You are on page 1of 11

Gavin Newsom, Mayor

Recreation and Park Commission

February 15, 2007
President Bonilla called the regular meeting of the Recreation and Park Commission to order on Thursday,
February 15, 2007 at 2:05 p.m.

Roll Call
Larry Martin
Gloria Bonilla
Tom Harrison
Jim Lazarus
David Lee

Meagan Levitan


General Manager Agunbiade read the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee report into
the record as the Chair, William Wilson was unable to attend because of jury duty. He spoke briefly about
the Recreation and Park Bond and announced that staff would give a presentation at the Operations
Committee meeting in March. Katie Petrucione gave an overview of the revenue and expenditure reports
for the Commission.

In Progress Items
1) Request to Widen Kezar Blvd
2) Concession for Japanese Tea Garden

January 11 Closing Ceremonies for the Mayor’s Shape Up San Francisco Walking Challenge
As part of the Mayor's Challenge: Shape Up San Francisco, the closing ceremonies at Kezar Pavilion
honored all the kids citywide who walked three times around the globe as part of the Mayor’s initiative to
promote healthy, active lifestyles. This event was an effort to thank everyone who helped shaped the
policy initiative, organize the community events, and most of all, to thank all the kids in San Francisco who
participated in any of the Shape Up events throughout 2006.

January 30 Ground Breaking for Moscone Recreation Center in District 2

This capital project follows the completion of a renovation project of the site’s playground area in 2002.
The existing Moscone Recreation Center was built in 1924 and includes a small gym, program rooms, a
tiny kitchen and offices. It was heavily used for a wide variety of athletic, cultural programs and activities.
As a modern recreation center, however, the building did not function well. The approved conceptual
design expands the building to the north and west and includes new offices, arts and crafts room, a tiny tot
room, restrooms, a community room, storage, accessibility, HVAC and electrical upgrades. A new exterior
terrace on the north face of the building will provide multi-use functions.

January 31 Budget Presentation for Fiscal Year 2007-08

Public budget presentation at the County Fair Building, by Katharine Petrucione, detailing the Recreation
and Park Department’s budget process and the city’s budget process as a whole.
February 3 Grand Reopening Celebration at Argonne Playground in District 1
Community celebration marking the completion of a $2 million renovation project at this .86 acre site,
originally built in 1926. The new playground has a new 1,700 square-foot building, which includes a
community room, a reading room, director's office, kitchen, storage areas and restrooms; a tai chi court;
upgraded sports courts; new play areas; and lawn and landscaping features.

Isabel Wade asked that the monthly income and expense reports be posted on the website in a manner that
is easy to find. Nancy Wuerfel stated that the only documents on the website dealing with the budget are
the power point presentations. She requested that anything the Commission receives be posted on the
website. She also complemented the new website.

On motion by Commissioner Lazarus and duly seconded the following resolutions were adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-001
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve the minutes of the January 2007 meeting.
RES. NO. 0702-002
RESOLVED, That this Commission does the following animal transactions for the San Francisco
Zoological Society which were processed under Resolution No. 13572.

Bob Jenkins 1.0 Norway rat NIL
1 Zoo Road
SF, CA 94132

The Animal Connection 3.0 Norway rat NIL

2550 Judah St.
SF, CA 94122

Niabi Zoo 1.0 Reticulated giraffe $8000 $8000 Total
13010 Niabi Zoo Road
Coal Valley, IL 61240
USDA # 33-C-0042

RES. NO. 0702-003

RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve exceeding the Esprit Park Drainage & Irrigation Repair
Project base contract amount by 17.6% to a maximum price of $625,595.
RES.NO. 0702-004
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve: 1) a request from The Outfit Media LLC to:1 ) produce
a one-day art and music festival “Batteries Not Included” at Sharon Meadow in Golden Gate Park on
Saturday, August 25, 2007 and a request to modify the Sharon Meadow Amplified Sound Policy and
permit amplified sound from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM and 2) a request to sell beer and wine.

RES. NO. 0702-005

RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve a request by Judith Selby to exhibit a temporary art
installation, “Recycled Plastic Bag Garden ReCycle Ryon-ji” from April 14, 2007 to April 25, 2007 at
Joseph L. Alioto Performing Arts Piazza.
RES. NO. 0702-006
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve a request by The Artist Team of Wowhaus for a
temporary art installation, Hayes Valley Historic Miniature Golf Extravaganza” from April 14, 2007 to
October 14, 2007 at Patricia’s Green in Hayes Valley.
RES. NO. 0702-007
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve The Aids Foundation’s request to modify the Sharon
Meadow Sound Policy and place the stage facing East at Sharon Meadow during the 21st Annual Aids
Walk at Golden Gate Park on Sunday, July 15, 2007.
RES. NO. 0702-008
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve a request from the Tradesman Event Production Inc. to
produce a two-day free event, “Australia By the Bay” at the Marina Green on September 22-23, 2007 and a
request for permission to sell beer and wine, and if headliner entertainment is presented, approval of a
request for gated admission to the event entertainment area.

