[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6603312,"mediaKeyId","3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498","parentId",3000366,"title","Park staff say system is understaffed by roughly 100 FTEs; current maintenance scores equate to about a D+ under present resources","audioSeconds",689,"startMs",3466000,"endMs",4155000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498&start=3466&end=4155","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498/thumbnail_3466000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6603312/San-Jose/Santa-Clara-County/California/Park-staff-say-system-is-understaffed-by-roughly-100-FTEs-current-maintenance-scores-equate-to-about-a-D-under-present-resources","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603312-616814dd621da7bd4d152c988ab55503/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170302&Signature=bTiVPyh4b~ZTcvVQSWzBZfhYEv-zj3CSi24EbkBdS6tZoq~uvmdIPLhC3dUUMRfbN-P8-QUDo6sV8okozc8LXnqXxEBPFgkrM6vTxai81USNK6cF8CMJ0OsoHlr8kULhik0kwiKrBqDN2Ikwf3gHK53n6CvtiNeJyzh3EKxHGsjnetYH0ccxBt0ikHpH9Rc3wl2~tsy9IjIZ3hOrR5SmnJNkZ1Ji3B3vyStkxwTxSM0h3yLqW5o-w9RWZGcED1o05-P7jjioFVjQAxEIBdGL98VD7psfzIrcrp0Cj6MDLeEhhFzJBX2HCwnPsc6JpSLliGnrQQipow89zrBNdjgy0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Jose, CA","date","2025-04-16T02:38:01.307Z","article","At the study session, Avi O'Tom, deputy director of parks, and Tori O’Reilly, division manager for park maintenance, provided a detailed account of how the department carries out day-to-day maintenance and how current staffing and standards compare to need.

O’Tom described staffing models by park district and specialized teams. \"Most parks in the city ... are maintained by crews of 2 to 4 maintenance staff members who are responsible for about 6 to 8 parks and visit each of them 2 to 3 times a week,\" he said. He explained that although the Park Condition Assessment (PCA) showed roughly an 87% achievement rate against the department’s 80%-performance standards, the effective condition when multiplied out is far lower: \"If you do 87% of about 80%, you end up with a number a little bit short of 70%... in a way, we're basically saying our parks are at about a D plus level of condition with our current maintenance efforts.\"

O’Tom said a detailed task- and acreage-based analysis produced by staff analyst Lisa Diebold shows the department is approximately 100 full‑time equivalents short in field positions to achieve a higher service level (twice-weekly full-service maintenance for most parks and three times weekly for larger parks). He added that staff currently spend more time addressing trash and litter than they would if the additional staffing were available, and that the time trade-off reduces landscaping, turf work, tree trimming and other longer-cycle maintenance tasks.

Staff described mitigation efforts: outsourcing pocket-park and custodial contracts, coordinating about 28,000 volunteer hours annually, managing 18,000 hours from sentencing-alternative programs, and working with partners such as the Conservation Corps and local foundations. O’Tom and Cicero emphasized that specialized parks (Emma Prusch, Happy Hollow, Lake Cunningham) receive dedicated staffing and sometimes dedicated revenue streams (for example a gas-station lease at Emma Prusch) that support higher maintenance levels than typical neighborhood parks.

Councilmembers asked about procurement timelines and ways to speed repairs; staff said procurement and supply-chain lead times are a constraint and that limited administrative capacity slows contract processing. Staff recommended building a master plan that would also identify where dedicated maintenance teams or funding could sustain high-use or marquee parks.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","APR 15, 2025 | City Council Study Session: Parks Maintenance and Capital Funding","oneSentenceSummary","Deputy Director Avi O'Tom and parks staff told the council that maintenance staffing is roughly 20% below 2002 levels even as acreage and trails expanded, that parks condition assessment (PCA) reporting implies parks are being maintained below desired standards, and that staff use targeted assessments and equity tools to focus resources.","taxTitle","San Jose , Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2857,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6603317,"Staff warns concentrated park impact fees and proposed state bill (SB 315) could reduce funds available across San Jose",555,2409000,2964000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498&start=2409&end=2964","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498/thumbnail_2409000.jpg","/articles/6603317/San-Jose/Santa-Clara-County/California/Staff-warns-concentrated-park-impact-fees-and-proposed-state-bill-SB-315-could-reduce-funds-available-across-San-Jose","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603317-5d30eb574b95d019e500eb7b1470017f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170302&Signature=OdiTS2a7YOb81EY1YH0GKhdJf4VOTTOsPFE7N-7tkfGP6bNLrb4Qe6IhakvOKziODOZaq~LrVw6XFyVojXFKbSzmtxmpoTWBVC~llaFFE-OM2-BopfqASu1bMapm3qPxxT7fglmS8mAcuUv0-rEoDvsJ8yQHe98xdZC7KL0vMZwawr51chbfBCY0wNcepyCESTL3hUQUh6a5aaWr7n33qgOo~IjwpUx9v-Sf5KxmV2u3u3k3SzVqnb19T39p5SEneZCibvThg1v99WW78YJfl089Xz~tYitSPjfk8iYl4MXejwMytqKemdz~Cs0j3v9w0GayCbCnxDhYqRRM2~cIKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy Director John Cicero and his team told the council that park impact fees, based on the Quimby Act model of land dedication, have produced uneven results citywide because residential development has been highly concentrated in a few districts.

