San Jose City Council Study Session on Parks Maintenance and Capital Funding - April 15, 2025

[Introductory paragraph: The meeting was a study session to educate the council on park funding challenges, maintenance, and a potential 2026 ballot measure. No action was taken.]

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ally Victorine (D7 Leadership Group president) expressed concern over the $500 million maintenance backlog and inequitable distribution of capital funds, supporting new funding ideas.
• Jean Dresden, longtime park advocate, noted that the current funding system is chaotic and inequitable, with fewer FTEs and increased acreage. She criticized the polling questionnaire design as biased.
• Helen Chapman (Yes on San Jose Parks, former Park Commissioner) emphasized the $554 million backlog and San Jose's drop to 9th out of 12 largest California cities for maintenance funding. She urged council leadership for a revenue measure, noting the last such measure was 25 years ago.
• Bob Levy (former planning and parks commissioner) stated the current model is unsustainable, with a $554 million backlog that grew from $464 million three years ago, and that parks lost 40% of staff during the Great Recession and never recovered.
• Michelle Mashburn (disability advocate) called for disability-informed design in parks, stating that all-inclusive playgrounds often fail due to lack of input from people with disabilities.
• Melissa Gott Lopez (District 5 resident) supported prioritizing parks and equitable funding, asking the council to review and create more equitable solutions.
• Henry Song (park user) criticized inequities in park usage, citing priority given to pickleball over tennis, and poor conditions at certain parks.

Discussion Items

• John Cicerola (PRNS Director) presented the department's funding challenges: a $554 million deferred maintenance backlog, rising construction costs ($3 million for a basic 1-acre park), and a staffing shortage of about 100 FTEs. He explained the complex Construction and Conveyance (CNC) tax formula and the park trust fund (impact fees) that are geographically restricted, leading to inequitable distribution. He noted that park trust fund fees have not been updated since 2017 and are often discounted. He compared San Jose's per capita park investment ($46) unfavorably to other cities (e.g., San Francisco, Seattle) and highlighted that San Jose ranks 32nd out of 100 on the Trust for Public Land's ParkScore. He discussed a potential 2026 ballot measure for a parks bond or parcel tax, but noted polling showed only 50% support (needs 2/3). He proposed a park master plan inspired by San Diego's "One City, One Park" model and LA County's community engagement approach.
• Avi O'Tom (Deputy Director) described park maintenance: 185 FTEs responsible for 1,800 acres (vs. 230 FTEs for 1,475 acres in 2002). Current park condition score is about 87% of a standard that itself is only 80% of desired quality, resulting in a D+ level. He detailed the need for 100-120 more staff to achieve adequate maintenance.
• Councilmember Ortiz questioned the timeline for a park master plan and policy modifications. John Cicerola responded that work on modifications would begin this year but the full master plan might not be completed by the 2026 ballot measure. Ortiz emphasized the need for equity and urged colleagues to reflect on the data.
• Councilmember Candelas asked about the CNC allocation and the feasibility of San Diego's model. John Cicerola explained that San Diego stopped using the Quimby Act and switched to a mitigation fee approach, which could be a model for San Jose. Candelas also inquired about procurement improvements to speed up maintenance responses.
• Councilmember Kamei expressed support for a 2026 ballot measure and emphasized the need for proactive community engagement, noting that parks and recreation should be marketed together.
• Councilmember Salas highlighted the irony of District 3 receiving $81 million in park fees while District 5 received only $1.9 million, and asked how Emma Prusch Park was so well-maintained. John Cicerola and Avi O'Tom explained that some parks have dedicated funding sources (e.g., gas station lease at Emma Prusch) and that staffing is prioritized for high-use parks, often at the expense of others.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action was taken as this was a study session.
• Council members expressed support for further exploration of a 2026 parks funding ballot measure and a park master plan.
• The council directed staff to begin community engagement and policy review for more equitable distribution of park impact fees.
• The next steps include additional polling in fall 2025/early 2026, development of a park master plan, and potential policy changes to modify the park trust fund fee structure.