Your guide to L.A. City Charter Amendment PRK: More money for parks

Let’s get one thing out of the way from the start: L.A.’s Charter Amendment PRK isn’t a tax hike.

It’s not a bond issue, either.

The Nov. 3 ballot measure is a tool for voters to rework the parameters of the city budget, by increasing the amount of money that must go to the Department of Recreation and Parks.

Charter Amendment PRK would accomplish that by doubling the minimum budget allocation set aside for the department, which oversees the upkeep of green spaces, playing fields and even senior centers.

Park advocates have long argued that the existing city allocation is inadequate, leaving neighborhoods with decaying recreation centers, deteriorating swimming pools and filthy park bathrooms. This year, they convinced city leaders to send voters a proposal to boost the parks budget gradually over a decade.

Supporters say that change finally will allow the city to give Angelenos the park and recreation services they deserve.

Critics contend it will tie the hands of the city’s elected officials, forcing them to cut other services to make room for additional park funding.

California

Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

California’s general election takes place on Novemer 3. Learn about L.A.’s city and county races as well races for state office.

Oct. 1, 2026

The City Charter, which serves as L.A.’s governing document, requires that the parks department receive .0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties in Los Angeles.

That translated into $303 million for the park system this year. If the formula were left unchanged, the minimum allocation gradually would grow to $493 million over the next 10 years, according to a city analysis.

If voters approve Charter Amendment PRK, the minimum allocation would double that amount — to $986 million — by 2036, the analysis said.

“This forces a ramp-up in the expenditures that are dedicated to care for our parks,” said City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who spearheaded the proposal.

Rodriguez pointed to a December 2025 report that found that the city needs nearly $2.7 billion to address the deferred maintenance facing its park and recreation resources, which include not just natural spaces but also dog parks, skate parks, senior centers and even community gardens.

If voters approve the measure, it will be up to future mayors and council members to figure out how to pay for it — whether by siphoning money away from other city agencies or coming up with new funding.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky also voiced support for the measure, saying the gradual ramp-up will give city leaders time to find the money.

“A 10-year runway gives us the space and grace we need to figure out how to double the allocation in a way that doesn’t result in short-changing other departments,” she said.

Dozens of groups have lined up behind the proposal, including the Trust for Public Land, TreePeople, Friends of the Los Angeles River and many others. At City Hall, the measure is backed by Rodriguez and several other council members as well as City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

Rodriguez and Mejia signed the ballot argument in favor of Charter Amendment PRK, as did Rev. Gregory Boyle, founder of Homeboy Industries, Nicole Chase, president and chief executive of the Boys & Girls Club of the San Fernando Valley, and several others.

Backers of the measure say the parks department provides an essential safety net for the city’s low-income residents, offering summer camps, sports activities and senior programs for free or at reduced prices.

When temperatures soar, the city’s recreation centers welcome residents who lack air conditioning. During emergencies, those facilities are converted into places of refuge from fires, floods or other disasters.

Despite those varied responsibilities, the department has been underfunded for years, said Tori Kjer, executive director of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, who pushed for the measure to reach the ballot.

“If you talk to many Angelenos, they are unhappy with their local park, and that is because we have not funded it with the resources it needs,” she said.

Kjer said the department never recovered from the 2008 recession, when city leaders cut staffing by more than 25%, leaving it with about 1,500 workers last year. The city also began charging the department for the cost of water, electricity, trash pickup and other city services.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents 8,500 rank-and-file officers, opposes Charter Amendment PRK, calling it an egregious example of “ballot box budgeting.”

The more the City Charter puts restrictions on city spending, the fewer choices the city’s elected officials will have in the middle of a budget crisis, said Tom Saggau, a spokesperson for the union.

“We love our parks. We want to make sure there are enough police officers to keep them safe,” he said. “And when you start budgeting through the ballot box, it sets a dangerous precedent, especially in a city with so many competing priorities.”

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who represents the southwest San Fernando Valley, was the only council member to vote against drafting the measure.

In June, he told his colleagues — and a booing audience — that he had a long history of supporting park spaces. But he also said that as a former state lawmaker, he had been “traumatized” by the budget process in Sacramento, where many programs could not be touched because of spending requirements.

“The more things we wall off, the more difficult that [budget] process is going to be,” he said.

Backers have downplayed such warnings, saying the measure gives the City Council the power to reduce the park funding allotment by 30% during fiscal emergencies.

Park advocates originally planned to ask L.A. voters to approve a sales tax hike, going so far as to submit the initial paperwork to the city clerk. That effort failed to draw sufficient political support, spurring those groups to change course.

Last spring, advocates persuaded council members to pursue a ballot measure that would double the parks allocation over four years.

But that idea drew red flags from the city’s policy advisers, who warned it would significantly increase the city’s structural deficit — the gap between how much money the city takes in and how much it spends.

In a memo, City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo said that locking in spending for certain city departments would reduce the options available to future councils. The idea also runs counter to the city’s fiscal policies, he said.

Council members crafted a compromise, stretching out the increases over 10 years instead of four.