park maintenance standards
DESCRIPTION
Park Maintenance Standards. Controller’s Annual Report. February 21, 2013. Controller’s Annual Report PARKS MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ANNUAL REPORT FY 2011-12. “Scores remain consistent with a slight improvement over last year.” Annual Report Issued by City Services Auditor - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Controller’s Annual Report
February 21, 2013
![Page 2: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Controller’s Annual ReportPARKS MAINTENANCE STANDARDSANNUAL REPORT FY 2011-12
“Scores remain consistentwith a slight improvement over last year.”
Annual Report Issued by City Services Auditorhttp://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1203
![Page 3: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Ratings to Date
a score above 85 percent indicates that
parks are generally well maintained and in good condition
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
![Page 4: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
High/Medium/Low Score Distribution
FY06 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
![Page 5: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Scores Across the City
![Page 6: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
District Results
FY06 FY08
narrowing
![Page 7: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
PSA Districts FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 Change
Number of parks higher
than 80%
Number of parks lower than 80%
1 1, 2, 3 90.3% 91.5% -1.23% 39 2
2 3, 5, 6, 10 88.5% 87.1% 1.35% 32 1
3 9, 10, 11 84.3% 84.6% -0.31% 18 4
4 4, 7, 11 86.6% 86.1% 0.30% 16 5
5 7, 8, 11 91.8% 89.1% 2.67% 21 0
6 6, 8, 9, 10 88.3% 89.6% -1.36% 17 3
GGP 1, 5 84.5% 84.8% -0.28%
PSA Results
![Page 8: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Feature FY 2011-12Change fromFY 2010-11
Change fromFY 2005-06
Amenities & Structures 90.2% -0.4% 7.2%
Benches, Tables & Grills 90.2% -0.8% 6.6%
Children's Play Areas 88.9% 1.0% 5.5%
Dog Play Areas 86.6% -1.5% 6.1%
Hardscapes & Trails 85.1% -1.4% 7.5%
Lawns 86.9% -2.9% 9.6%
Open Space 79.7% -5.8% -1.4%
Ornamental Gardens, Shrubs & Ground Covers 88.3% 0.5% 14.3%
Outdoor Athletic Courts 90.4% -1.1% 3.7%
Parking Lots & Roads 85.2% -1.4% 4.3%
Restrooms 93.2% -0.2% 10.8%
Trees 94.1% 1.0% 5.6%
Turf Athletic Fields 89.8% 0.8% 10.6%
Waste & Recycling Receptacles 93.6% -0.9% 3.1%
Feature Ratings
![Page 9: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cleanliness ratings show an oscillating trend since FY 2009-10.
Cleanliness Ratings
High maintenance
threshold
FY06
![Page 10: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
2011-12 Process Improvements
1. Evaluation form customization.
2. Suggested evaluation target times.
3. Features lists augmented with notes.
4. Monitoring of submitted evaluations.
5. Dual evaluations.
6. Regular reporting of responsive action plans.
![Page 11: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
2011-12 Report Recommendations
• Continuously assess RPD’s use of park evaluation data to improve park maintenance activities.
• Continue to evaluate the consistency of park scores for the larger parks and determine whether these
parks should be subdivided for the purposes of more accurate evaluations.
• As RPD develops new standards during the next fiscal year, it should plan to retrain evaluators on the new standards.
Retraining staff on the new standards would also be an opportune time to clarify existing misperceptions about the standards.
• Adjust the baseline of schedule compliance standards in order to account for excused absences from work (for example,
sick leave).
• Use evaluation data to strategically plan for improvement to low-performing parks, Park Services Areas, or certain
facilities or features.
![Page 12: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
New 2013 Maintenance Schedule Display
FISCAL YEAR/Quarter BASE COMPLIANCE RATE ADJUSTED COMPLIANCE RATE
11-12 Q4 73% 89%
The Department Responds-- accounting for excused absences
![Page 13: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The Department Responds-- adjusting evaluations to large
park size
![Page 14: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Controller’s Annual ReportPARKS MAINTENANCE STANDARDSANNUAL REPORT FY 2011-12
“Scores remain consistentwith a slight improvement over last year.”
Annual Report Issued by City Services Auditorhttp://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1203
![Page 15: Park Maintenance Standards](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062517/56813a14550346895da1f02b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)