City of LA Measure PRK — Doubling the Parks Budget Floor

Current as of 2026-10-14 · voting-clarity.org

November 3, 2026 City of Los Angeles ballot. AI-generated analysis. Your sample ballot and official voter guide are the official documents; the links below let you check each claim. This page explains what is on the ballot; it is not legal advice.

Voting Clarity's research is done by Claude, an AI made by Anthropic. Anthropic gave no money to either side of this measure [34].

Summary

Charter Amendment PRK raises the minimum amount the City must give its Department of Recreation and Parks each year. The money comes from the General Fund, the City's main budget. Today the minimum, or "floor," is 0.0325% of the assessed value of all property in the City. (Assessed value is the value used for property taxes.) PRK raises the floor in ten equal yearly steps, starting in 2027-28. It reaches 0.065% in 2036-37 and stays there.[1][2] (details below)

PRK creates no new tax. The money comes out of the same General Fund that pays for police, fire, streets and other services. The City Administrative Officer (CAO) estimates the parks floor would grow from $303 million to $995 million by 2036-37. About $497 million of that final-year amount is due to PRK. The City Administrative Officer says the City "must reallocate resources from other services, including public safety, public works, and homeless services."[3]

PRK also adds an escape valve. The City Council can declare a fiscal emergency by a two-thirds vote of the Council. Then the required amount can be cut by up to 30%. But it can never go below today's 0.0325%.[2] (details below)

What it's trying to accomplish: Supporters say parks have been underfunded for decades. They say the City's parks rank 93rd of the 100 largest cities in the United States and need almost $3 billion in repairs.[4] No ballot argument against was filed. The City's own budget office objected. It said locking in the money widens the deficit and forces cuts elsewhere.[5]

Your Vote:

• YES — The parks floor rises step by step to 0.065% of assessed value by 2036-37. In a fiscal emergency, it can be cut by up to 30%.

• NO — The floor stays at 0.0325%. The Council can still give parks more each year in the regular budget.

No double negative. It is a City Charter amendment placed on the ballot by the City Council. It passes with "a majority of the votes cast" on it; City of Los Angeles voters vote on it.[6] The PRK text does not refer to any other measure on this ballot.[2] Measure FD is on the same ballot. It would require the City to keep the Fire Department's share of discretionary (flexible) funding at its ten-year average. Otherwise the City would lose the new sales tax that year.[7] If both pass, both floors would come out of the same General Fund. Neither text says how the two interact.

In the law, but not in the official summary

This box lists parts of the measure's legal text that change what a Yes or No vote does but are not described in the official ballot summary or the official analysis. It does not say why they were left out.

None found.

What's in place now

1. The current floor. Charter Section 593 requires an annual appropriation to Recreation and Parks of "not less than 0.0325%" of assessed value. The Council may add more. Money in the Recreation and Parks Fund may be used only for the department, except as Section 342 allows.[8]

2. Section 342. It lets the Mayor and Council move money already appropriated to a department into the Reserve Fund or to other purposes during the year.[9] PRK keeps this exception word for word.[10]

3. No emergency cut today. The current Charter does not allow the parks floor to be reduced in a fiscal emergency.[11]

4. Actual funding. The City has historically given parks more than the floor, except in 2025-26.[11]

5. How the base is counted. Since 2011 the City has applied the percentage to gross assessed value, including exempt property. That gives parks more than the property tax the City actually collects on that value.[11]

6. Proposition K ends. The 1996 "LA for Kids" assessment, about $25 million a year for park projects, expires in 2026-27.[12]

Who is affected, and who is not

Affected:

• Users of City parks, pools, and recreation and senior centers, which would get a guaranteed, growing budget.[13]

• Every other General Fund service. The CAO names public safety, public works and homeless services as areas money would come from.[3]

Not affected:

• Property owners' tax bills: PRK changes how existing revenue is divided, not tax rates.[13]

• LA County parks and beaches, and the Library Department's own floor: PRK amends only Section 593.[14]

Key Questions Answered

1. Does the label match the substance? Partly. The label accurately describes the ten-year doubling. It does not say the money must come from other City services.[2][15] The impartial summary says an emergency cut is limited to 30% of the increase; the legal text allows up to 30% of the whole amount (details below). The summary, by the Chief Legislative Analyst, says the Council could reduce "the increased funding required in this measure" by up to 30 percent. The legal text says support "may be reduced by up to thirty percent (30%) of the total amount of the stated percentage."[16][17]

2. Is the vote straightforward? Yes. Yes raises the floor; no keeps it.[18]

3. Does it bundle unrelated things? No. It amends one Charter section about parks funding.[14]

4. What guardrails exist? Few. The ballot argument says the money comes with "annual expenditure plans and reporting reviewed at public meetings and posted online."[4] The measure text contains no such requirement. There is no spending plan, audit, oversight committee or sunset date.[19] The increase is permanent. Changing it later takes another vote of City of Los Angeles voters.[20]

5. Who benefits, and who pays? Recreation and Parks gains a growing guaranteed budget. Its General Manager says the money would also let the department "reimburse the City's General Fund for the full cost of its operations."[21] So part of the new money flows back to the General Fund as payment for park staff benefits and overhead.[3] How much was not estimated in any source reviewed. Other City departments pay through lower available funding.

