Department Rules Date Item
Department Rep. Name/Ext. Councilmember Sponsorship
Policy/Ordinance Subject
Staff Recommendation
GREEN Adopt based on tradeoffs
outlined on next page
YELLOW efer to RED Recommend Council not
adopt nominated idea
NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR
MORE TIME TO EVALUATE
Staff Evaluation
Is this already underway in a department work plan?
Yes No
Is this time critical or an emergency?
Yes No
Will this require substantial resources, staffing, budget, strategic support ?
Yes No
Criterion to Determine Scale of Project Complexity
Project complexity is determined by scoring the project in each of the 3 criterions below and then summing the score. a. Low Complexity is a sum of 6 or less.
b. Medium Complexity is a sum of 7 – 9.
c. High Complexity is a sum of 10 or greater.
Total Score = Scoring Criterion
Low Complexity Medium Complexity High Complexity
Estimated Duration 6 – 9 months = 1 9 - 18 months = 2 More than 18 months = 3 Organizational
Complexity
(Internal)
Can easily be absorbed
into existing work plan
= 1 Planned work (future) = 2 Work not currently proposed = 3 Have staff with required
skillset/knowledge
= 1 Have staff with required skillset/
requires moderate research
= 2 Do not have staff with required
skillset/requires significant research
= 3
Less than or equal 2
staff required
= 1 3 - 4 staff required = 2 More than 5 staff required = 3 (External) 1 Additional department; no
community outreach required
= 1 2 Other departments Involved;
some community outreach required
= 2 3 or more departments and/or external
partners involved; significant community
outreach required
= 3 DEPT. RequiredAirport Auditor CMO OEDCA ESD Fire HR IT PRNS Police Retirement Attorney Clerk CMO –
Budget
Community
Energy Finance Housing IPA Library PBCE PW DOT
CMO Approval: Date
Analysis
Explain the rationale for staff recommendation, including any mitigating factors that need to be considered (recent legislative action, significant work plan changes, etc.). Please address the following as well.
GREEN LIGHT: The Administration can implement this nominated idea under its current work plan. Item should be sent to Council to add to department work plan. (1) How will the idea be approached? (2) If adopted, what is its impact and/or tradeoff to the City Council Focus Area or to a department work plan, including strategic support? (3) What is the minimum viable scope to move the idea forward and reduce its complexity? YELLOW LIGHT:
RED LIGHT: The Administration recommends Council not to adopt this nominated idea due to (describe reason implementation would be difficult if not impossible – conflict with other laws, etc.).
1. PRNS developed a preliminary scope for the Study Session (see below) and will work with the City Clerk's Office and City Manager's Office to bring it forward. Staff tentatively proposes early February 2025 as the time frame for this study session..
2. PRNS can support the stakeholder outreach being led by the District 5 Council Office. Staff would propose the following approaches to items 2a. and 2b. from the memorandum:
2a. Staff recommends pursuing this recommendation in two parts. First, in alignment with PRNS' existing practice, staff will work with the community and the Council Office to develop a maintenance plan for the lowest scoring parks, for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing maintenance needs and improving park conditions. Second, as part of staff's work to develop ballot measures to fund park maintenance for 2026, staff will develop a comprehensive plan to spend any potential ballot measure revenue, with the goal of maintaining parks consistent with community expectations. Council feedback at the study session directed in item 1 will help inform this planning effort.
2b. Participating in town halls on the topic of park maintenance aligns with PRNS' existing project to conduct public outreach on park maintenance ahead of consideration of 2026 revenue ballot measures. PRNS will coordinate with District 5 Council Office to develop a schedule for participation in this outreach.
Analysis(Continued)
Park Maintenance Study Session Draft Scope
(Note scope may be subject to change as staff develops the study session.) The purpose of this study session is to inform the City Council and the public on the current approach to park maintenance and park maintenance funding and to discuss opportunities to increase or reconfigure maintenance funding with the goal of improving service to residents. To achieve this purpose staff anticipates covering the following topic areas:
Program History: The session will start with a brief history of San Jose's park maintenance and capital programs, including past efforts that have shaped the current service landscape.
Funding Overview: This section will provide an overview of how maintenance and capital programs are funded, including a description of the various funding sources, a review of funding needs as captured by the deferred maintenance backlog, and both internal and external partnerships that may present funding opportunities.
Maintenance Approach: This section will discuss how PRNS approaches park maintenance, including a discussion of maintenance level of service goals, how maintenance staff are deployed, and how data is used to inform maintenance decisions.
Future Funding Possibilities: This section will provide an overview of opportunities to improve funding for park maintenance, including presentation of staff's work plan for outreach and development for 2026 revenue ballot measures and potential next steps for reconfiguration of how park fees on new development are distributed throughout the City. Staff will also present on funding streams that other jurisdictions have used to fund park maintenance.