Overview
In 2025 Los Angeles city and county governments announced major budget reductions that directly affected public parks, libraries and other services. Meanwhile, federal parks located near Los Angeles faced staff reductions tied to national policy changes. These cuts reflect economic pressures, legal liabilities and policy decisions that have accumulated over several years. The sections below discuss the factors for each level of government and provide supporting data from official documents and news reports.
Los Angeles County Park System
2025–26 recommended budget and curtailment
- Budget pressures from disasters, settlements and declining revenue. In April 2025 the Los Angeles County CEO released a recommended budget for FY 2025‑26 that would cut departmental budgets by roughly 3 %. The proposed cuts were needed to offset over $1 billion in costs from January 2025 wildfires, potential losses of hundreds of millions of dollars in rescinded federal aid and a $4 billion settlement for childhood sexual‑assault claims brought under California AB 218 . At the same time the county was experiencing slower property‑tax revenue growth due to declining home sales . The CEO described these “simultaneous pressures” as unprecedented and cautioned that any one of them would have been daunting .
- Department‑wide 3 % cuts and elimination of vacancies. To address the deficit, the county ordered all departments to cut spending by 3 %, eliminating 310 vacant positions and saving more than $50 million by delaying equipment purchases and reducing programs . At this stage the county avoided layoffs but warned that budget conditions remained uncertain .
- Specific cuts to the Department of Parks & Recreation. Because of the countywide cuts, the Parks Department faced an 8.5 % curtailment of its ongoing net county cost (about $18.2 million) and the rescission of $4 million in funding for lifeguard positions, resulting in a $22.2 million reduction . A board letter stated that fee increases were necessary to sustain nighttime park‑closure staff, maintain hours and retain full‑time positions .
Service reductions and fee increases
- Two‑day park closures and shortened pool season. In June 2025 the county announced that many large regional parks would close two days per week. Parks Director Norma E. García‑González explained that the funding cuts would reduce overtime and part‑time staff, leading to closures of six regional parks on Mondays and Tuesdays. The summer pool season was shortened from 23 weeks to 11 .
- Suspension of popular programs. The Parks After Dark program—which offered evening activities at 34 parks—was suspended, and the “parks after dark” safety staffing eliminated . County leaders noted that declining federal funds, wildfire costs and the AB 218 settlement forced these actions .
- Fee increases. Vehicle-entry and arboretum fees were increased, and the department proposed raising charges for facility rentals and other programs to partially offset the curtailment . The board letter emphasized that raising fees would allow the department to maintain staffing and park hours .
Supplemental budget and continuing pressures (Sept 2025)
A supplemental budget adopted in September 2025 highlighted continued financial strain. To cover the sex‑abuse settlement, wildfire expenses and labor costs, county supervisors transferred $400 million from reserves and cut over 1,100 vacant positions. Supervisors warned that the cuts would close public pools early, reduce park hours and eliminate youth jobs and internships but argued they were necessary to preserve core services . These actions demonstrate how legal liabilities and disaster costs continue to drive park budget reductions.
City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department
Citywide fiscal crisis and mayor’s FY 2025‑26 budget
- Nearly $1 billion deficit driven by economic and disaster impacts. Mayor Karen Bass’s FY 2025‑26 budget message explained that Los Angeles faced a nearly $1 billion shortfall. She attributed the gap to downward economic trends, uncertainty in federal funding, volatile stock markets, post‑pandemic tourism declines, costs of responding to the Palisades wildfires and decreased property‑tax revenue as destroyed homes reduced assessments . Personnel costs and liability payments had also tripled .
- Citywide layoffs but preservation of facility hours. The proposed budget included 1,647 layoffs citywide but aimed to keep library and recreation‑facility hours unchanged . By September the city reached agreements to avert civil‑service layoffs; many positions were restored or transferred, allowing park and library programming to continue . Nonetheless the fiscal crisis underscored the vulnerability of park funding to economic downturns.