RES. NO. 0702-009

RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve a request from San Francisco Park Trust for a
tented fund-raiser on Friday, September 14, 2007 at the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park and a
request to modify the sound policy and permit amplified sound from 6:00 – 11:00 p.m.


With the assistance of the Department of Public Works, the Recreation and Park Department solicited
construction bids for improvements to the Harvey Milk Center for Recreational Arts (HMRAC). Bid
opening occurred on November 29, 2006, with a total of 3 bids accepted. The lowest responsible bidder
was West Bay Builders, Inc., submitting a construction base bid of $5,860,000.00, with a composite
alternate bid (A1-A6) of $196,000.00. This bid was found to be non-responsive on the grounds that the
bidder did not meet the Human Rights Commission (HRC) goals for DBE (economically Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise) participation, and did not complete the good faith efforts required under the program.
The second lowest bidder, CLW Builders, Inc., submitted a base bid of $7,288,000, which was well beyond
the project’s available funds. On January 2, 2007 the General Manager rejected all bids and directed that
the project be re-advertised.

The project was re-advertised on January 11, 2007, with an accelerated 3-week bid period. Bids were
opened on January 31, 2007, with a total of 4 bids accepted. The lowest responsible bidder was Angotti &
Reilly, Inc., submitting a construction base bid of $6,455,000, with a composite alternate bid (A1-A6) of

The base bid amount of $6,455,000 is 22.7% ($1,194,260) above the project construction budget of
$5,260,740. Should the Commission elect to approve the award of this contract, funds appropriated to the
HMRAC project, which were moved into a program reserve after the deletion of the theater component
from the project scope, and currently uncommitted 2000 Neighborhood Park Bond interest could be made
available to cover this increase in the construction budget. Upon the Commission’s approval, staff will
proceed with the award of contract.

The Harvey Milk Recreation Center is located at the intersection of Duboce and Scott Streets, within the
boundaries of Duboce Park. The three-story, 19,800 square foot structure was constructed in 1954 of
poured-in-place concrete. The facility currently houses a mix of fine arts, performance arts and
photography programs and provides meeting rooms for community use. The building also houses offices
and support space for Recreation and Park program staff working on site or at neighboring parks. The
facility has deteriorated significantly and is in dire need of deferred maintenance repairs, accessibility
upgrades and hazardous materials abatement. The current building configuration no longer adequately
accommodates the programs it houses, and the center falls short of satisfying the needs and wants of the
community it serves.

The project entails the complete renovation of the existing Harvey Milk Recreation Center. The
renovations include reconfiguration of the building interior to achieve the following objectives: Increase
program space by creating building efficiencies and removing obsolete functional spaces; Reconfigure
existing space into more useable and flexible rooms that can suit a variety of program needs; Provide space
for Community use; Provide direct access to public restrooms at the park level; Connect the building to the
park and improve pedestrian transition from the park to Scott Street; Provide controlled building zones to
improve site security while maintaining open access to program spaces to building users; Consolidates staff
offices and administrative spaces; Provide needed storage for park and building maintenance; and Make the
building accessible to the disabled.

On motion by Commissioner Bonilla and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-010
RESOLVED, That this Commission does award a construction contract for the renovation of the Harvey
Milk Center for Recreational Arts Angotti & Reilly Inc. in the amount $6,455,000.


The Department of Public Works, as contracting agents for the City, first advertised the construction
project on February 17, 2006, and received two bids on March 15, 2005. One for base bid of $1,858,800
and the second for $2,690,000. The architect’s estimate was $2,000,000. The apparent low bid was
deemed non-responsive, and the next highest bidder was over the construction budget by approximately
$800,000. Staff recommended to the General Manager to reject all bids and immediately re-advertise per
Administration code section 6.21C.

On March 25, 2006, the project was re-advertised and bids received on April 12, 2006.

In May 2006, the Commission approved to negotiate a contract. The City first approached the single
bidder, MH Management; however, after an initial meeting, they were not able to lower their price enough
to enter into a contract. The City then approached Rose Construction, who proactively, submitted
clarifications to the contract. In July 2006, Rose Construction submitted a bid of $2,374,749, but the
amount still exceeded the available funding.

