Conservancy Report · Released May 6, 2026
Three Years of Pressure. Time to Step Up.
San Diego is navigating a structural budget deficit that is forcing real tradeoffs across every department, including public safety. Mission Bay's day-to-day operations have appeared in three straight cycles of proposed reductions. This report compares Proposed and Adopted budgets across FY2025, FY2026, and FY2027 — and makes the case that civic partnership, not blame, is what closes the gap.
The headline finding
Mission Bay's FY2027 Proposed Budget reduces 14.5 front-line positions and affects 25 restrooms across the bay system — nearly double the reduction proposed last year, which Council restored at adoption. The City is operating under genuine fiscal pressure. The Conservancy is launching to bring partnership capacity to the gap that pressure creates.
A note on administrative growth. Administrative capacity has grown alongside the department's expanding portfolio — new facilities, contracting, compliance, and reporting requirements that legitimately need staffing. The point of this report is not that admin growth is illegitimate, but that the ratio of overhead to field staff is shifting in a direction that affects daily park service. A peer-city benchmark of admin-to-field ratios across comparable park departments would help calibrate whether San Diego's shift is within or outside the norm.
The Conservancy's analysis and the City's own independent budget analyst document the same numbers and the same structural pattern.
The Office of the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) released its FY2027 budget review on April 29, 2026. Two independent analyses, one day apart, reach the same conclusions about Mission Bay — and the IBA adds equity, capital-fund, and Charter-mechanism context that the Conservancy report didn't otherwise have.
Both analyses, same conclusions
Cross-reference between this Conservancy report and the IBA's official analysis. The figures match within rounding; the structural pattern is the same.
| Finding | This report | IBA confirmation |
|---|---|---|
| Division-level FTE cut | 113.60 → 99.10 (−14.50 FTE) | 113.60 FY26 Adopted → 99.10 FY27 Proposed — the single largest divisional cut in the entire Parks & Recreation General Fund proposal |
| 13 Mission Bay restrooms closed | −5.68 FTE / −$547,357 | 5.68 FTE / $547k — IBA p. 239/235 (13 of 28 Mission Bay restrooms; nearly half) |
| 5 Shoreline Beach restrooms closed | −1.82 FTE / −$155,859 | 1.82 FTE / $156k — all five Shoreline Beach restrooms (except partial at Children's Pool) |
| 7 Fiesta Island portables eliminated | −$17,640 (non-personnel) | 7 of 14 portable restrooms removed — half the Fiesta Island portable inventory |
| 25-restroom total | 13 + 5 + 7 = 25 | Aligns precisely — Mission Bay + Shoreline Beach + Fiesta Island |
| 100% front-line | Every Mission Bay position cut is field staff; zero managers | IBA confirms: Grounds Maintenance Worker 2, Beach Maintenance Team (6.00 FTE), Carpenter (1.00 FTE) — no admin or analyst grades |
| Department-wide direction | −94 FTE with +$4.7M spending | −93.68 FTE with +$4.68M — Administrative Services growing +3.48 FTE while operations shrink |
| Ratchet pattern (2 cycles) | FY26 7.5 FTE proposed → FY27 14.5 FTE proposed | IBA notes this is the second consecutive year a similar restroom mitigation package was proposed; FY26's 7.5 FTE version was restored by Council, FY27's is nearly double and hits Mission Bay harder |
What the IBA adds beyond the figures
Three IBA findings are not in the Conservancy report and bear directly on Mission Bay's operational and capital reality:
- Race & Equity flag. The City's Division of Race & Equity flags disproportionate impacts on certain communities and park users from the proposed reductions. The cuts do not fall evenly across San Diegans — and that finding comes from the City itself, not from advocates.
- Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund (MBIF) capital pressure. The IBA projects a significant revenue drop (~$13.2M+ in some tables) tied to lower-than-expected rents and concessions, plus the $20M General Fund threshold under City Charter §55.2. Capital reinvestment capacity is being squeezed alongside the operating budget.
- Charter §55.2 revenue split documented. ~$41.4M in Mission Bay rents and concessions budgeted; ~$21.4M above the $20M threshold flows 65% to MBIF / 35% to the Regional Parks Improvement Fund — the underlying Charter mechanism that makes Mission Bay's revenue performance a citywide capital question.
The IBA documents alternatives Council can still adopt before June 9, 2026.
The IBA analysis details multiple alternatives for recreation center hours, restroom mitigations, and prioritizing underserved areas. Council has restored similar cuts in earlier cycles and can modify these proposals before the FY2027 adoption vote. Public input between now and June 9 still matters — and so does civic partnership capacity ready to step in alongside whatever the City can fund.
