Election 2026 · City of Los Angeles

Charter Amendment PRK: Minimum budget for Recreation and Parks

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Charter Amendment PRK would double the minimum share of City money that must go to the Department of Recreation and Parks, phased in over ten years. It does not create a new tax, so the money would come from other parts of the City budget.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: City Clerk's voter information pamphlet.

What would Charter Amendment PRK cost?

The City Administrative Officer estimates Recreation and Parks funding would grow from $303 million to $995 million by 2036-37, with the measure adding $32 million in 2027-28 and rising to $497 million in 2036-37. Because it raises no new revenue, the CAO says the City would have to move money from other services, including public safety, public works and homeless services.

The details

The question on your ballot

Shall the City Charter be amended to increase the minimum budget allocated to the Department of Recreation and Parks, phased in over ten years until it is double the current minimum budget allocation, with exceptions for fiscal emergencies?

What would change

Charter sections that change

PRK amends one section of the City Charter, Section 593 (“Financial Support”), in the Recreation and Parks article (full text):

• Sec. 593(a) replaces the fixed “0.0325%” with “the following percentage” and adds this schedule:

Source: PRK full text, Sec. 593(a).

• Sec. 593(b) and (c) do not change. The Council can still add General Fund money, and all of it goes into the Recreation and Parks Fund.
• Sec. 593(d) adds only the letter “(d)” to the existing, unnumbered last paragraph. That paragraph says money in the Recreation and Parks Fund can be used only for the department, except as Charter Section 342 allows (full text; current text as reprinted by the Charter Reform Commission).
• Sec. 593(e) is new. It sets the fiscal emergency rule described above.
• Section 2 of the measure is a standard severability clause. No other Charter section is amended (full text).

How the emergency cut works. The text allows a cut of up to 30% “of the total amount of the stated percentage,” with a floor of 0.0325% (Sec. 593(e)). The Chief Legislative Analyst describes the rule as a cut of up to 30% of “the increased funding” (impartial summary). The CAO says the City “may suspend the mandated increase” (CAO fiscal statement). The City Council last declared a fiscal emergency on June 24, 2025, by a 14-0 vote, to deal with a deficit of about $1 billion (MyNewsLA).

How it got on the ballot

PRK came out of the City’s 2025-26 Charter review. The Council placed it on the ballot. No petition was involved.

• April 2, 2026: The Charter Reform Commission recommended doubling the minimum from 0.0325% to 0.065%, by a unanimous 10-0 vote. It wrote that the idea “was proposed by a coalition of park advocates” (Commission report, vote summary; recommendation).
• April 28 and May 8, 2026: Recreation and Parks supported the increase and asked for a multi-year phase-in like the one voters approved for libraries in 2011 (department letter, May 8, 2026).
• June 10, 2026: The Chief Legislative Analyst advised against putting funding obligations in the Charter. The CLA suggested an ordinance instead, or, if the Council wanted a Charter change, a smaller increase to 0.0557% (CLA report, p. 47).
• June 12 and 15, 2026: The Council’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee backed a smaller version: 0.0485% phased in over four years, with an emergency suspension of up to 30% (Council recap, item 6; CAO report, June 17). The CAO recommended against any Charter increase (CAO report, June 15).
• June 17, 2026: Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Ysabel Jurado moved to raise the target to 0.065% over ten years, with a floor of 0.0325% during emergencies (Amending Motion 67H). The Council adopted it 14-1. Bob Blumenfield voted no (Council recap, item 6).
• June 26, 2026: The City Attorney sent the ballot documents, putting this change alone in a measure on the Recreation and Parks budget (City Attorney report R26-0380).
• June 30, 2026: The Council voted 13-0 to put PRK on the ballot. Blumenfield and Curren Price were absent. The same day it sent Blumenfield’s Amending Motion 95A, which proposed eight more budget set-asides, to the Rules committee (Council action; Council File 26-1100-S15). The Mayor approved on July 9, and the election ordinance took effect July 14 (Ordinance 188981).
• Aug. 4, 2026: Four people asked to write the argument in favor and none asked to write one against. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson picked Councilmembers Imelda Padilla and Monica Rodriguez, and the Rules committee approved 4-0 (City Clerk list of applicants; committee memo).

