San José Parks
Maintenance and
Capital Funding
Study Session
City Council | April 15, 2025
Jon Cicirelli, Director
Avi Yotam, Deputy Director of Parks
Raymond Costantino, Deputy Director of Capital Projects Outcomes
• Understand primary funding sources
• Have a renewed perspective on funding and maintenance challenges • Gain insight into how San José compares to other park systems • Learn about opportunities to improve
2 Parks Matter
3 Today’s Park System
4 Evolving Park Planning
Capital Projects: Greenprint (2000 + 2009)
• Set service-level goals
• Progress was made, but new challenges emerged:
climate resilience, equity, funding
New Strategic Plan: ActivateSJ (2019)
• Sets PRNS’s vision, aligned with five guiding principles • Establishes benchmarks to sustain, enhance, and grow
Park Master Plan (2026/ 2027)
• Integrate capital projects and ongoing maintenance,
update policies, and secure critical funding
5 6
How are parks funded?
7 8
Operations & Maintenance
• Covers day-to-day costs of
running facilities and services
• Short-term expenses (typically
annual funding)
• Park maintenance
Capital Projects
• Funds long-term investments in
infrastructure
• Multi-year funding for major
projects
• New parks
9 Key Funding Sources
10 Construction & Conveyance (C&C) Tax
How is the C&C Tax Generated?
• New construction permits
• Real estate transactions over $100
Funds are used for:
• Park improvements
• Park maintenance
• Fixed costs (staffing, debt service, real estate)
• Citywide & by Council District
Municipal Code sets strict formula for distribution
11 12
How is C&C Revenue Distributed?
13 Note: This is not based on actual numbers and is only meant to demonstrate how the formula works.
14 Distribution of C&C Funds by Council
District Over the Past 10 Years (2014-2024)
All Council Districts receive 20%
The other 80% is allocated based on equity:
• Park acreage
• Community center space
• Condition of existing parks and facilities
15 Park Trust Fund (Park Fees)
Funded by New Residential Development:
• Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) & Park Impact Ordinance (PIO) • Mitigates impact of new residents on parks
• Developers may dedicate land, build a new park, pay in-lieu fees, or combine these options Spending Restrictions (State Law & Local Policy):
• Within ¾ mile for neighborhood-serving projects
• Within 3 miles for community-serving projects
• NO maintenance & operations
Equity Challenge:
• Fees collected where development occurs not an equitable distribution 16 Distribution of Park Fees by Council
District Over the Past 10 Years (2014-2024)
• Approximately $80.9 million has been generated in
District 3 and $53.4 million in District 6
• All others received between $1 million - $7.7 million 17 18
Parks developed as a
result of park fees
Compounding this Challenge
Stagnant Fees
• Park fees have not increased since 2017 to support residential development Fee Reductions
• Fees were reduced for downtown high-rises and multi-family projects in North San José • Up to a 50% reduction for including on-site recreation (usually for private residents) • Affordable housing automatically receives a 50% reduction • Combined reductions can lower fees by up to 75%; most projects receive a 20%-30% reduction on average
Insufficient Funding for New Parks
• Fees do not fully cover the cost of new parks, so gaps are filled with other sources 19 General Fund $36,058,015 FY 24 - 25
• Generated from local taxes
• Covers daily operations & maintenance
• Can fund small capital projects
• Competes with other City services (e.g.,
Police, Fire, Library, etc.)