In January 2007, further funding was identified, enabling the award of a construction contract. The
increase in the construction contract amount reflects cost escalation over the past year.

Project Description:
J.P. Murphy Playground and Clubhouse is located at 1960-9th Avenue, between Ortega and Pacheco
Avenues in the Inner Sunset District of San Francisco. The site is located on a plateau on a steep hillside,
making accessibility to all three levels in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

In February 2003, the Recreation and Park Department conducted a community survey. It was found that
teens and adults often felt that there was no space for them because the clubhouse was well-used for Tiny
Tots and Latchkey programming throughout the day. Along with the mandatory site and clubhouse ADA
improvements, a newly created Multipurpose Room addition to the First Floor of the existing clubhouse
would allow flexibility in programming.

Based on programmatic requirements and the results of the evaluation of the existing building, proposed
site and building improvements include: accessible pathways via ramps to all three levels; a reconfiguration
of the basement spaces making restrooms, storage and gardener’s room more efficient; a reconfiguration of
the kitchen and Director’s office allowing visual continuity to the club room; a newly created Multipurpose
Room; and an upgrade to restrooms at first floor level.

The Recreation and Park Commission previously approved the conceptual plans on November 20, 2003.

Matthew Huey of MH Management stated that they had bid the job twice. He was glad that the Department
had considered and reviewed his comments. He stated that he was not informed that this job was going to
be awarded after they had gone through exclusive negotiations or that the budget amount was raised until
he looked into it. He explained why his costs had gone up. He also stated that Rose Construction was not a
local business and that the cost to do business in San Francisco is more expensive.

On motion by Commissioner Lazarus and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-011
RESOLVED, That this Commission does award a construction contract to Rose Construction in the
amount of $2,470,000 for the renovation of the JP Murphy Clubhouse and Playground.


On November 15, 2006, the Commission approved (Resolution #0611-004) the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for
the Carrousel concession on November 15, 2006. After advertising the RFP and mailing the RFP request form to
over 130 prospective bidders, 11 respondents requested an RFP package, and only 1 attended the pre-submittal
conference and tour. There were no respondents to the RFP.

Some of those that declined stated that the high cost of the liability insurance premium was the overriding factor in
not responding. The insurance carrier for the current concessionaire stated that the cost of coverage for
amusement rides was primarily based up experience of the operator, although some carriers would quote a flat
minimum annual premium fee of $10,000. During FY 06/07 the insurance for the current concessionaire was
$8,000, and the premium for just the first quarter of this year was $3,846. The rates are based upon experience and
loss runs (claims) over the time they have operated amusement rides, although some base their costs on sales/gross

For the current concessionaire in 2005, the gross receipts from all revenue streams was only $168,466, once
expenses that are estimated to be $126,000 plus minimum rent and maintenance fund of $28,500 is paid, net profit
is estimated at $14,000 per year.

Staff believes it is a reasonable request of the Department to offer a rent credit in an amount up to $4,000
against the Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) rent to help the Lessee off set the annual insurance
premium costs in excess of $5,000. This would make the concession a more feasible business opportunity,
and likely to attract proposals from potential operators.
Source of Funds and Cost Estimate:
The requested rent credit is $4,000, reducing the Minimum Annual Guarantee from $22,500 to $18,500.

On motion by Commissioner Bonilla and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-012
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve amending the Request for Proposal to include a rent credit
against the Minimum Annual Guarantee offsetting in part, the General Liability Insurance premium costs
for the operation of the Carrousel concession.


In May 2006, the Recreation & Park Commission authorized the solicitation of design build proposals for
the construction of a new skatepark at Potrero del Sol Park. On February 1, 2007, the Department of Public
Works received a proposal from one contractor for services at Potrero del Sol skatepark. The winning
proposal was submitted by Angotti & Reilly with as associated fee of $769,000. HRC reviewed the
proposal and found that it complies with the subcontracting goals established for the project.

Angotti & Reilly will engage the services of Grindline, an internationally recognized skatepark design build
contractor. Grindline will be responsible for the refinement of the design documents and specifications, for
specialized concrete work and for ongoing site oversight during the skatepark construction. Grindline is
familiar with Potrero del Sol Park and the proposed skatepark design because, RPD hired Grindline to
developed the design plans and performance specifications under a separate contract.

The scope of work for the skatepark contract includes construction of a unique, 12,000 square feet, concrete
skatepark with both transition and street elements. The contract also includes grading, drainage, and the
installation of railings and walkways.