A tax route that stalled. On Dec. 15, 2025, five proponents, including former Councilmember Jackie Goldberg, asked the City Clerk for a petition title for a half-cent sales tax for Recreation and Parks (City Clerk letter, Dec. 26, 2025). The Clerk’s petition log shows no approval for circulation after the Dec. 26 title (City Clerk petition status). On June 17, the Council also asked Recreation and Parks and the CAO to work with the County toward a possible 2028 parks revenue measure (Council recap, item 8).

Related past measures.

• Charter funding since 1925. The Charter has set aside a share of property value for parks since 1925. The effective rate has been 3.25 cents per $100 of assessed value since 1937, the Park Needs Assessment says (Park Needs Assessment, p. 137).
• Proposition K (1996): a citywide assessment that has raised $25 million a year for parks. It expires in 2026-27 (impartial summary).
• Measure L (2011): raised the Library Department’s Charter minimum from 0.0175% to 0.03% over four years and made the library pay its own indirect costs. The CAO says the City uses the same method to calculate both departments’ amounts (CAO report, June 15, p. 3; CLA report, p. 47).

What each side says

In the City pamphlet. Ballot arguments are the authors’ opinions. No City agency checks them for accuracy (City pamphlet). No argument against PRK was submitted, so the pamphlet prints two arguments in favor and none against.

Argument in favor, signed by Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez, Ysabel Jurado and Imelda Padilla, Controller Kenneth Mejia, Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries and five others (argument in favor; signers):

• No new tax: PRK funds parks “without raising taxes by a single penny.”
• Ranking and spending: LA fell to 93rd of the 100 largest cities in the Trust for Public Land’s 2026 ParkScore, and LA funds parks “two-thirds less than similar cities.”
• Conditions: facilities need “almost $3 billion” in repairs, pools and centers have cut hours, and one-third of Angelenos lack a park within a ten-minute walk.
• History: protected park funding “has not increased since 1937.”
• Uses: cleaner parks and restrooms, more staff and rangers, beaches, new parks, shade trees and wildfire prevention, with yearly spending plans reviewed in public.

A second argument in favor, labeled a rebuttal, is signed by Rodriguez, Padilla, Jurado, Mejia, Recreation and Parks General Manager Jimmy Kim, Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners President Luis A. Sanchez and others. It says every $1 spent on park programs lowers health care costs by $11 and every $1 spent on maintenance returns at least $3 (rebuttal argument in favor). It gives no sources for those figures.

Outside the pamphlet.

• Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, the only no vote: “don’t pat yourselves when you have an easy vote because it’s out of context” (LAist, June 18, 2026). On his Council website he called the measure “both financially foolish and deceptive about impact” because it raises no revenue and does not say what would be cut. He said he supports spending more on parks (Councilmember Blumenfield, “Charter Reform Update”).
• The City’s budget analysts: the CAO wrote that restricting unrestricted General Fund revenue conflicts with City Financial Policy No. 20 and that more money should come through the yearly budget (CAO report, June 15). The CLA advised “against placing funding obligations in the Charter” (CLA report, p. 47). LAist’s voter guide describes the City’s fiscal analysts as opposed (LAist voter guide).
• Recreation and Parks: more money would let it restore hours at 123 recreation and senior centers, pool hours, maintenance at about 500 parks, park rangers, emergency shelters and homeless outreach teams (department report, June 15, 2026).
• Mona Field, a Charter Reform Commission member who signed the second pamphlet argument, wrote that PRK “could make a real difference” and “may come at the expense of other city programs” (Golden State Report, Aug. 12, 2026).
• Daily News columnist Susan Shelley urged a no vote. She wrote that the Council began charging the parks department for utilities, sanitation and other costs during the Great Recession: “End the theft, no need for a charter amendment” (Daily News, Sept. 29, 2026).
• CityWatch columnist Jack Humphreville urged a yes vote. He also objected that the emergency clause could reduce the new money (CityWatch).