• Fluctuates with the economy and is impacted
by inflation
20 Park District or Responsibility FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025 Park District 1 $3,157,593 $3,397,335
Park District 2 $2,744,151 $3,604,311
Park District 3 $3,516,892 $4,070,796
Park District 4 $2,714,642 $2,793,387
Park District 5 $3,292,084 $3,643,432
Park District 6 (Emma Prusch Farm Park and
Happy Hollow Park & Zoo)* $2,275,733 $2,003,789
Park District 7 (Action Sports Park, Arcadia, and
PAL)* $1,287,083 $1,242,716
Park District 8 $5,369,868 $5,897,916
Parks Contract Services $3,407,474 $3,583,993
IPM/Turf and Mowing $2,385,248 $2,567,306
Strike and Repair $1,804,273 $2,049,963
Community Forestry $1,109,784 $1,203,071
Total $33,064,825 $36,058,015
General Fund Allocations for Parks O&M
* The Parks Division reorganized service delivery in 2020-2021, creating specialized teams focused on destination and sports facilities in “Park District 6” and “Park District 7.” 21 Grants & Partnerships
Grants
• ~$21M awarded over 5 years for 26 capital projects
• ~$3.8M awarded over 5 years that supports maintenance and youth employment
• $2.8M for Resilience Corps
• $1M for climate resiliency at Alum Rock and Overfelt (suspended by federal government on 4/2/25) State & Federal Earmarks
• $1.5M for Lake Cunningham water quality (Candelas + Panetta) • Pursuing funds for Yerba Buena Bridge & Cahalan Park (suspended by federal government on 4/2/25)
Partnerships with Nonprofits
• San José Conservation Corps, Happy Hollow Foundation, San José Parks Foundation, Guadalupe River Park Conservancy, and others
22 Rising Construction Costs
Estimated park development cost: $3M per acre
Land costs can range $1.2M - $8.2M per acre
This means a new park can cost
$4.2M - $11.2M
23 $550M+ Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Park Component Estimated
Backlog
Park Grounds* $147,116,412
Park Yards $9,974,318
Trails $20,586,149
Regional Facilities $162,128,193
Park Component Subtotal $339,805,000
Community Buildings $94,378,915
Other Buildings (e.g., accessory buildings, leased-
out buildings) $115,932,022
Restrooms $4,202,916
Building Component Subtotal $214,514,000
Total 2024 Backlog $554,319,000
*Value is estimated from 2013-2014 data and extrapolated to reflect increases due to inflation and decreases due to work completed.
This impacts park amenities and
PRNS facilities:
• Playgrounds
• Picnic areas
• Sports facilities
• Recreational turf
• Restrooms
• Community centers
• And more
24 How are parks maintained?
25 Park Maintenance: A Collaborative Effort
26 • Park Districts: 2-4 employees are typically
responsible for 6-8 parks, visiting them 2-3 times
per week
• Specialized teams handle destination/ regional
parks and more complicated tasks (e.g., pest and
turf management)
• Volunteers and contractors assist
District/ Team FTE
Total # of Parks
and Civic
Grounds
Approx.
Developed
Acres
Approximate
Trail Mileage
Park District 1 17.69 31 240 12
Park District 2 22.28 35 258 6
Park District 3 20.36 21 190 6
Park District 4 16.93 20 320 15
Park District 5 17.82 22 216 10
Park District 6 (Emma Prusch Farm Park
and Happy Hollow Park & Zoo)* 13.34 2 82 0
Park District 7 (Action Sports Park, Arcadia
Ballpark, and PAL)* 8.02 3 39 0
Park District 8 25.81 34 306 16
Parks Contract Services** 3.00** 98** 150** -
IPM/Turf and Mowing 22.40 - - -
Strike and Repair 13.00 - - -
Community Forestry 2.00 - - -
Grand Total 182.65 266 1,801 65
Overview of Maintenance Staff (FY 2024-2025)
*Park Districts 6 and 7 are not included on the previous map because they represent specific parks and destinations within the system. Park District 6 includes Emma Prusch Farm Park and Happy Hollow Park & Zoo and Park District 7 includes Action Sports Park, Arcadia Ballpark, and PAL. **The Parks Contract Services team (3 City FTE) manages the contracts for custodial services in restrooms (equivalent of 12 FTE) and pocket park maintenance (150 acres). This team also does citywide park inspections and coordinates with park districts regarding repairs needed in any park district. 27 San José’s Park Maintenance Standards
Park Condition Assessment (PCA):
• Evaluates 20 park features annually
• Parks receive scores based on standards met or not met • Snapshot of park conditions at a specific time
Factors Affecting PCA Scores:
• Seasonal changes, staffing shortages, weather events
• Not always aligned with community perspective
Promoting Equity in Maintenance:
• Healthy Places Index (HPI) integrated into decision-making 28 A Historical Analysis of Staffing
Note: Contractors = ~12 FTE of custodial services and are responsible for ~150 acres of developed parks 29 Assessing Staffing Needs
California Parks and Recreation Society’s Maintenance Management School helped staff develop effective park maintenance plans and determine the resources needed for adequate park maintenance.