\"Because the fees are collected where they are derived, our city primarily has development in only 2 districts,\" Cicero said, noting that over a recent 10-year period District 3 generated approximately $81,000,000 in park trust collections while other districts collected little or none. Cicero explained that the fee operates in practice as a land-dedication requirement translated into dollars and that the code restricts spending to within three-quarters of a mile for neighborhood-serving projects and three miles for community-serving projects.

Staff warned that fee rates have not been updated since 2017 and that the city offers a series of credits and discounts — including up to 50% reductions for on-site recreational amenities, discounts for downtown high-rise and North San Jose, and affordable housing credits — that commonly reduce developer payments by 20–30% in typical projects. Cicero said these factors compound the geographic concentration, producing small annual receipts in many neighborhoods.

Staff also briefed council on Senate Bill 315, which staff said (as described in the presentation) would reduce or ban fees for residential infill within a half‑mile of existing parks and would cut other fees to a fraction in other areas. Cicero said the city submitted a letter of opposition and that the staff sees potential material impacts if state law changes in this direction.

Councilmembers and public commenters said they wanted the city to revisit the park-fee structure, update land values and fees, and explore alternative mechanisms (the staff pointed to San Diego’s mitigation-based approach) as part of a park master plan update and community engagement process.","Staff told the council that park impact (trust) fees are concentrated where most residential development occurs, fees have not been updated since 2017, and Senate Bill 315 — if enacted as described in the presentation — could sharply reduce or eliminate fee collections in many infill areas.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6603320,"City staff detail how San Jose’s construction-and-conveyance tax is allocated and why it leaves little discretionary funding for parks",522,1897000,2419000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498&start=1897&end=2419","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498/thumbnail_1897000.jpg","/articles/6603320/San-Jose/Santa-Clara-County/California/City-staff-detail-how-San-Joses-construction-and-conveyance-tax-is-allocated-and-why-it-leaves-little-discretionary-funding-for-parks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603320-c746412b33341fce11e8007e5318d178/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170302&Signature=RcvRpJRpY1rXjR1F26m88D7N3mi5n5B8Q6OVc2hI~DFEdpdP2vr-4jnltYcc75xd-JXgKaHE9C~mKvYsYVYUliG0HcUTiVKef6R7A-R3Vk8d~vB56pExOKGc~eElZVIXMSuN-HLGrMZ6q-WcfIabyYQLzAr~9vXGHTVRJcraWuiw1K8zvniwyplDyyt07xTaDaTgxc2SnYM1v4k6h3GZFHgUsXB-bNDmWvHtdwULuDw9umEonvMc9-bFhAPQgjuzQcPjrhtOnL54pAjWy~2ZdmbB7FGy-i6hYeHGdxa57Cwo2-oVhDICLIfqp1fGV0mEGOeb0sNuHM-lz03E0b5mwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff explained in detail at the Oct. 27 study session how San Jose’s construction and conveyance (C&C) tax is split and why the formula produces limited discretionary funds for parks.

\"When C&C revenue comes into the city, it is first split,\" John Cicero said, explaining the formula described in municipal code. Cicero summarized the allocation: a portion (about 36%) is part of a general allocation to other services; the remaining 64% is for parks. From that parks portion the code requires fixed deductions (park yards, debt service, staffing) and citywide allocations (roughly a third of the parks share) before the remainder is split with 20% distributed equally to council districts and 80% used for equity-informed citywide priorities.

Using a $30 million example, staff showed how that top-line figure can shrink to roughly $5.4 million available for discretionary use after mandatory deductions and allocations. Cicero and the presentation materials warned that year-to-year revenue can vary widely — volumes rose around 2021–22 amid a hot housing market and then fell during inflation-driven slowdowns — and that the statutory allocation includes options (such as a 15% transfer from the general allocation to parks) that the city currently does not use.