What $19.24M needs to cover.
The "why parks instead of public safety, libraries, or anything else" question deserves a direct answer. Mission Bay's General Fund operating budget has to cover a 4,235-acre park visited by tens of millions of San Diegans and out-of-town guests every year. Here is what that scale looks like in unit terms, calculated from publicly available figures.
A note on peer comparisons. The comparisons readers will reasonably want to draw — against police and fire overtime, library hours, infrastructure backlog, or other line items — require their own peer-budget analysis, which this report doesn't attempt. The numbers above are the Conservancy's own scale figures; we are happy to support a peer-line-item review on request. Visitor figures are commonly cited estimates and have not been independently audited; the per-visitor metric is therefore an order-of-magnitude indication, not a precise unit cost.
How year-over-year pressure compounds
The same restroom maintenance staff have appeared in proposed reductions two cycles in a row — a pattern the IBA's April 29, 2026 review independently confirms. That is not an indictment of City staff or leadership — it reflects how a constrained General Fund pushes the same operationally vulnerable line items back to the surface each cycle. Even when Council restores positions at adoption, the cumulative pressure builds.
How the pattern compounds
Every spring, the City develops a draft budget that has to balance public safety, libraries, recreation, parks, and infrastructure inside a finite General Fund. When the structural deficit is large, day-to-day park operations are among the items that show up as candidates for reduction. Public input and Council action soften many of those proposals at adoption. But the pressure doesn't disappear — it returns the following spring, often deeper. The pattern below is documented across three Park & Recreation Board presentations.
-
FY26
April 2025 — Proposed: 7.50 FTE reduction to Mission Bay & Shoreline restroom staffing (3.50 GMW1 Hourly + 4.00 GMW2). Same line item also reduced Balboa Park by 5.50 FTE.
June 2025 — Adopted: Council restored the positions. Mission Bay FTE actually grew by 1.0 (113.60 vs. 112.60 baseline). Public input worked. -
FY27
April 2026 — Proposed: 14.50 FTE reduction to Mission Bay — nearly double last year. Restroom-specific reductions return at the same level (5.68 + 1.82 = 7.50 FTE), now joined by the 6.00 FTE Beach Maintenance Team and the 1.00 FTE Mission Bay & Shoreline Carpenter. Plus 7 Fiesta Island portables. Decision pending now.
-
FY28
April 2027 — Forecast: Every FTE not restored in FY27 lowers the FY28 starting line. The next cycle begins on whatever Council adopts in this one. That is precisely why civic partnership matters now — helping the City protect operations is much cheaper than reversing the trajectory later.
Mission Bay & Shoreline Beaches — Proposed vs. Adopted
The division was carved out as its own line in FY2025 with 112.60 FTE and a $17.5M operating budget. Below is what was proposed in each April Board presentation, and what was adopted by Council in June.
| Cycle | Stage | FTE | Operating $ | Year-over-year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY25 | Proposed (Apr 2024) | 112.60 | $17,817,106 | Division created |
| FY25 | Adopted | 112.60 | $17,479,908 | Baseline established |
| FY26 | Proposed (Apr 2025) | 105.10 | $17,962,840 | −7.50 FTE (restrooms targeted) |
| FY26 | Adopted | 113.60 | $18,817,401 | Cut reversed + 1.0 FTE added |
| FY27 | Proposed (Apr 2026) | 99.10 | $19,241,793 | −14.50 FTE (~2× FY26 ask) |
| FY27 | Adopted | TBD | TBD | Council vote — June 2026 |
Sources: prbr20240418a-item202 (FY25 deck), prbr20250417a-item205 (FY26 deck), April 16, 2026 P&R Board deck (FY27).
Mission Bay's FY27 proposed cut, line by line
Every position eliminated in the FY27 Mission Bay reduction is field staff — people who clean, repair, or maintain something the public touches. Zero are managerial.
| Reduction | FTE | $ | Visible impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mission Bay restrooms (GMW2) | −5.68 | −$547,357 | 13 restrooms closed seasonally |
| Beach Maintenance Team | −6.00 | −$687,369 | All SD beach & shoreline maintenance |
| Shoreline Parks restrooms (GMW2) | −1.82 | −$155,859 | 5 restrooms closed in winter |
| Mission Bay & Shoreline Carpenter | −1.00 | −$135,800 | All asset repair across the bay |
| Fiesta Island portables (non-personnel) | 0.00 | −$17,640 | 7 portable restrooms eliminated |
| Total Mission Bay impact | −14.50 | −$1,544,025 | 25 restrooms; 100% front-line |
Department-wide trajectory
The Parks & Recreation Department's overall direction has shifted year to year — but Mission Bay has absorbed an outsized and growing share of the cuts in each cycle.
