SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE PARK DATE: February 24, 2017 MAINTENANCE

COUNCIL AGENDA: 2/28/17 ITEM: 5.1 CITY OF SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY Memorandum TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Councilmembers Rocha & Jimenez SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE PARK DATE: February 24, 2017 MAINTENANCE Approved aa,i,, ^ ^ -'7 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accept the Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services' report on Sustainable Park Maintenance and take the following additional action: 1. Express its support for the opinion of the Parks and Recreation Commission that additional funding is needed to improve the condition of our parks. 2. Direct staff to develop a detailed budget proposal for consideration during the budget process based on the park maintenance enhancements described in Scenario 3 in the chart on page 10 of the staff report. Scenario 3 would invest an additional $3.5 million in park maintenance activities and would target bringing all of our parks up to a minimum Park Condition Assessment (PCA) score of 3.0 and bringing the average score among all parks up to 3.5. ANALYSIS Groucho Marx once said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of bandages and adhesive tape." Currently, due to the decrease in the PRNS maintenance budget, too many of our City parks are held together by bandages and adhesive tape. We have several irrigation systems so dilapidated that they include subsystems operating on 9-volt batteries. We have sports fields impacted by gophers and ground squirrel holes, making it difficult to use them for active recreation. We have sport court surfaces that in some cases are almost unplayable. Despite these challenges PRNS staff have made a valiant effort to maintain our parks. Unfortunately, we haven't always provided PRNS with the resources they need. Due to our short staffing it's possible to run across a trained irrigation specialist covering more basic functions in our parks, such as installing a tire swing. A grounds worker who used to tend to a single park prior to 2009 now has the responsibility for multiple parks. These issues were discussed at length in a memo released last year; we have attached that previous memorandum for our colleagues who were not here when it was approved by the Rules & Open Government Committee on November 2, 2016. The current state of our parks is not due to negligence on the part of PRNS staff, but to the difficult budget cuts that past circumstances forced upon us. Despite these cuts, our parks are still very well used the data in Exhibit 1 below shows that among San Jose residents who were

surveyed, 88% have visited a park in the past year. The concerning number, however, lies in Exhibit 2, as it shows only 55% of those residents would rate our parks as either "good" or "excellent", and we are trending in the wrong direction, as our rating among our residents has declined since 2011. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2. RESIDENT SURVEY % of San Jose Residents chat reported visiong a park at least once in the past year 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% RESIDENT SURVEY % of San Jose Residents Rating San Jose's Parks as "excellent" or "good" 55% 0% 201 I 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: of San City Jose Auditor's Report on City Services 2015-16 Over the past decade, we have increased the number of parks and thus increased the maintenance responsibility, but over the same period maintenance resources have declined. Since our last update to the Greenprint Strategy in 2009, the City has added 16 parks, or 61.3 acres to its inventory of parkland, however if we examine the data displayed in Exhibit 3, we can see that the PRNS workforce is roughly 100 employees below where it was in 2009. We just don't have the staff capacity to maintain our parks adequately. Exhibit 3. PRNS Authorized Positions SCO We greatly appreciate PRNS staffs effort to put together the maintenance report we're considering under this item. We think it presents some very good options for rebuilding our parks maintenance staffing. In particular, we think the menu of options to improve maintenance staffing included on page 10 is very useful. We've included those options below for easy reference.

Exhibit 4. Ongoing Funding Scenarios 1. Current funding (20% of parks with PCA < 3.0) 2. Improve all parks to a minimum PCA score of 3.0 3. Improve overall average to PCA 3.5 (All parks with PCA scores of 3.0 or higher) 4. Improve overall average to PCA 4.0 (80% of parks PCA > 4.0) Additional Annual Funding from Current Total Funding Needed Number of Parks Improved SO $19.7 M 0 $1.8 M (4-9%) $21.5 M 37 $3.5 M (+18%) S23.2 M 62 $15.0 M (+76%) $34.7 M 171 Any of the above funding options would be of benefit, but we believe that Scenario 3 hi particular would be a good short-term target for increasing maintenance funding. Adding $3.5 million to our parks budget and improving our lowest rated parks, as proposed in Scenario 3, would help to ensure that all of our residents have access to mhiimally functional and attractive outdoor recreation. In addition to raising the average PCA score to 3.5, Scenario 3 would also increase all parks up to a minimum score of 3.0. As we can see below, there are parks in all of our council districts that are below 3.0, and thus are not currently considered to be in acceptable condition. We don't believe it's fair to our neighborhoods to allow these parks to persist in such bad condition. Exhibit 5. Number of Parks By Council District Not Meeting PCA 3.0 Standard Council District 1 Council District 2 M Council District 3 Council District A Council District 5 Council District 6 Ml Council District 7 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Council District 3 Council District 9 ^ i Council District 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of Parks Not Meeting PCA 3.0 Standard With this memo, we recommend that we ask our parks staff to develop a detailed budget proposal based on Scenario 3 for consideration as part of the upcoming budget process. Asking staff to develop a proposal would guarantee that we will be able to consider that option as part of the upcoming budget process. There was some concern expressed when this issue was initially raised that discussing park maintenance solutions outside the budget process might undermine the budget process. Our recommendation does not propose taking budget action, so I don't believe that there should be any conflict with the budget process in this case. We are simply want to ensure that staff will complete the preparatory work necessary for budget action on this issue to be considered as part of the budget process. We'll close by pointing out what I think we all know already: Our residents take pride in their neighborhoods and they take pride in their parks. They have been patient with us as we have slowly rebuilt City services after some very hard budget years, but I think now is the time that we need to start showing progress even relatively modest progress towards once again justifying the pride our residents take in San Jose.

