Park standards, 6-month report FY 2009-10 : park scores citywide increased through the first half of FY 2009-10 PDF
Preview Park standards, 6-month report FY 2009-10 : park scores citywide increased through the first half of FY 2009-10
SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY 3 1223 08679 6704 PARK STANDARDS S-MONTH REPORT FY 2009-10 5/S 3ark scores citywide increased hrough the first half of FY 2009-10 San Francisco PublicLibrary Government Information Center San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 REFERENCE BOOK Nottobetakenfrom thelibrary GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS DEPT MAR 1 7 2010 March 16, 2010 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY PARK STANDARDS 6-MONTH REPORT FY 2009-10 Park scores citywide increased through the first half of FY 2009-10 GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS DEPT MAR 1 7 2010 March 16, 2010 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE CITY SERVICES AUDITOR The City Services Auditor was created within the Controller's Office through an amendment to the City Charter that was approved byvoters in November 2003. Under Appendix F to the CityCharter, the City Services Auditor has broad authorityfor: • Reporting on the level and effectiveness ofSan Francisco's public services and benchmarking the city to other public agencies and jurisdictions. • Conducting financial and performance audits ofcity departments, contractors, and functions to assess efficiency and effectiveness of processes and services. • Operating a whistleblower hotline and website and investigating reports ofwaste, fraud, and abuse of city resources. • Ensuring the financial integrity and improving the overall performance and efficiencyofcity government. The audits unit conducts financial audits, attestation engagements, and performance audits. Financial audits address the financial integrity of both city departments and contractors and provide reasonable assurance about whetherfinancial statements are presented fairly in all material aspects in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Attestation engagements examine, review, or perform procedures on a broad range ofsubjects such as internal controls; compliance with requirements of specified laws, regulations, rules, contracts, orgrants; and the reliabilityof performance measures. Performance audits focus primarilyon assessment ofcity services and processes, providing recommendations to improve department operations. We conduct our audits in accordance with the GovernmentAuditing Standards published bythe U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO). These standards require: • Independence ofaudit staffand the audit organization. • Objectivity ofthe auditors performing the work. • Competent staff, including continuing professional education. • Quality control procedures to provide reasonable assurance ofcompliance with the auditing standards. Project Team: Peg Stevenson, Director Andrew Murray, Deputy Director Natasha Mihal, Project Manager Nikhila Pai, Performance Analyst CSA City Performance and Audit Staff 3 1223 08679 6704 City and County of San Francisco Office of the Controller - City Services Auditor Park Standards 6-Month Report FY 2009-10 March 16, 2010 Park scores citywide increased through the first half of FY 2009-10 Purpose ofthe Report The City Services Auditor CharterAmendment requires that standards be established for park maintenance, and that the City Services Auditor (CSA) issue an annual report on performance under these standards. This mid-year report provides the results from evaluations ofall open City parks in the first six months of fiscal year (FY) 2009-10. Highlights Park evaluation results improved through the first two quarters of FY 2009-10 (July 1 to December 31, 2009). The citywide average for park scores increased over the previous year from 87.3 percent to 90.8 percent. All open City parks were rated by the Controller's Office's City Services Auditor (CSA) and Recreation and Park Department (Rec Park) staff using the San Francisco Park Maintenance Standards Manual. A score above 85 percent would generally indicate that the park is well maintained and that its features are in good condition. Districtresults • All district averages improved through the first two quarters of FY 2009-10 • The difference in district averages was slightly lower at 12.2 percent compared to 12.5 percent last year • District 2 scored highest at 95.3 percent and District 10 lowest at 83.1 percent Individualparkresults • Parks generally scored higher halfway through FY 2009-10 compared to FY 2008-09 • More parks scored higher - 1 12 of 168 parks scored over 90 percent in the first half of FY 2009-10 compared to 77 of 171 last year • Nineteen parks scored lower than 80 percent in the first half of FY 2009-10, ten ofwhich scored higher than 80 percent last year and are new to the low-scoring group Otherresults • Average scores for park features continued to improve through the first half of FY 2009-10 with all features improving, except OutdoorAthletic Courts which scored just 0.1 point lower • Compliance to staff schedules still received mixed results - Rec Park's scores were 73 percent in this first quarter (July to