The design build aspect of the construction contract will allow the designers to make minor modifications
and improvements to the design during construction without incurring change orders. Implementing a
design-build contract with a qualified skatepark design firm is the best way to achieve superior design and
craftsmanship. Design- build procurement is the accepted industry standard for skatepark construction. It is
recognized fact within the skateboarding community that the best skateparks result from design build
contractors. Comparable quality can not be achieved by concrete contractors who typically lack the
specialized expertise and tools to create concrete skate bowls. During the skatepark design public comment
period, the department received numerous comments from skateboarders regarding the necessity to hire a
qualified design-build skatepark contractor rather than a concrete contractor.

In September 2006, the Commission awarded a construction contract to Angotti & Reilly for the renovation of
Potrero del Sol Park and Rolph Playground. Renovation of Potrero del Sol Park and the construction of the
skatepark will be scheduled simultaneously, allowing the park and the skatepark to open at the same time.

On motion by Commissioner Lazarus and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-013
RESOLVED, That this Commission does award a design-build construction contract to Angotti & Reilly
in the amount of $769,000 for design and construction of a skatepark and related improvements at Potrero
del Sol Park.


In May 2002, the Commission awarded a construction contract (Phase IA) for the restoration of the Murphy
(South) Windmill. The contract was awarded to Lucas Verbij of Hoogmade/BV Windmill
construction/Restoration and Bloemendal Construction Company, a joint venture. The scope of the work for
phase IA of this project included the removal, restoration and reinstallation of the top (“cap”) portion of the
windmill. The contract award was in the amount of $698,558 with a contract duration of 365 calendar days.

In December 2003, the Commission granted an extension from 365 consecutive calendar days to 822
calendar days, with a substantial completion date of September 25, 2004. This was to allow the Campaign
to raise more funds for Phase IB, the restoration of the tower. Phase IA cannot be fully completed without

In August 2006, the Commission granted a further extension of contract time to Phase IA by another 380 calendar
days which sets the new substantial completion date at December 31, 2007. This new completion date coincides
with the anticipated completion date of Phase 1B.

Under Chapter 6 of the City’s Administrative Codes Contracting Policies and Procedures section 6.22 H.2
Extensions of Time, Commission action on time and budget extensions greater than 10% of the original contract
amount and duration is required.

Project Status:
Phase IA
The windmill cap restoration component of this project was completed in January 2005. Due to insufficient funds
in 2005-2006 the Department was unable to complete Phase IB as originally scheduled. Mr.Verbij, for a fee, has
agreed to keep the restored cap in storage until the tower can be rebuilt. Once the tower is erected, Mr. Verbij will
return and assemble that cap.

Phase IB
Phase IB of this project was approved by the Commission in August 2006 conditional on securing adequate
funding. This phase of the project includes reassembling the tower structure and placing the cap on top. We have
now secured the funding necessary to move forward with the contract. We anticipate having the contract signed
by the end of February.

One of the many fund sources for phase 1B is the SCC (State Coastal Conservancy) whose grant expires on March
30, 2007. This grant requires that we expend and submit a reimbursement request by this date in order to utilize the
remaining funds (approximately $336,000). In order to expend this fund source in the short time frame, we are
requesting approval to move the front end portion of work in the second phase of the project, Phase IB, to the
currently active contract of Phase IA, in order to execute this work in the time allowed.

Emeric Kalman asked for an explanation on the scope of the project.

On motion by Commissioner Lazarus and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-014
RESOLVED, That this Commission hereby approves an increase to the phase 1A construction contract for
the Murphy (South) Windmill Project beyond the 10% original contract amount from $1,012,653 to


Katie Pertucione, Director of Administration and Finance, presented to the Commission the recommended budget
to forward to the Mayor. She discussed in detail: 1) an Updated Financial Outlook, 2)Updated 2007-08 General
Fund Budget Challenge, 3)Recommendation to Balance the Budget through revenue enhancements and
expenditure reductions/savings, 4) Additional Budget Changes, 5) Enhancement Requests, 6) Open Space Fund ,
7) 2007-08 Golf fund and 8)Legislation to follow.

