Open Space Board backs 2026 CIP and operating budgets, urges council review of rising cost allocation

The Open Space Board of Trustees on July 9 recommended that City Council approve a $36,179,915 appropriation for the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) operating budget and a $5,999,199 appropriation for the OSMP 2026 capital improvement program (CIP).

The board voted unanimously to send both recommendations to council and also approved, 4–1, a separate resolution asking council for “greater transparency and accountability” about a projected rise in the city’s cost-allocation charges to OSMP.

At the meeting staff said recent fiscal decisions are still in flux but provided the board with updated estimates and context. Lauren (city staff) told trustees “we estimate the combined savings from the hiring freeze to be around $1,400,000 in the current year 2025 budget,” and said those savings and several one-time revenues (including recently notified bequests and a $21,000,000 residential-use estimate tied to a facilities assessment) soften near-term capital reductions.

Why it matters: trustees said their role is to safeguard voter-approved open-space funds while recommending budgets that keep programs running on the ground. Several trustees pressed staff for more detail about the city’s cost-allocation model after seeing projections that OSMP’s share of cost-allocation charges could rise from roughly 6% today to more than 14% by the end of the out-year planning horizon.

Board member Brady Robinson, who led the motion asking for a council review, summarized the concern: the projection shows a multiyear step-up in allocation that outpaces other line-item growth and could shrink dollars available for field work, wildfire resilience and capital projects. Robinson and other trustees asked for clearer, documented rationale and for examples showing what the allocation pays for (legal work, real-estate support, project management and other central services were discussed).

Staff said the cost-allocation model has recently been in‑housed and will be updated annually; the 5% annual increase shown in later years of the packet is a placeholder used for planning. Charlotte from central finance (referenced during discussion) told staff earlier that the model will be adjusted going forward, and the board’s resolution asks City Council to provide added transparency and context around both historical increases and the assumptions used in out-year estimates.

Board action and votes at the meeting

- Approval of minutes (from prior meeting): motion by Robinson; seconded by Estrella. Result: passed — 4 yes, 1 abstention (Carol). - CIP recommendation: motion to recommend that Planning Board and City Council approve a 2026 CIP appropriation of $5,999,199 (moved by Estrella; seconded by Carol). Result: passed unanimously (5–0). - Operating budget recommendation: motion to recommend that City Council approve a 2026 operating appropriation of $36,179,915 (moved by Michelle; seconded not specified in the record). Result: passed unanimously (5–0). - Cost-allocation resolution: motion (moved by Brady Robinson; seconded by Glenn [seconder identified in the record]). The motion reads in part: “Given the fact that cost allocation increases from approximately 6% to over 14% of the OSMP operating budget over the budget planning horizon, while total sources and uses of funds in the budget remain relatively level, OSBT further recommends that City Council provide greater transparency and accountability regarding the consistent programmed cost-allocation increase.” Vote: 4 yes, 1 no (Estrella).

What trustees asked staff to follow up on

Trustees requested that staff and finance provide clearer, written documentation that shows (a) the components of the cost allocation that are driving growth, (b) how those costs are distributed across funds and departments, and (c) what is included in the city’s “modified total direct cost” used by the model. Trustees also asked staff to explain how one-time revenues (bequests, disposal proceeds) would be used only for one-time capital or acquisition needs rather than for recurring operating costs.

Context and next steps

Staff said the board’s recommendation will go to Planning Board in mid‑August and then to City Council in the fall. City staff cautioned that the Executive Budget Team (the city manager’s office and finance) continues to review department submittals; revenues and allocations may shift before the manager’s recommended budget goes to council. The OSBT motion asking for additional transparency will be included with the board’s recommendation to council.

Ending: Trustees said they supported the department’s operating priorities but want clearer documentation from central finance before the next round of budgeting so the board can better weigh program tradeoffs against rising cost-allocation charges.