Park maintenance is about 100 FTE understaffed
Closing the gap:
• Contractors maintain pocket parks, civic grounds, and restrooms • 28,000 volunteer hours (Adopt-A-Park, cleanups, events) • 18,000 hours from Sheriff’s Work Program & General Assistance Program • Resilience Corps program
• Still, more resources are needed
30 What can we learn from other park
systems?
31 32
When compared to
similar cities, San
José ranks last in
spending per capita
on maintenance
activities
33 34
When comparing
maintenance spending
to 15 other cities in
California, San José
ranked 13th
35 When comparing the
same data to other
cities with a similar
population of one
million or more, San
José ranked 9th
Santa Clara County Parks
• Park Charter Fund:
est. 1972, renewed by
Measure A in 2016
• Not a tax - guarantees
set % of County
budget
• Generated ~$90M
2024 - 2025
36 Santa Clara Valley
Open Space Authority
• Measure T Parcel Tax (2020):
$24/year → ~$8M/year
• District 1 Assessment (1994):
$12/year → ~$4.2M/year
• Focused on open spaces &
farmland around the valley
37 38
San José
Property
Tax Bill
• $267M maintenance backlog
• Voter-approved Seattle Park
District (2014) funds ongoing
maintenance, operations, and
new park development
Lessons from Seattle and San Diego
• $213M maintenance backlog
• “One City, One Park System” (2021)
removes geographic restrictions on
park fees to improve equity and
resource distribution
39 How L.A. County Passed a
Landmark Parks Measure
2014: Measure P Fails
• $23 parcel tax to fund parks
• Did not gain voter support
2015–2016: Rethinking the Strategy
• Launched Countywide Needs
Assessment
• Identified underserved areas +
project priorities
• Grounded in data + community
engagement
2016: Measure A Succeeds
• ~$94M/year parcel tax for parks, beaches, open space
• 1.8 cents per ft2 ($.018 X 1,500 ft2 = $27)
• Approved by ~75% of voters
• Equity-focused funding
• No sunset date
National model for successful parks funding
40 What are opportunities to improve?
41 Emma Prusch Farm Park Success:
• A dedicated maintenance team
• Received a perfect PCA score in 2024
and is always bustling with people
• A fully staffed park shows what’s
possible
San José’s Parks Need Better Investment
42 Potential Funding Solutions: 2026 Ballot Measure
January 2025 Polling Results:
• Park Bond – 52% Yes (Needs 66.7%)
• Parcel Tax – 46% Yes (Needs 66.7%)
• Utility User Tax Extension – 35% Yes (Needs 50%)
• Sales Tax Increase – 40% Yes (Needs 50%)
Spring 2024:
• Two versions of a Parcel Tax polled at 63% and 66% (Needs 66.7%) Late 2019:
• Two versions of a Parcel Tax polled at 64% and 66% (Needs 66.7%) 43 Next Steps for Ballot Measure
• Additional polling on funding options in fall 2025 & early 2026 • Community engagement will help shape the best approach • City Council may consider placing a measure on the June or November 2026 ballot
44 Community Engagement & Education
PRNS will launch a citywide campaign to:
• Educate residents on how parks are funded
• Engage the community on priorities
Feedback will inform solutions:
• Potential ballot measure
• New Park Master Plan
45 Integrates capital projects & maintenance for sustainable growth Explores policy changes to improve flexibility for park fee distribution Inspired by San Diego’s approach to funding equity
Park Master Plan
46 Reimagining funding & resource allocation
Working with community & partners for thriving parks
A stronger, more resilient park system for every neighborhood The Future of San José Parks
47 San José Parks
Maintenance and
Capital Funding
Study Session
City Council | April 15, 2025
Jon Cicirelli, Director
Avi Yotam, Deputy Director of Parks
Raymond Costantino, Deputy Director of Capital Projects