Cuts within the Recreation and Parks Department (RAP)
- Elimination of 192 full‑time positions and loss of General Fund subsidy. A summary of a May 2, 2025 budget hearing revealed that the RAP budget proposed eliminating 192 full‑time positions, reducing salary expenses by $14.7 million, and cutting $5.8 million in other expenses (total cuts around $20 million) . Eleven of the positions were filled, and officials warned that the department might no longer receive a General Fund subsidy, forcing it to rely on self‑generated revenue . Councilmember Heather Hutt expressed concern about the department’s ability to deliver core services and urged strategic management .
- Cuts to gardening and childcare programs. The LA Public Press reported that the budget could eliminate over 40 vacant gardener positions and cut funding for childcare centers operated by Recreation and Parks; only two centers would remain after earlier closures . These reductions illustrate how staffing shortages affect maintenance and community programs.
Structural factors and long‑term underfunding
- General Fund reimbursements limit operating funds. The city’s Park Needs Assessment explains that about 40 % of RAP’s FY 2025‑26 operating budget is allocated to reimburse the City’s General Fund for employee benefits, utilities and refuse collection, leaving less money for park operations . This reimbursement requirement, implemented in 2009, has diverted over $1.35 billion from RAP’s operations since its inception .
- Slower budget growth and shrinking workforce. Between FY 2009 and FY 2023 the City’s operating budget grew 68 %, but RAP’s operating budget grew only 35 %, and full‑time staffing decreased 28 % while part‑time staffing dropped 62 % . These trends have forced RAP to manage more than 16,000 acres of parkland with a smaller workforce .
- Per‑capita funding lags behind peer cities. The same assessment notes that Los Angeles invests about $92 per capita in parks, less than every benchmarked city, limiting park quality and programs . With property‑tax assessments declining due to 2025 wildfires and the looming expiration of Proposition K in 2026 (a property‑tax levy supporting parks), RAP faces additional funding challenges .
- Reliance on earned revenue and special funds. The mayor’s proposed budget for FY 2026 would provide no General Fund support to RAP, requiring it to rely on earned revenue (program fees) and the charter‑mandated property‑tax allocation . This shift underscores the department’s vulnerability to fluctuations in program revenues and economic conditions.
Federal National Parks and Recreation Areas near Los Angeles
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SAMO) and local impacts
- Staff reductions and rehiring controversies. In February 2025 the National Park Service (NPS) delivered termination notices to about 1,000 of its roughly 20,000 employees, including 7 park rangers in the Santa Monica Mountains. Although courts later ordered the rangers to be rehired, the episode highlighted the vulnerability of local parks to federal workforce reductions . The Santa Monica Mountains Fund reported that the layoffs disrupted wildlife research and cultural resource protection, and the SAMO Fund had to use donations to rehire the rangers .
- Funding freezes and restrictions. A federal funding freeze during early 2025 affected 32 SAMO Fund employees, and new policies curtailed diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and environmental programs . These administrative decisions, coupled with staff cuts, reduced the park’s capacity to serve visitors and maintain resources.
- Broader staffing crisis and national context. A KUAF report summarizing Interior Department data noted that the NPS lost nearly one‑quarter of its permanent staff in 2025, leading to longer lines, closed campgrounds and deferred maintenance; morale among remaining staff was low . A Center for American Progress analysis explained that the Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal would decrease funding for public land agencies by more than one‑third of 2024 levels and reduce employment by 30 %, resulting in the largest cut in the NPS’s 109‑year history . The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had already fired hundreds of rangers and land managers, causing a 16.5 % drop in NPS staff since 2023 . These cuts have closed ranger stations, campgrounds and restrooms in various parks and threaten to shift maintenance burdens to states .
- Local impacts on Santa Monica Mountains visitors. The Camarillo Acorn reported that termination notices affected roughly 10 % of the 70‑person staff at the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, causing uncertainty at the onset of the busy spring season. Although staff were later rehired, local conservation groups warned that the disruption strained an already understaffed park . The article added that further cuts of up to 30 % of staff could be devastating .
