Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Funding And Ballot Discussion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose officials highlight $550 million park maintenance backlog and discuss 2026 funding options
Summary
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.
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.