September 2009) and 67 percent in the second quarter (October to December 2009). CSA's scores were lower, at 51 and 43 percent, respectively. However, Rec Park and CSA use different methodology for measuring compliance to staff schedules so a direct comparison is not applicable. And finally, the City and County of San Francisco has been selected as a 2009 California Park & Recreation Society (CPRS) Award ofExcellence recipient in the awards category of Maintenance Management and Operations for San Francisco Park Maintenance Standards Projects in the population category of 100,001 and up. Copiesofthefullreportmaybeobtainedat: Controller's Office CityHall, Room316 • 1 Dr. Carlton B. GoodlettPlace • SanFrancisco, CA 94102 415.554.7500 orontheInternetathttp://www.sfgov.pro/controller Page intentionallyleft blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 -Introduction 1 Background 1 Mid-Year Methodology 1 Chapter 2 - Mid-year Park Evaluation Results 5 Citywide Results 5 District Results 5 Neighborhood Service Areas Results 6 Individual Park Results 7 Features Results 11 Cleanliness Ratings 12 Staff Schedule Compliance 13 Appendix A - Detailed Methodology A-1 Appendix B - Individual Park Results B-1 Appendix C - District Results C-1 Appendix D - Neighborhood Service Areas D-1 Appendix E - FY 2008-09 Recommendations E-1 LIST OF ACRONYMS CSA City Services Auditor NSA Neighborhood Service Area Prop C Proposition C Rec Park Recreation and Park Department Office ofthe Controller, CityServices Auditor FY 2009-10 Parks 6-Month Report CHAPTER - Introduction 1 Background In November 2003, San Francisco voters passed Proposition C establishing the City Services Auditor (CSA) in the Controller's Office. City Charter Appendix F, Section 102, mandates that CSA develop and review standards for park maintenance in consultation with the Recreation and Park Department (Rec Park) and establishes the following objectives: • Establish regular maintenance schedules for parks and make them available to the public • Publish compliance reports regularly showing the extent to which the Department has met its published schedules • Develop quantifiable, measurable, objective standards for park maintenance in cooperation and consultation with Rec Park • Issue an annual report ofthe City's performance to those standards, with geographic detail Since April 2004, CSA and Rec Park have worked together to design and implement Proposition C's requirement for schedules, standards, evaluations, and reporting. This report on the condition of the City's parks provides results from first and second quarter evaluations in fiscal year (FY) 2009-10, July 1 to December 31, 2009 to provide more timely results to Rec Park. Methodology Park scores are based on standards that identify desired park conditions and cover 14 features such as lawns, trees, children's play areas and benches and tables. Generally, a score above 85 percent would likely indicate that the park is well-maintained and that its features are in good condition. The San Francisco Park Maintenance Standards Manual, created in FY 2004-05, defines these desired conditions of park features and is used to assess and evaluate conditions in parks in all 1 1 supervisorial districts. See Exhibit 1 for more detail. Office ofthe Controller, City Services Auditor FY 2009-10 Parks 6-Month Report EXHIBIT Park Maintenance Standards Overview 1 Park feature Elements examined under each park feature 1. Lawns <> Cleanliness • Edged Color • Height/mowed 1 • Densityand spots • Holes ~o n • Drainage/floodedarea 2. Ornamental Gardens, Shrubs, and «> Cleanliness • Pruned Ground Covers »> Planthealth • Weediness mo ora. 3. Trees «• Limbs • Vines 1"CO]T</J> 4. Hardscapes and Trails <•» PCllaenatnlhienaelstsh • Surfacequality » Drainage/flooded area • Weediness Graffiti 5. Open Space «> Cleanliness 6. TurfAthletic Fields > Cleanliness • Functionalityofstructures (E.g., ballfields, soccerpitches) «. Color • Graffiti » Drainage/floodedarea • Height/mowed • Fencing • Holes « 7. OutdoorAthleticCourts <> Cleanliness • Graffiti £ (E.g.. tennisand basketball courts) «» Drainage/floodedarea • Painting/striping ** » Fencing • Surfacequality > Functionalityofstructures O 8. Children's PlayAreas •> Cleanliness • Integrityofequipment 1 > Fencing • Painting o > Functionalityofequipment • Signage (X . Graffiti • Surfacequality 9. Dog PlayAreas «> Bagdispenser • Signage > Cleanliness • Surfacequality » Drainage/flooded area • WasteReceptacles > Height/mowed 10. Restrooms <> Cleanliness • Painting Graffiti • Signage > Functionalityofstructures • Supplyinventory > Lighting • Wastereceptacles Odor £ > I 11. Parking Lotsand Roads <» ADAparkingspaces • Graffiti w2 > Cleanliness • Painting/striping o > Curbs • Signage c • Drainage/floodedareas • Surfacequality 12.Wasteand Recycling Receptacles «> Cleanlinessofreceptacles • Painting 1 > Fullness • Structural integrityand C functionality 3 13. Benches,Tables,andGrills «• Cleanliness • Structural integrityand 1 Graffiti functionality » Painting 14. Amenities&Structures <> Exteriorofbuildings • Retainingwalls > Drinkingfountains • Signage > Fencing • Stairways » Gates/locks Source: San FranciscoParkStandards Manual and Evaluation Form
The list of books you might like
