenue include resort and camping fees, timber sales, and 
RV license fees. 
Expenditures 
Personnel comprises the largest expenditure category at 50% for Linn County Parks including park 
rangers, fringe benefits, and payroll costs. Materials and services, including supplies, utilities, and “other 
contracted services” make up a further 28%, with the remaining 22% of expenditures going to the capital 
costs noted above. Figure 6 below shows the breakdown of expenditures. 
Capital Projects 
Between the three funds, the county budgeted $753,886 for capital outlay. Property improvement 
comprised the largest portion followed by special equipment. A ranger residence also factored into the 
budget. The general grants fund lists a $100,000-line item for “Lodging Tax Capital Projects” under 
expenditures. It is not clear why this is listed as an expenditure rather than revenue. 
 
Tillamook County 
 Community & Geographic Context 
The County of Tillamook maintains an active and popular Parks Department headquartered in Garibaldi, 
Oregon. The County as a whole is comprised of seven towns in total, making up a population of 25,380 as 
of the 2006 Census (Tillamook County 2019). This memorandum is designed to present a case study on 
the Tillamook County Parks Department and its supporting budget, structure, and extent of services and 
13 
 
programming to the local population. Throughout this document I will reference the Tillamook County 
Budget as well as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, relevant state statutes, and county 
ordinances.  
 
Governance Structure  
The Parks Department is governed primarily by the Parks Director. There is also a Parks Manager, an 
office specialist, and several maintenance technicians for the grounds and campsite infrastructure. As an 
act of public participation, the Tillamook County Board of Commissioners created the Parks Advisory 
Committee, made up of County citizens who act as stakeholders of the public interest in any matters 
regarding County parks. There are three members on the committee, with each representative from either 
North, Central, or South Tillamook County to maintain a diversity of interests and opinions (Tillamook 
County Parks).  
Revenues 
Major revenue sources for the Parks Operations Special Revenue Fund include primarily fees from park 
usage, recreational vehicle license and registration fees, fees from boat ramp usage and parking, and state 
grants for major projects (Tillamook County Budget Book FY 2018-2019). The bulk of overall revenue 
for parks operations comes from fees, which can vary in terms of overnight park usage depending on the 
number of vehicles ($6 per night per vehicle), pets ($11 per pet per night), tents ($8 per tent per night), 
and if one rents a mobile mini cabin ($67 per night and $11 transaction fee). Boat launch fees can be 
purchased for $4 per day or $45 for an annual pass, similarly to the $45 annual parking pass for all 
Tillamook County parks (Tillamook County Parks). A small amount of revenue is also brought in from 
marine fuel tax fees and land sales.  
Expenditures 
Operational expenses include full-time equivalent salaries, personal services such as workers 
compensation and health insurance, material and services, and capital outlay (made up entirely from a 
copier lease), totaling $1,623,200. This is followed by boat ramp expenditures, which includes full-time 
equivalent salaries, maintenance, and materials and services, totaling $334,950.  Parks Department 
projects expenditures total $2,843,130, the bulk of which is made up of land acquisition (Tillamook 
County Budget Book FY 2018-2019).  
Capital Projects 
The most recent project completed by Tillamook County Parks was the Tillamook North Jetty Capping 
Project, which successfully placed 37,000 tons of stones at the jetty head (Tillamook County Parks). This 
project has made the Barview Jetty Campground the most successful site in Tillamook County, with 
future projects being the Barview Jetty Core Area Asphalt Surfacing Phase, the Barview Jetty Core Area 
Community Playground, and the Barview Jetty Core Area Community Picnic Shelter, which is the only 
project with secured grant funding (Tillamook County Budget Book FY 2018-2019).  
 
Clackamas County  
Community & Geographic Context 
Clackamas County in northern Oregon is one of several counties which comprise the Portland 
metropolitan area, along with Multnomah, Washington, and other nearby counties.   In addition to 
Clackamas County’s parks district, the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District (NCPRD) serves the 
northern, more urban portions of the county. NCPRD is a special district that was created in 1990 when 
14 
 
voters approved its formation. This district encompasses 36 square miles, including the cities of Happy 
Valley and Milwaukie, serves over 122,000 residents, and includes over 40 parks, 25 natural areas, 15 
miles of trails, and more. This memo will focus on the funding and finances of the NCPRD.  
 
