L.A. voters – Los Angeles City Council is set to take up a proposal that would put a bigger, charter-mandated minimum budget for the Department of Recreation and Parks before voters on Nov. 3—boosting required funding over four years. But city budget analysts warn it could
On the days Los Angeles parks are supposed to feel like community space—kids running, families gathering—the reality can be something else entirely. Filthy bathrooms. Damaged sprinkler systems. Deteriorating buildings. Dead trees.
City Council members will take up a proposal Wednesday that would ask voters to help pay for a sweeping fix by raising the minimum amount the city must allocate each year to the Department of Recreation and Parks. The catch is that the proposal would not identify a new funding source up front. Under the plan, money would be locked in later through the City Charter—starting on the ballot this Nov. 3.
The Recreation and Parks budget for the current year is about $359 million. which sits above the minimum allocation of $292 million required by the City Charter. If voters approve the ballot measure. the minimum allocation would ramp up over four years. putting an additional $175 million into the parks department by 2030-31.
City leaders then face a basic arithmetic problem: unless council members find a new stream of revenue to cover the additional spending, they would have to rein in spending elsewhere.
The parks funding proposal is one of several charter ballot ideas being considered as part of a major rewrite of the City Charter. While some proposals have been close to being sidelined, the parks plan has been gaining momentum—even as warnings came from the city’s budget analysts.
Monday. City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo warned the park proposal would increase the size of the city’s so-called structural deficit. defined as the gap between the amount of money the city takes in and the amount it spends. In a seven-page memo. he also argued that locking in spending for specific programs would run counter to the city’s financial policies by tying the hands of future councils.
Council’s rules committee moved ahead anyway. The committee endorsed the park proposal with a unanimous vote.
Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who spearheaded the effort, said she understands why analysts are wary. But she also framed the pitch in personal terms.
“But also. I’m a mom with three kids. and my boys play Little League at Pan Pacific Park. ” she said. “We spend a lot of our time at Pan Pacific Park, and the bathrooms, the facilities — it’s completely unacceptable. It’s not what families and Angelenos reasonably expect, nor should they expect, from our parks system.”.
Yaroslavsky represents part of the Westside. In an interview. she said her proposal requires that much of the revenue growth projected in future budget years would need to go to the parks department. She said the city would also need to be more disciplined about raises for city employees and “any other new spend.”.
As part of her proposal, Yaroslavsky asked city officials to work with Los Angeles County on a possible 2028 tax increase to pay for park programs.
Her push for higher minimum funding has also been positioned as a less risky alternative to a plan backed by a coalition of park organizations and some colleagues.
Under the City Charter, Recreation and Parks is entitled to a minimum level of funding equal to 0.0325% of the assessed value of all property assessed for taxes within city limits. That formula produced a $292-million minimum during the current budget year, according to park officials.
Park advocates want voters to double that rate to 0.065%. City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado is also pushing for Recreation and Parks to receive an additional $350 million per year—twice the amount sought by Yaroslavsky—starting in 2030-31.
Backers of the larger plan point to an assessment of how the city’s park system stacks up nationally. Tori Kjer. executive director of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust—which pushes for equitable access to park space—cited a report from the Trust for Public Land. a nonprofit advocacy group that recently ranked L.A.’s park system 93rd out of the nation’s 100 most populous cities.
Kjer said the city spends far less per person on its parks than comparable cities and that the city’s full-time workforce has shrunk by 28% since 2008. She said Yaroslavsky’s proposal would not be enough to restore operations that have been cut since the Great Recession.
“It continues the underfunding that has plagued this department for decades,” Kjer said.
Last year, city officials obtained a needs assessment that concluded the park system would require $2.68 billion in one-time funding for upkeep and renovation of existing park facilities such as gymnasiums, recreation centers and green spaces.
Yaroslavsky said she agrees the parks need more money. But she warned that increasing the allocation could mean cutbacks elsewhere.
“This recommendation doesn’t create new money. It sets aside existing money,” she said during a recent hearing. “Every dollar we lock in to one purpose through the charter is a dollar we don’t have for something else. like broken sidewalks. failed streetlights. street repairs. homelessness services. public safety and other basic city responsibilities.”.
The parks debate has also been shaped by a failed attempt to raise revenue directly. Last year. a coalition of park advocates announced plans to gather signatures for a sales tax hike that would generate $320 million annually for the parks department. That effort ended in February, with organizers concluding they didn’t have support from the city’s leadership, Kjer said.
With the tax hike dead, park advocates shifted their case to the Charter Reform Commission, the citizens panel reviewing changes to the City Charter. The commission endorsed the idea of doubling the allocation for parks and recreation programs.
Szabo’s memo offered an important distinction: the council doesn’t need to rewrite the City Charter to increase the amount of money it spends on parks. That option is available each year, when the council takes up the mayor’s proposed budget.
Jack Humphreville, who serves on the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates, a watchdog group, said he supports doubling the allocation for Recreation and Parks—despite the likelihood of a larger structural deficit. He said the agency is among the most important in the city.
If the proposal makes the ballot and is approved, Humphreville said city leaders would need to identify cost-cutting options. He pointed to measures such as limiting the size of raises given to city employees.
“They’re going to have to make some very tough decisions,” Humphreville said.
For now, the decision waiting in front of voters is not only whether Los Angeles parks deserve more guaranteed funding, but whether the city’s leaders can find the room to pay for it—without breaking other promises in the budget.
Los Angeles City Charter parks Recreation and Parks Katy Yaroslavsky Ysabel Jurado Matt Szabo Trust for Public Land structural deficit ballot measure Nov. 3 Pan Pacific Park