ATTACHMENT A: RULES COMMITTEE: 11-2-16 ITEM: G.3 ihrthi CITY OF SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY, Memorandum TO: RULES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE FROM: Councilmember Donald Rocha SUBJECT: PARK MAINTENANCE DATE: October 27, 2016 RECOMMENDATION ft In the interest of ensuring that San Jose's park maintenance challenges receive detailed attention, I recommend that the Rules Committee direct staff to provide the below information as part of the Park Condition Assessment item when it comes before the December 2016 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the February 2017 meeting of the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee. (Note that the Condition Assessment item is already on the Commission work plan and is anticipated to be part of the Committee work plan for next Spring, so no work plan amendments are necessary. This is a request for supplemental information for an alreadyplanned agenda item.) 1. A full list of park condition scores for individual parks based on the 2016-17 condition assessment labeled by both council district and park district, as well as the full list of scores from the 2015-16 assessment so that we can compare the two years. 2. A set of budget proposal options intended to address maintenance challenges (if budget options cannot be developed in time for the December Parks Commission meeting, staff should return to the Commission at a subsequent meeting to present that issue.) Options should include: a. A proposal that adds sufficient resources to bring all parks rated 1 or 2 up to a minimum rating of 3. b. A proposal that would allow PRNS to meet its goal of 80% of parks rated 4 or above. c. Any other proposals staff thinks it may be beneficial to consider, including any updates on ongoing or planned efforts to close the capital maintenance funding shortfall, if staff believes such updates may be appropriate at this time. 3. Information on any recruitment and retention challenges the Department may be facing, including information on the number of vacant positions, whether positions remain vacant for long periods, and any perspective staff may wish to offer if the Department believes

recruitment and retention to be a serious challenge. 4. An opportunity for the Parks and Recreation Commission to make a recommendation to the Council, if they so choose, as to their preferred budget proposal to address San Jose's parks maintenance challenges or to their preferred prioritization of various budget options, consistent with their advisory role to the City Council. As mentioned in recommendation 2 above, if staff is unable to prepare budget options in time for the Commission's December meeting, they should return to a subsequent Commission meeting and provide to the Commission with an opportunity to make a recommendation to the Council. ANALYSIS Over recent months I have received an increasing number of complaints from residents about the condition of parks in my district. Residents report problems such as dead grass, dead trees, overgrown weeds and decaying fixtures, hi many cases they have waited patiently for these problems to be fixed but are increasingly frustrated at the City's continued inability to address their concerns. As an example of the kinds of complaints I've heard, I've included some picture of our parks in Attachment A. Hearing concerns from residents about inadequate services has become a familiar experience for all of us in City Hall. I think we've done a good job over the past year in translating a number of those concerns into action, in particular in the areas of public safety and road maintenance. Our sales tax measure and other items on the ballot will allow us to make significant progress on those issues. As we all know, we would never have made this progress without a lot of hard work on the front end work to understand the problem, to understand how much money is needed to solve it, and to develop solutions. With this memo, I'm suggesting that we may want to take the same approach we've taken with these other matters of great public concern and put in a little bit of work on the parks maintenance issue, well before we make any decisions. Before I discuss my specific proposal, I want to acknowledge that our parks staff are dedicated and hardworking folks who take great pride in the City's parks. The current state of our parks is not due to negligence on their part, but to the difficult budget decisions that circumstances have forced upon us. I'd like to take a moment to examine the effect of budget cuts budget cuts over the past ten years on our Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department (PRNS). First, let's take a look at two charts from the Auditor's Annual Report on City Services. Parks and Recreation Employees per 10,000 Residents Authorized Positions. 800 a 82 Francisco m Anaheim 9 7.85"' Ctond S.«600 Z)\ i l l I I I I -III! 1111II t : Angeles, - 0 5ANJOSE 5ANIOSE IIHMI ImMBBIH 334 & ^ & ^ & ^.< >' ^ ^ ^ ^ <v ^ ^ o* ^ Charts taken from page 72 of the Annual 13 5 7 9 Report on City Services 2014-15