Supporters, opponents, and funding

Supporters

• Ballot argument signers: Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez, Ysabel Jurado and Imelda Padilla; Controller Kenneth Mejia; Father Gregory Boyle (Homeboy Industries); a Recreation and Parks commissioner; and leaders of the Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley, LA Neighborhood Land Trust and LA Waterkeeper. Rebuttal signers include Recreation and Parks (RAP) General Manager Jimmy Kim and a past president of the Greater Los Angeles League of Women Voters. Their reasons: clean, safe, open parks and health and economic benefits, without a tax increase.[22]

• The City Council voted 13–0 to place it on the ballot (Blumenfield and Price absent). Mayor Bass approved it July 9, 2026.[23]

Opponents

• No ballot argument against was submitted.[24]

• The CAO recommended against a Charter increase. Its reasons: extra funding can be given through the annual budget; the City's Financial Policy No. 20 says unrestricted revenue should not be locked into special funds; and the increase "would continue to compound in perpetuity."[5]

• Amending Motion 95A (Blumenfield–Park) opposed "ballot-box budgeting" and proposed parallel Charter guarantees for fire, police, sidewalks and other services, saying "to be consistent" the Council should take the same approach. The Council referred it to committee.[25][26]

Funding: One committee, a project of the Trust for Public Land (TPL), supports PRK: "Yes on PRK, Angelenos for Clean, Affordable and Safe Parks, a project of TPL." It reported $5,000 raised, $0 spent and $5,000 cash on hand through 9/19/26. No opposition committee is listed. Independent spending in support totals $711.60 as of October 19, 2026: $214.44 from the Political Action Council of Educators (sponsored by teachers unions including United Teachers Los Angeles, or UTLA), $117.20 from United Teachers Los Angeles, and $379.96 from AAPI (Asian American and Pacific Islander) Equity Alliance.[27] TPL is the Trust for Public Land, whose ParkScore ranking the "yes" argument cites.[4] The committee's individual donors were not reviewed, because the Ethics Commission offers contributor records only through a search form that this review does not submit.

Details

The emergency cut is described three different ways

• Legal text: support "may be reduced by up to thirty percent (30%) of the total amount of the stated percentage," not below 0.0325%.[16]

• Impartial summary: the Council could reduce "the increased funding" by up to 30 percent.[17]

• CAO statement: the City "may suspend the mandated increase."[3]

At the full 0.065% rate, 30% of the total allows a cut to 0.0455%. 30% of only the increase allows a cut to about 0.055%.[28] In 2036-37 dollars, that is roughly $299 million versus $149 million, using the CAO's $995 million and $497 million figures. A full suspension back to 0.0325% is possible under the text only through 2030-31; after that the 30% cap stops short of the old floor. Which reading the City would apply could not be verified from available sources. The legal text is what voters adopt.

Cost by year (CAO estimate, added cost due to PRK)

(all depend on actual property value growth)[3]

The budget office studied a smaller version

In June the CAO analyzed a $175 million, four-year increase, not the doubling on the ballot. Even that smaller version, it said, equals the entire 2026-27 General Fund budget of 13 departments, or 859 civilian positions. It would leave deficits in every year through 2030-31.[29] PRK's full-phase cost, $497 million a year, is nearly three times that amount.

Sources

1. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK, pp. 57–63

2. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK legal text

3. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Financial Impact Statement, p. 58

4. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, argument in favor, p. 59

5. City Administrative Officer report, June 15, 2026 (Council File (CF) 26-0489)

6. Election Ordinance 188981

7. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure FD text, p. 89

8. City Charter Sec. 593 (current through legislation effective June 30, 2026)

9. City Charter Sec. 342 (current through legislation effective June 30, 2026)

10. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK legal text, Sec. 593(d)

11. City Administrative Officer report, June 15, 2026 (Council File (CF) 26-0489), p. 3

12. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, impartial summary, p. 57

13. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, impartial summary

14. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK legal text, Sec. 1

15. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, ballot question

16. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK legal text, Sec. 593(e)

17. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, impartial summary, p. 58

18. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, p. 7

19. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK legal text, Sec. 593

20. Cal. Const., Art. XI, Sec. 3 (California Legislative Information)

21. Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) letter, May 8, 2026

22. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, ballot argument and rebuttal, pp. 59–61

23. Council action, July 9, 2026

24. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, p. 60

25. Motion 95A

26. Council File 26-1100-S15

27. LA City Ethics Commission, 2026 election totals — read Oct. 14, 2026

28. City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRK legal text, Sec. 593(a), (e) (arithmetic on this text)

29. City Administrative Officer report, June 15, 2026 (Council File (CF) 26-0489), pp. 4–7

30. Measure PRK ballot-material proof — used to check struck and underlined text (not cited above)

31. City Attorney report, June 26, 2026 (not cited above)

32. LAist, Charter Amendment PRK guide (updated Oct. 7, 2026) (secondary) (not cited above)

33. NBC Los Angeles (Oct. 13, 2026) (secondary) (not cited above)

34. City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, campaign contributions and independent expenditures search, contributor "Anthropic", https://ethics.lacity.gov/data/campaigns/contributions/, searched Oct. 16, 2026; and Cal-Access, Anthropic PBC (filer 1491817), https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1491817, as of Oct. 16, 2026.

Reviewed in the original: Voter pamphlet pp. 7 and 57–63 and the Measure FD Maintenance of Effort section; Measure PRK proof (8 pages, with struck and underlined text checked visually); Charter Secs. 593 and 342; CAO report (7 pages); RAP letter with its April 28 attachment (7 pages); City Attorney report; Motion 95A; Ordinance 188981; Council action form; Council file page; Ethics Commission totals page; Cal. Const., Art. XI, Sec. 3; the LAist guide and the NBC Los Angeles article.

Could not be reviewed: The PRK committee's contributor records, which the Ethics Commission offers only through a search form that this review does not submit.