Committee reviews Comptroller—s Park Maintenance Report, hears district concerns and files item

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee reviewed the Comptroller—s Office annual Park Maintenance Report for fiscal year 2011—2012 on March 12, 2013, hearing presentations from General Manager Phil Ginsberg and Controller—s Office staff and filing the report at the meeting—s close.

The report—s headline figure was an overall average park score of 88.4%, which staff and the general manager noted is above the 85% threshold the city uses to indicate a well-maintained park. "What you have before you is incredible data," General Manager Phil Ginsberg told the committee, arguing the multi-year dataset (which began in 2005) lets staff track trends and allocate scarce maintenance resources more strategically.

Controller—s Office staff said scores have been largely stable year to year, with fewer parks scoring under 80% and a narrowing gap between the highest- and lowest-scoring districts. Lydia Saviroja, an analyst in the Recreation and Park Department—s Operations Division, identified one inconsistent measure: open space scored 79.7%, a volatile rating because it is judged on a single feature (presence of trash) and is not actively maintained.

Staff described new process improvements aimed at increasing accuracy and follow-up: customized evaluation forms, target evaluation times, dual evaluations for quality assurance, faster scanning of evaluation forms back to managers (within about three days), and written action plans to document responses to low scores. Saviroja said the department maintains a watch list for low-performing parks and follows those properties quarterly with documented action plans.

Supervisors pressed staff for district-specific detail. Supervisor Campos pointed to District 9—s slide set, noting none of its parks ranked in the city—s top 10 and that two parks (Rolfe and Garfield) were among the 10 lowest performers; he cited specific declines such as Jose Coronado (from 93.9% to 80.8%) and Palaga (from 84.3% to 79.1%). Phil Ginsberg and staff said the scores are snapshots and that response actions would place those parks on the watch list with extra maintenance and documented action plans.

The department highlighted workforce programs and capital investments as drivers of improvement. Ginsberg credited partnerships with the mayor—s workforce programs and a gardener apprenticeship that the department said creates a pipeline to permanent gardener jobs. Staff said the city proposed adding two apprentices in the current budget cycle (bringing total position authority to about 27) and coordinating with Human Resources so program graduates can move into permanent gardener classifications. Ginsberg also noted about $1,000,000,000 in deferred maintenance across the park system and referenced roughly $12,000,000 of investment for McLaren Park in the 2012 Parks Bond.

Members of the public raised other concerns. Longtime resident Douglas Yap asked whether the maintenance report addresses an active program to remove dangerous trees and raised concerns about the privatization or excessive private use of public facilities. "I was wondering whether in this maintenance report there's going to be any discussion about the ongoing program to cut down dangerous trees throughout the city," Yap said. Meredith Thomas of the Parks Alliance praised the report—s findings but urged officials to consider long-term maintenance funding as park use and city density increase, noting that bonds fund capital improvements but do not fully cover continuing maintenance.

After questions and public comment, Vice Chair Supervisor Katie Tang moved to file the item; the motion was seconded and the chair stated, "This item has been filed." The transcript records no roll-call vote or individual tallies. Staff told supervisors they would provide the watch-list document and associated action plans and that a standards revision and retraining effort was planned for the later 2012—13 cycle.

The committee adjourned after filing the report, and staff follow-up on watch lists, action plans and standards revisions was described as the next procedural step.