As we can see, the Department was cut heavily from 08-09 to 11-12. Current staffing levels do not compare favorably to other cities around California. My office has also done some additional research looking back through past budgets in an attempt to determine how the number of positions devoted to maintenance work within PRNS has changed. The chart below depicts the results of this research. I'm sure that Parks Staff and the Budget Office could provide much more comprehensive information but I wanted to make an initial attempt to get a sense of our specific staffing challenges. 70 Groundsworker and Park Maintenance Assistant Positions Over the Past Ten Budget Years 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11 12 12-13 13-14 14-15 IS-16 16-17 Budget Year 1 Groundsworker Parks Maintenance Assistant The Groundsworker and Parks Maintenance Assistant positions have begun to recover slightly but are still well below levels of ten years ago. It's clear that allocating budget resources may be a significant component to solving this problem, but I don't know yet what level of resources we need or what strategies we should pursue to allocate them. To better educate ourselves on this issue, I think there may be a great opportunity to put our commission and committee structure to work, to allow us some time over the next few months to take a detailed look at this issue. Fortunately an item on park maintenance the Park Condition Assessment is already planned to come before the Parks Commission in December and before the NSE Committee in February. We don't need to make any work plan amendments or add any new agenda items. With this memo all I am proposing is that we ask staff to bring forward enhanced information on the already-planned condition assessment item to provide an opportunity to discuss options to address the problem. My intent is not for these meetings to supplant the budget process as a way of making decisions about how to allocate resources. Instead, the intent is to use our commission and committee process to prepare for the budget process, in recognition that our commissions and committees should be given meaningful work that helps the Council make better decisions.

Let me briefly discuss the elements of my recommendation: Full list of park condition scores: Last year PRNS adopted a practice of evaluating the condition of San Jose parks and assigning a numerical condition score to every park based on that evaluation. When they reported on this effort to the Parks Commission and NSE Committee last year, they provided high level data that was very useful in understanding the aggregate condition of parks citywide, but did not provide a list of scores for individual parks. I'm recommending that this year when they bring the 2016-17 condition assessment forward, they provide the commission and committee with a full list of individual park scores so that we can have a finer grained discussion of the problem. Budget Options for Addressing the Problem: As I discussed above, it's important to give our commissions and committees meaningful work that allows us to better prepare for important decisions. In this case, given the seriousness of the park maintenance problem, I would suggest that we surface our budget options through the commission and committee items so that we can get a running start to understand what it will take to solve this problem. Recruitment and Retention: Given the City's struggle with recruitment and retention, I think it's worth asking PRNS whether an inability to fill positions is part of their struggle with parks maintenance. Commission Recommendation: As I've said before many times, I believe our commissions are a valuable means of engaging the public in the work we do at City Hall. Part of taking our commissions seriously is asking them to give their opinion to the Council on important matters. Given the concern in the community about park maintenance I think we should ask the Parks Commission to weigh in on potential solutions to the problem. In this memo I have mainly focused on our staffing challenges, but as I briefly mention in item 2.C of my recommendation, there is also a capital funding shortfall. The 2016 Status Report on Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Backlog indicates that there is a yearly need for $48,422,000 in capital funding to replace PRNS assets that exhaust their useful life. The report also indicates that in FY14-15 the City only spent $21.1 million for that puipose, leaving a one year shortfall of $27.3 million. The entire deferred maintenance backlog for parks assets is estimated at $227.4 million. I welcome any short term options that parks staff may wish to propose for increasing capital funding for urgent maintenance needs such as those depicted in Attachment A. A comprehensive solution to the problem will likely be on a somewhat longer timeline. I am very interested in focusing on the capital funding problem over the next two years to give ourselves the option to put forward a ballot measure during the 2018 election cycle if there are solutions that require voter approval. I thank the committee for their thoughtful consideration of this item. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve San Jose's parks for the benefit of our residents and our city.

Attachment A - Park Photos - r^z&zr-:. - 'Jsnaas Camden Community Center Field DeAnza Park

Doerr Park Erikson Park

Lone Hill Park Paul Moore Park

Columbus Park

Columbus Park Starbird Park

Watson Park Rainbow Park