Checking the main factual claims against official records.

The $11 health care and $3 economic return figures in the second argument, and the tourism figures, have no source in the pamphlet. We have not checked them.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• Pamphlet signers: Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez, Ysabel Jurado and Imelda Padilla; Controller Kenneth Mejia; Father Gregory Boyle (Homeboy Industries); Recreation and Parks Commissioner Tefarai Bayne; Bruce Saito; Nicole Chase (Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley); Tori Kjer (LA Neighborhood Land Trust); Bruce Reznik (LA Waterkeeper). Signers of the second argument add Jimmy Kim, Luis A. Sanchez, Jon Christensen (UCLA), Amber Martinez (Los Angeles Parks Foundation), Dr. Deborah Cohen and Mona Field. The pamphlet says titles are for identification only (signers; second argument).
• Trust for Public Land, sponsor of the Yes committee (committee statement).
• Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, the committee’s only donor (committee statement).
• United Teachers Los Angeles and its Political Action Council of Educators, which reported flyers supporting PRK (City Ethics independent expenditures).
• The Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners and the department (CLA report, support table; department letter).
• Groups that wrote to the Council in support of the Commission’s doubling proposal before it was amended: the Los Feliz, Historic Highland Park, Venice, Central Hollywood and Chatsworth neighborhood councils, the American Institute of Architects Los Angeles, Save Elephant Hill, Tias on Trails, San Fernando Valley Audubon Society, Griffith Park Advisory Board, the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley and Streets for All. The CLA listed no opponents (CLA report, support table).

Opponents

• No one applied to write the argument against, and no committee has formed to oppose PRK (committee memo; City Ethics election totals).
• Councilmember Bob Blumenfield voted no on June 17 and has written against it (Council recap; Blumenfield statement).
• The CAO and CLA recommended against a Charter set-aside. They are City staff, not campaigns (CAO report, June 15; CLA report).

Editorial boards and columnists. We found no LA Times or Daily News editorial board position on PRK as of Sept. 30, 2026. Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommends no (Daily News). CityWatch’s Jack Humphreville recommends yes (CityWatch).

Parties and other groups. We found no published position from the Los Angeles County Democratic or Republican parties, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce or the League of Women Voters as of Sept. 30, 2026. Mona Field is listed in the pamphlet as a past president of the Greater Los Angeles League of Women Voters; the pamphlet says titles do not mean an organization’s endorsement (second argument).

Money for and against

Source: the committee’s Form 460 for Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, 2026, the City Ethics election totals and the City Ethics independent expenditure search, checked Sept. 30, 2026.

Who is giving

The Yes committee reported one contribution: $5,000 from the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust on Sept. 18, 2026. The land trust’s executive director signed the argument in favor. The committee reported no unitemized gifts, no loans and no spending (committee statement; City campaign contribution data). The committee’s contact email is at the Trust for Public Land. With one donor, there is no donor pattern to analyze.

Outside spending

• Political Action Council of Educators, sponsored by teachers unions including United Teachers Los Angeles: $214.44 on Sept. 23, 2026, paid to UTLA for a flyer supporting PRK (City Ethics independent expenditures; Form 496).
• United Teachers Los Angeles: $117.20 on Sept. 23, 2026, for a flyer to its members, reported as a member communication (Form 496; City Ethics election totals).

No spending against PRK had been reported as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Independent analysis

The City’s official analyses are the CLA’s impartial summary (City pamphlet) and the CAO’s financial impact statement (City pamphlet). Before the Council vote, both offices studied the idea in more depth. We found no report on PRK from the City Controller, who signed the argument in favor.

The cost, year by year

Source: CAO financial impact statement and PRK full text. All amounts depend on actual property value growth.

The CAO’s June 26 report gave larger yearly figures, $43.3 million in 2027-28 rising to $683.0 million in 2036-37, and a 2036-37 total of $986 million (CAO report, June 26). The report counts the $683 million as the increase from the 2026-27 allocation of $303 million. Its table shows the allocation under the current 0.0325% rate also growing with assessed values, to $493.0 million in 2036-37 (CAO report, June 26). The pamphlet figures are the CAO’s “estimated annual increases attributed to the measure” (CAO fiscal statement).