Other nearby federal sites
- Channel Islands National Park and Mojave National Preserve were similarly affected by national staffing cuts. Reduced NPS staffing forced parks to close visitor centers and limit programs, while administrative workloads increased for remaining staff . As federal budgets shrink, these parks may face further service reductions and rely more on volunteers or partner organizations.
Historical Trends and Analysis
Economic cycles and disaster impacts
Los Angeles parks funding has been cyclically sensitive to broader economic conditions. The Great Recession left RAP chronically underfunded; since 2009 its operating budget has grown slower than the city’s overall budget . The COVID‑19 pandemic (2020‑23) closed facilities and reduced program revenue, leading to staff furloughs. By 2025 the city and county were still dealing with post‑pandemic revenue shortfalls .
Wildfires have become an expensive recurring threat. The January 2025 wildfires destroyed homes and infrastructure, prompting expensive emergency responses and lowering property‑tax assessments . These disasters not only increase costs but also reduce tax revenues, compounding budget stress.
Legal liabilities and settlements
The AB 218 childhood sexual‑assault settlement required the county to pay victims over $4 billion . Meeting the first payment alone forced the county to draw $400 million from reserves and cut park services . Rising liability payments similarly strained the city’s budget . Such liabilities divert funds from park operations to legal obligations.
Structural funding challenges
Los Angeles parks are uniquely vulnerable to structural funding issues:
- Dependence on property‑tax assessments and special measures. RAP’s charter‑mandated funding comes from property‑tax assessments, currently set at 3.25 ¢ per $100 of assessed value . Fire‑related property losses reduce this revenue, and upcoming expirations of Proposition K (2026) and PlayLA (2028) will remove dedicated funding streams .
- General Fund reimbursements. The requirement to reimburse the City General Fund for employee benefits and utilities consumes about 40 % of RAP’s operating budget , diverting resources away from park maintenance and programs.
- Underinvestment relative to need. LA’s per‑capita park spending is low compared with peer cities . Meanwhile, park acreage and facilities continue to expand, increasing maintenance obligations while staffing levels shrink .
Political decisions and administrative priorities
On the federal level, the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency and its 2026 budget proposal reflect a political choice to prioritize deficit reduction and other programs over conservation. The result has been mass firings, proposed land transfers and the largest cuts in NPS history . Local observers note that these actions occur even as park visitation grows, undermining public access and safety .
At the city and county levels, elected officials have attempted to shield core services such as homeless outreach, libraries and recreation centers while absorbing losses in other areas. The county prioritized safety‑net services over park programming , whereas the city consolidated departments and negotiated with unions to avert layoffs . These choices illustrate the trade‑offs inherent in budgeting during fiscal crises.
Conclusion
Recent budget cuts to Los Angeles–area parks stem from a combination of economic downturns, disaster‑related costs, legal settlements and policy decisions at multiple government levels. For the county parks, the January 2025 wildfires, a multi‑billion‑dollar sexual‑abuse settlement and declining federal aid triggered an 8.5 % budget curtailment that led to two‑day park closures and higher fees. The city’s Recreation and Parks Department, already chronically underfunded due to structural reimbursements and slow budget growth, faced elimination of full‑time positions and possible loss of general‑fund support as part of efforts to close a nearly $1 billion deficit. Federal national parks near Los Angeles confronted sweeping staff reductions driven by national policies that aim to slash public‑land budgets by one‑third and cut employment by 30 %, causing local disruptions such as the temporary firing of Santa Monica Mountains rangers. Together these factors paint a picture of park systems under severe stress, where funding shortfalls are compounded by disasters and political choices.
Going forward, maintaining public parks will require diverse funding strategies (dedicated taxes, bonds, partnerships), careful management of liabilities and disasters, and advocacy for stable federal funding. Without such measures, Angelenos may continue to see shortened hours, reduced programs and deteriorating facilities in the green spaces that are critical to community health and environmental resilience.