Governance Structure  
The North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District was created under the provisions of ORS 451, which 
covers county service facilities, including service districts.  The NCPRD Board of Directors is the 
Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners, which consists of five members. Under the 
County’s Director of Business and Community Services, the NCPRD Director leads the District’s 
operations and its staff of over 30 full-time employees. The District is also served by a nine-member 
volunteer District Advisory Board of citizens (NCPRD, 2019b). As a special service district, the NCPRD 
has taxing authority and an independent budget. 
Revenues 
About 50% of NCPRD’s revenue comes from the dedicated tax base levied on residents of the special 
district jurisdiction. The tax rate is $0.5382 for every $1,000 of assessed value. This amounts to about 
$7.7 million of the 2019-2020 NCPRD operating budget, which totaled about $15.5 million. The next 
largest revenue source is fees and charges, which is anticipated to generate $2.1 million, or 13.6% of the 
year’s budget. A significant portion of the fees and charges revenues are generated by the NCPRD 
Aquatic Park, which is anticipated to bring in $1.2 million in the 2019-2020 fiscal year (NCPRD, 2019a). 
The total revenue for NCPRD’s 2019-2020 fiscal year amounts to $56.9 million, which includes $15.5 
million in the general fund, $17.3 million in system development charges, $20.3 million in capital projects 
and capital asset repair and replacement, just under $900,000 in a nutrition and transportation program for 
older adults and people with disabilities, and $2.9 million in a debt service fund (NCPRD, 2019a). 
Expenditures 
Although the Aquatic Park brings in a fair amount of revenue, at $1.2 million in fees and charges, it in 
fact accounts for a larger expense, at $2.3 million (NCPRD, 2019a). This is the second largest category of 
expense, after administration, which accounts for $6.6 million in expenditures. After the Aquatic Park, 
parks maintenance is expected to cost almost $2 million for the fiscal year, followed by $1.4 million for 
NCPRD’s sports program.  
Capital Projects  
The most expensive project in the 2019-20 budget is the development of a new neighborhood park in the 
Happy Valley area, for which $2 million has been allocated for land acquisition (NCPRD, 2019a). This 
amount has been funded through the accumulation of system development charges in the identified zones. 
As noted in the 2019-20 budget, the NCPRD Master Plan calls for $50 million in bonds to fund capital 
expenditures, and yet “the District has never presented a ballot measure for any such bonds to District 
voters” (NCPRD, 2019a).  
 
Douglas County 
Community & Geographic Context 
Douglas County is a large, primarily rural, county located south of the Willamette Valley in Western 
Oregon.  The county itself spans over 5,071 sq. miles and stretches from the Cascade Mountains in the 
East all the way to the Pacific Coast of Oregon in the West (Guevarra & Mapes, 2018).  Douglas County 
15 
 
Parks operates a variety of different types of facilities across the geographic expanse of the county. 
According to their website, the park system has “69 properties, including 23 boat ramps, 9 campgrounds 
and 40-day use parks from the Pacific Ocean to the Cascades and throughout the 100 Valleys of the 
Umpqua” (Douglas County Parks, 2017).  
Governance Structure  
Moving from the state to the county context for Douglas County Parks provides additional context for its 
governmental organization.  Parks is a Department of the county, with its top officials appointed by the 
Board of Commissioners (Douglas County, 2008).  While ultimate county policy comes from the 
commissioners, the Douglas County Park Advisory Board plays a supplemental role in policy 
coordination and implementation.  In the case of the Park Advisory Board, action must be guided and 
consistent with the park Policy Manual, a detailed guide for how to conduct the business of the board. 
Broad categories of administration include planning coordination, protection of sensitive natural and 
cultural sites, preservation of park lands, park facility management, and park administration (Douglas 
County Park Department, 2007).  
Revenues 
Douglas County Parks promotes itself as ‘self-sufficient’ which “means that we do not receive any county 
tax revenue to operate our parks. We are reliant on visitors like you to help us manage and maintain the 
parks” (Douglas County Parks, 2017).  Out of total adopted revenues of $4,981,211, the county collects 
approximately $1,500,000 in camp revenues, fees and admissions, as well as rents, leases and royalties 
(Douglas County, 2019).  Despite the user fees mentioned above, the single largest sources of revenues 
for county parks, at least in 2019-2020, have been from Oregon Parks & Recreation transfers 
($1,361,475) and the sale of surplus property ($1,212,000).  
Expenditures 
Expenditures for the Parks Department can be divided into three broad categories; personnel services, 
materials and services, and capital outlay.  Out of total expenditures of $4,756,501, personnel services 
accounted for $1,413,144, materials and services $1,369,467, and capital outlay was allocated $1,973,890 
(Douglas County, 2019).  This money was spent on a variety of items including tools, fuel and oil, rent 
payments, utility bills, insurance, travel expenses, and furniture.  
Capital Projects 
I​n addition to the services just detailed, the capital outlay section of the Parks Budget can further be 
broken down in general operating expenses and specific parks project costs.  General operational 
expenses include $10,000 for miscellaneous park maintenance, $17,500 for trucks, $30,000 for UTVs, 
and $43,000 for tractors (Douglas County, 2019). 
However, the bulk of capital outlay expenditures are for the park projects.  These include $640,000 for 
restroom restoration at River Forks, $790,000 for rehabilitation of the Umpqua Dunes, and $303,000 for 
facility expansion at Half Moon Bay (Douglas County, 2019).  
Recommendations  
Based upon the case studies and the information contained in the funding packages, the following 
suggestions and recommendations can be made to improve the fiscal aspects of Lane County Parks.  
The first important case study is Linn County.  While Linn County relies on typical sources of revenue 
such as fees, grants, and intergovernmental transfers for much of its funding, some smaller, more 
16 
 