Councilmembers asked for clarity about how changes to the formula could be proposed. Staff cautioned that changing the distribution would likely require voter approval because of language tied to existing allocations. The budget office confirmed that the general-allocation share supports a range of functions (fire, library, communications and other capital needs) and that reassigning those funds would have broader effects on the city budget.

Public commenters and councilmembers pointed to the distribution results shown by staff: some council districts have received a large share of funds because of concentrated development while other districts have collected little or none over a decade. Staff said the CNC allocation is a central reason the city has limited annual capital discretion for neighborhood-level park work.","At a council study session, staff explained the multi-step C&C tax formula: a split between a general allocation and parks, fixed costs and citywide allocations, leaving limited funds for district and equity-directed projects; staff showed a worked example and 10-year revenue variability.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6603324,"San Jose officials highlight $550 million park maintenance backlog and discuss 2026 funding options",3999,1247000,5246000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498&start=1247&end=5246","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3000366-80c2f03022939a3b834540d5869ed498/thumbnail_1247000.jpg","/articles/6603324/San-Jose/Santa-Clara-County/California/San-Jose-officials-highlight-550-million-park-maintenance-backlog-and-discuss-2026-funding-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603324-2ea770bd252d7a6e698934dbe8ca12e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170302&Signature=jYJOfKAKnn7e7QzKxXOUoS5rJhCDvKCTnxbnB1zvEDejdlwi-5kxEDjaM3jfBNC6db4FvGcDo6y5QfBqMmks3Tg1~HSJl9OdWr1YBtU6Mf72w2oZbl7ar7zCQurbbVKJiKE0Q4shkpUzurjK2Wd4X7ifeuQm5FnLCgLzzN5PZUclTUH7LLjls6SUdp5K5HzeAJYtYawbKIhqZTtzkAduD~XlI2i94E4fjdJ4t-e9BGiCreZYMIEaZKl3ftr9ncIzoWB3xycMziBq~s91wIrVN6J2R3Meiqe78r5ZhD-Y2pMB3uNTQ90Hozef7HYQWskY-yNifViICqgHeNjCexu1bA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","John Cicero, director of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services, told the City Council on Oct. 27 that San Jose’s park system carries about $550,000,000 in deferred maintenance and that the city is exploring options for dedicated funding, including additional community engagement and polling aimed at a possible 2026 ballot measure.

Cicero emphasized why the issue matters: parks provide environmental, health and economic benefits, but the city’s funding and staffing levels have not kept pace with needs. \"Parks matter a lot,\" he said, describing parks as places that \"inspire belonging\" and noting the public reaction to improvements such as Emma Prusch Farm Park.

City staff presented an overview of funding sources — the construction and conveyance (C&C) tax, park trust (impact) fees, the general fund and gifts/grants/partnerships — and showed how each is constrained. Cicero and Deputy Director Avi O’Tom explained that the C&C formula and other restrictions leave limited discretionary funds for maintenance, while the park trust fund fees are geographically restricted and have not been updated since 2017. O’Tom told the council the department is roughly 100 full-time equivalents short in field positions to meet desired maintenance levels and said the current assessment methodology implies parks are being maintained at about a \"D plus\" level under existing staffing and resources.

Council members and public commenters framed the problem as both fiscal and equitable. Councilmember Ortiz described the current funding situation as \"not sustainable, and it's definitely not equitable,\" noting wide differences in fee collections across council districts. Multiple public speakers urged action; Yes on San Jose Parks and neighborhood leaders said they would support a campaign if the council provides a clear plan and strong community engagement.

City staff recommended a multi-part path forward: update planning documents (a park master plan/greenprint), conduct district-by-district community engagement, consider new funding structures informed by models used by other jurisdictions, and run additional polling on funding options in late 2025 or early 2026. Cicero cautioned that updating the plan as a formal general-plan addendum could take longer than the ballot timeline, and he said staff would aim to bring council a clear funding and outreach proposal well before any election decision.

Councilmembers praised parks staff, stressed transparency and equity, and asked for specifics on timelines, outreach to diverse communities and procurement improvements to speed repairs. The presentation concluded with staff saying they will begin modification work this calendar year and that community engagement and consultant work are imminent.","City staff told the City Council at a study session that San Jose faces roughly $550 million in deferred park maintenance, detailed multiple funding streams and barriers, and endorsed further community engagement and polling toward a possible 2026 ballot measure for dedicated park operations funding.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Park staff say system is understaffed by roughly 100 FTEs; current maintenance scores equate to about a D+ under present resources

Staff warns concentrated park impact fees and proposed state bill (SB 315) could reduce funds available across San Jose

City staff detail how San Jose’s construction-and-conveyance tax is allocated and why it leaves little discretionary funding for parks

San Jose officials highlight $550 million park maintenance backlog and discuss 2026 funding options