L.A. voters could be asked to boost spending on parks. Finding the money comes later

Filthy bathrooms.Damaged sprinkler systems.

Deteriorating buildings.Dead trees.The list of problems facing Los Angeles’ network of parks and recreation facilities has been well documented, with many going unaddressed for years or even decades.On Wednesday, the City Council will take up a proposed 50% increase in the minimum funding allocated each year to the city’s Department of Recreation and Parks.

But that proposal is missing a key element: a new source of funding.The proposal, under consideration for the Nov.3 ballot, would require a change to the City Charter, L.A.’s governing document.The Recreation and Parks budget for the current year is about $359 million, which is above the minimum allocation of $292 million required by the City Charter.

If approved by voters, the ballot proposal would ramp up the minimum allocation over four years, putting an additional $175 million into the parks department by 2030-31.Unless council members find a new source of money to pay for the additional funding, they would have to rein in spending elsewhere.The park funding proposal is one of several being considered for the ballot as part of a major rewrite of the City Charter.

Although some proposals are on the verge of being sidelined, the park funding plan has been gaining steam, despite warnings from the council’s budget analysts.City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo warned Monday that the park proposal would increase the size of the city’s so-called structural deficit, or the gap between the amount of money the city takes in and the amount it spends.In a seven-page memo, he also said that tying the hands of future councils by locking in spending for certain programs goes against the city’s financial policies.The council’s rules committee moved ahead with the park proposal anyway, endorsing it with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who spearheaded the effort, said she understood why the city’s budget analysts were wary.“But also, I’m ...