| Cycle | Stage | FTE | Operating $ | Net direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY25 | Proposed | 1,105.48 | $188.48M | +45 FTE / +$10.2M |
| FY25 | Adopted | 1,120.56 | $184.24M | Council added 15 FTE beyond proposal |
| FY26 | Proposed | 975.57 | $178.69M | −145 FTE / −$5.9M |
| FY26 | Adopted | 1,039.77 | $188.75M | Council restored 64 FTE |
| FY27 | Proposed | 946.09 | $193.43M | −94 FTE with +$4.7M |
| FY27 | Adopted | TBD | TBD | June 2026 |
Mission Bay's share of the citywide cut is growing
Where the dollars are going
Department-wide spending is going UP $4.7 million in FY27 even as 94 front-line positions are reduced. That isn't a contradiction — it's how municipal budgets work under fiscal pressure: rising mandatory costs (salary & benefit adjustments, retiree healthcare, utilities, insurance) consume the available dollars, and the place that gets squeezed is discretionary front-line capacity. Understanding this helps explain why even good-faith budget management produces the operational gap the Conservancy is launching to help fill.
| Cycle | Stage | Admin FTE | Δ from prior adoption |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY24 | Adopted (baseline) | 33.75 | — |
| FY25 | Proposed | 41.81 | +8.06 |
| FY25 | Adopted | 39.81 | +6.06 |
| FY26 | Proposed | 36.77 | −3.04 |
| FY26 | Adopted | 36.77 | −3.04 |
| FY27 | Proposed | 40.25 | +3.48 |
Administrative Services net change FY24 → FY27 (proposed): +6.50 FTE. Reflects the centralized work required to run a department under increasing fiscal complexity.
Where the $4.7M department-wide increase is going (FY27 General Fund)
Pulled directly from the FY27 Significant Budget Adjustments slides — mostly mandatory or contractual:
- +$7.09M Salary & Benefit Adjustments (negotiated raises, retirement contributions, retiree healthcare)
- +$6.64M Non-Discretionary Adjustment (utilities, insurance, rent)
- +$649K Mandatory General Benefit Contribution (state-mandated MAD funding)
- +$633K Animal Services contract restoration
- +$1.29M Tram Services restructure
- +$1.55M 13 new Grounds Maintenance Worker 2 positions for new facilities opening elsewhere in the city
Most of this dollar growth is non-discretionary — the City has limited room to redirect it. Of the discretionary share, the City is appropriately staffing newly-opening parks across San Diego. The result is that Mission Bay's existing operations don't gain the new resources, even as the dept's total budget grows. That gap is where the Conservancy comes in.
Risk register & service-level impact
The service-level impact is real and structural — and that is exactly the kind of gap a conservancy is built to help close.
Eliminated FTE positions are not "paused." Closed restrooms are not "seasonal" in any conventional sense — they are unstaffed because the funded staff no longer exists. Within a constrained General Fund, Mission Bay's day-to-day operations are competing with public safety, libraries, recreation, and new facility openings elsewhere in the city. That competition is structural, and it isn't anyone's moral failing. The pattern below is what the math compounds into without civic capacity coming in alongside it — and that's the work the Conservancy is launching to do.
| Risk | Impact on the park | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulative 13.5 FTE loss (net FY25 baseline → FY27 proposed) |
Reduced daily maintenance, slower response to issues, lower cleanliness standards across the entire bay system. Permanent loss of institutional knowledge. | High |
| 25 restrooms affected (13 + 5 + 7 closures or eliminations) |
Reduced visitor experience, potential public health concerns, increased complaints, longer lines at remaining facilities, accelerated wear on whatever stays open. | High |
| Budget increases consumed by mandatory costs | Salary & benefit adjustments, retiree healthcare, utilities, insurance, and rent absorb the +$4.7M dept-wide growth. Less and less money is available for actual park operations year after year. | High |
| No dedicated Mission Bay operations funding source | Day-to-day operations rely entirely on the General Fund, with creative use of the Mission Bay Park Improvement (capital) Fund to plug gaps. Vulnerable to every citywide budget cycle. No structural insulation. | Medium-High |
| New facilities opening elsewhere in the city | FY27 adds 13 Grounds Maintenance Worker 2 positions at new parks across San Diego. Resources stretched thinner as the city expands acreage without proportional staffing increases — and Mission Bay loses share. | Medium |
The 25-restroom cascade
Closing or eliminating 25 restrooms in one of the most heavily visited public parks in California is not a "cleanliness adjustment." It cascades through the visitor experience, the leasehold businesses that depend on park traffic, and the maintenance staff still on the job:
- Significantly reduces visitor comfort and convenience — especially for families, children, and elderly visitors who can't simply "wait until later" or walk further.