innovative revenue streams may be informative to other parks districts such as Lane County’s. The two 
primary such strategies utilized by Linn County include watercraft facilities and a donations-based 
memorial paver program. Lane County could scale and adapt both types of programs for its own 
geography and user populations.  
 
Because fees play a large role in parks as a revenue source, one of the most useful tools Lane County 
Parks could implement or potentially improve on is a tiered fee for overnight parks usage, as well as fee 
add-ons such as pets, number of vehicles or boats, tents used, or buildings rented. Moreover, Tillamook 
County has made this a very accessible and transparent service done online in a user-friendly portal. 
While Tillamook charges $67 per night for a cabin rental, Lane County charges $43, which means Lane 
County could implement a small price increase to generate greater fee revenues as well (Lane County 
Parks). The sustainable revenue generation of fees would be especially useful for the maintenance 
backlog that Lane County is currently facing, whereas sources such as grants may better utilized more in 
capital projects, such as in Tillamook (Tillamook County Parks). There are no other current practices 
which Lane County should avoid that Tillamook County is engaging in. Overall this case study has 
provided valuable insight into the budget practices and funding sources of a county parks department and 
how those could be applied to Lane County Parks in the future.  
 
Given that about 50% of the NCPRD budget comes from property taxes, it is difficult to compare the 
District’s funding to Lane County’s parks program. NCPRD’s complaint about the lack of bond funding 
for their capital projects yielded a helpful suggestion -- a general obligation bond. In addition, NCPRD 
generates about $2 million in fees and charges in one year. Compare this to Lane County’s fees and 
charges revenues of just over $100,000. This discrepancy isn’t a result of Lane County having fewer 
parks or fewer residents, as the County has more of each. A deeper dive into Lane County’s fees and 
charges is in order. 
 
A big takeaway for Lane County is that Douglas County does not fund its park system from its general 
fund.  While this strategy could potentially have drawbacks in practice, such as leaving the Parks 
Department vulnerable to decreased funding and unpredictability, it also offers a model for how to run an 
organization without the politically tricky task of directly raising or re-appropriating taxes.  Douglas 
County appears to have successfully created a user-based revenue system that provides substantial income 
for the department.  In addition to this, the Department has leveraged large amounts of funds from the 
State of Oregon’s Parks and Recreation Department.  
User based fees and grants provide a better template for Lane County going forward than Douglas County 
Parks’ other main source of revenue, selling off its land.  It is possible that this land represented an 
unneeded excess, and that selling it off was smart resource management.  After all, the sale did generate 
substantial short-term revenues.  However, if the goal of Lane County parks is to maintain or even 
increase its level of service, it is probably uninterested in auctioning off large swaths of its holdings. 
Additionally, it is unclear what the long-term revenue potential of the property sold was to Douglas 
County.  It is possible that the land would have been more valuable over time as a continuing source of 
user fees than it is as a one-time sale.  Ultimately, emphasizing consistency and future oriented thinking 
will generally provide a better result than otherwise doing so.  
 
17