Effect on the City budget

• The CAO’s June 26 report said PRK would deepen projected General Fund shortfalls in each of its first four years, leaving gaps of $209 million in 2027-28, $202 million in 2028-29, $151 million in 2029-30 and $94 million in 2030-31. Without PRK, the budget outlook showed a $112 million surplus in 2030-31 (CAO report, June 26).
• The same report says the outlook leaves out future labor raises, a roughly $99 million increase in pension contributions starting in 2027-28, liability payments above $200 million a year, and the voters’ June 2026 rejection of the street lighting assessment (CAO report, June 26).
• To show scale, the CAO compared $175 million, an earlier version’s full cost, to the combined 2026-27 General Fund budgets of 13 departments, including Animal Services, City Planning and the Controller, or about 859 civilian positions (CAO report, June 15, pp. 5-6). PRK’s cost passes $175 million in 2031-32, by the pamphlet figures.
• The CAO wrote that the City has usually given parks more than the Charter minimum, except in 2025-26 (CAO report, June 15, p. 3).

What the parks system needs

The department’s 2025 Park Needs Assessment found:

• An operating budget of $359 million in 2025-26, mostly $298 million from the Charter formula and about $60 million in earned revenue. Of that, $145 million went back to the General Fund for benefits, utilities and trash (Park Needs Assessment, p. 138).
• An average operating need of $558 million a year across its staffing scenarios, 60% more than 2025, and up to $696 million to match peer cities (Park Needs Assessment, p. 311).
• About $2.68 billion in deferred maintenance within a larger one-time capital need (Park Needs Assessment, p. 314).

The Charter minimum under PRK would reach about $578 million in 2031-32, by the CAO’s June estimates (CAO report, June 26). PRK does not change the rule that part of that money goes back to the General Fund for the department’s costs (CAO fiscal statement). The CAO says that under PRK the department must also pay for services now carried in other budgets, such as security (CAO report, June 26, p. 4).

PRK does not require the yearly spending plans or public reporting described in the argument in favor. Neither appears in the amendment’s text (full text). On June 17 the Council separately asked the CAO and the department to report on reserving part of the increase for capital repairs (Council recap, item 7).

If it passes

• When it takes effect. A Charter amendment takes effect when it is filed with the California Secretary of State after the vote is certified (California Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3). The first higher rate applies to the 2027-28 budget (proposed Sec. 593(a)), which the Mayor proposes in spring 2027.
• Fiscal emergencies. A two-thirds Council vote on a resolution can trigger the cut described above, which lasts until the emergency ends (Sec. 593(e)).
• Changes later. Because the schedule is in the Charter, changing it would take another vote of the people.
• Related work. The Council asked for reports on a capital-repair share and on a 2028 parks revenue measure with the County (Council recap, items 7-8).
• Legal challenges. We found none filed or announced as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no debate or forum focused on PRK in news coverage or City records as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Council raises the target (June 17, 2026). The Rules committee’s 0.0485% version became 0.065% over ten years on a 14-1 vote. Parks advocates spoke at the meeting, including Ana Nieves of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust (LAist; Council recap).
• Blumenfield’s counter-motion (June 30, 2026). Blumenfield’s Amending Motion 95A, seconded by Traci Park, proposed eight more Charter set-asides, including 16% of the budget for the Fire Department, $100 million a year for curb ramps and $125 million for street lighting (Motion 95A). He later called it “extreme and somewhat facetious,” meant to show “the folly in the underlying proposal.” He wrote that several colleagues supported it and that the Council President sent it to committee (Blumenfield statement). The Council referred it to the Rules committee that day (Council File 26-1100-S15).
• Campaign opens (September 2026). The Yes committee reported its first $5,000 on Sept. 18, and UTLA and its PAC reported flyers on Sept. 23 (committee statement; City Ethics independent expenditures).

Polls

We found no public poll on PRK from an academic, media or nonpartisan pollster as of Sept. 30, 2026.