- Increases pressure on the remaining open restrooms: longer lines, faster wear-and-tear, more stress on neighboring businesses and leaseholds whose customers default to them when the City facilities are locked.
- Drives more complaints, negative reviews, and potential public health concerns — all of which land on the Conservancy, the leaseholders, and the Council members fielding the calls.
- Further strains the already-reduced maintenance staff. The remaining 5.68 FTE in the Mission Bay restroom pool is not enough to maintain the surviving facilities at current cleanliness standards — the workload doesn't disappear when the doors lock; it relocates and concentrates.
Why FY27 matters more than the last two combined
If the pattern compounds, Mission Bay loses ground every year — and the City loses a partner.
FY26 saw the proposed cut restored at adoption. FY27 came in twice as large. If FY27 partially adopts the proposed reductions, the FY28 starting line opens lower — and the same dynamic begins again on a smaller base. The City is doing its job inside a real fiscal squeeze. Mission Bay's job — and the Conservancy's job — is to make sure civic capacity shows up to keep the park functional through the squeeze.
What partnership looks like in FY27
Mission Bay's adopted FTE returns to FY26 baseline (113.60), with the City and Conservancy publishing a shared service-level standard tied to the 1994 Master Plan ahead of the next budget cycle. The Conservancy fields volunteer crews to relieve pressure on the staff that remains. Founding donors fund adopt-a-restroom and adopt-a-cleanup partnerships. We work alongside Parks & Recreation, not in opposition to it.
What we're trying to avoid
The avoidable outcome isn't political — it's operational: 25 restrooms locked for visitors with no civic capacity ready to step in, the Carpenter and Beach Maintenance Team not backed by adopt-an-asset partnerships, the FY28 baseline opening lower with a fresh round of pressure on top. None of that is what anyone — the City, the Conservancy, the public — wants for Mission Bay. The point of launching now is to build the partnership before the gap widens.
The Conservancy's role
The Mission Bay Park Conservancy is launching now because this decision window is open and because the City needs partners. Through May and into June, public input on the budget matters. Beyond that, the Conservancy fields volunteer crews, funds adopt-a-restroom partnerships, and builds the endowment that supplements (never replaces) City resources for day-to-day operations. We're not waiting for perfect city funding or perfect timing — we're slowly, steadily building the collaborative culture the park needs.
Sources & methodology
- City of San Diego, Parks & Recreation Department. Fiscal Year 2025 Proposed Operating Budget — Parks & Recreation Board Presentation, Item #202, April 18, 2024 (prbr20240418a-item202).
- City of San Diego, Parks & Recreation Department. Fiscal Year 2026 Draft Budget — Parks & Recreation Board Presentation, Item #205, April 17, 2025 (prbr20250417a-item205).
- City of San Diego, Parks & Recreation Department. Fiscal Year 2027 Draft Budget — Parks & Recreation Board Presentation, April 16, 2026.
- City of San Diego, Office of the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA). FY2027 Proposed Budget Review — published April 29, 2026. Cross-references to Mission Bay restroom mitigation appear at p. 239/235; the citywide restroom mitigation package and Race & Equity Division equity analysis are documented in the same report.
- FY26 Adopted figures sourced from the FY27 deck's "FY 2026 Adopted" baseline column (the Department's own reconciliation of what Council actually approved versus what was proposed).
- "Front-line" classification based on position titles in the proposed reductions: Grounds Maintenance Worker (1, 2, 3), Custodian, Carpenter, Equipment Operator/Technician, Park Ranger, Tree Maintenance, Beach Maintenance — all are field-classified roles, not management or analyst grades.
- Mission Bay restroom counts: 13 Mission Bay seasonal closures + 5 Shoreline Parks winter closures + 7 Fiesta Island portables eliminated = 25, drawn directly from FY27 deck reduction line items.
For source PDFs or additional briefings, contact press@missionbaypark.org.