Ron Miguel stated that at the Mayor’s Accountability presentation, the Mayor specifically mentioned an increase
in park patrol for Golden Gate Park. He stated that as far as time was concerned, it would not cost the amount of
money to bring them to full time as the Commission may think because of their overtime is a bit high. He hoped
that in the long run it would be managed correctly and stated that the Department would need a manager for this
unit. Nancy Wuerfel reminded the Commission that there was over $24 million in overhead that was paid by the
different divisions within the Department. The Open Space division is paying $6.5 million. She also heard that
there would be another $.9 million added to overhead – taking away from swings and slides. She encouraged the
Commission to look at those expenses and suggested that they ask for a detailed account. Isabel Wade stated the
NPC supported the enhances proposed in the budget. She also stated that they object to the continued abuse of the
Open Space Fund in the budget and to the fact that the Commission does not get the level of detail about the Open
Space Budget to make reasonable decisions and make changes as needed in the budget. Wolf Alderson, with NPC
stated that : 1)they would like the golf repayment and open space fund supplemental at yearend to be earmarked
by the Commission as a policy to capital projects and neighborhood parks and 2) the level of detail of the budget
is inadequate for public oversight and appears inconsistent. Katherine Howard spoke in support of the Department
pursuing a fully staffed park ranger program. Wayne Kappelman asked about the payment to open space from
the golf fund and stated that something needed to be done about the contract at Harding. The $4.6 million paid
was too high. Art Persyko stated that he supported the enhances in the budget – the Department needs more park
patrol, gardeners and custodians. David Davis spoke about Harding Park and the increase in green fees. Ellen
Bucchianeri stated that the money going to Harding Park is draining everything else – she stated that she could not
take her children to the playgrounds because the bathrooms were locked on weekends. John Cornell stated that he
plays Sharp Park because he can afford it. It makes money and he would like to see it keep going. Bob Killian
stated that the Commission had in front of them a report stating that the golf division is loosing money and the
courses are in bad shape. However, Golden Gate, Sharps Park and Lincoln are all generating funds. The problem
is that Harding runs at a deficit.

There was detailed discussion on this item.

On motion by Commissioner Lazarus and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-015
RESOLVED, That this Commission does approve the Recreation and Department’s Budget for Fiscal Year


General Manager Agunbiade presented this item. He then asked Richard Singer with National Golf
Foundation to talk about the process and the report.

In July 2007, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) appropriated a $1.4 million General Fund subsidy for the
Golf Fund. With that appropriation, the Board of Supervisors issued a mandate that the Recreation and Park
Department (RPD) develop a plan for managing the city’s golf courses that eliminates the need for General
Fund subsidy in future years.
The Department, in partnership with the San Francisco Golf Foundation, then engaged the National Golf
Foundation (NGF) to conduct an assessment of the city’s courses, and make recommendations for the
improvement of the courses’ fiscal performance. Staff presented NGF’s first draft report on January 31st;
NGF, and staff, will be available to answer questions on the final report on February 15th.

NGF’s final report recommends that the city pursue a nonprofit management model, similar to the model
successfully implemented in Baltimore. Staff will need to conduct additional analysis to illustrate the
nonprofit model’s viability under various capital financing and operating assumptions.

At this juncture, the nonprofit model offers the best opportunity for addressing the short- and long-term
challenges facing the city’s courses.


Since the January 31st Special Meeting, the National Golf Foundation has prepared a final report on the
city’s golf courses that incorporates additional Commission and Staff feedback. These revisions include:

Resolution of conflicting budgetary information. As the consultants noted, various levels and types of
budget information were provided to NGF. Staff has worked with NGF to clarify and explain discrepancies
between data sources, and the report reflects the most recent and accurate financial data.

Clear statement of maintenance standards. In addition to describing the existing level of course
maintenance for each course, NGF’s report further specifies a golf industry standard of maintenance for the

Specific comparisons between San Francisco and other regional municipal golf operations. NGF
clarifies comparisons between San Francisco’s and other municipalities’ revenue/cost per round, comparing
San Francisco’s system as a whole, as well as the individual courses of Harding/Fleming, Lincoln and

Further explanation of fiscal assumptions underlying the pro forma. NGF has inserted additional
explanatory detail for its nonprofit model pro forma, explicitly stating the model’s underlying assumptions
on fee schedules, revenue growth, and cost estimates.


NGF’s nonprofit model provides a way to meet the BOS mandate to eliminate the general fund subsidy of
golf. Equally important, however, is that this model provides a potential source of capital financing. To
break out of the capital and revenue “Catch-22” described in NGF’s report, both criteria must be considered
in assessing the long-term viability of any proposal the Commission, Mayor, and BOS adopt.

The Department faces three basic choices for the management of the courses:

Status Quo. As NGF’s report makes clear, a status quo approach will only result in an increasing need for
General Fund subsidy. Continuing with a status quo course management approach has few policy benefits
for the city or its residents.

Nonprofit Model. This option has the potential to both eliminate the need for General Fund subsidy and
fund necessary capital investments.

Alternative Use of Course Property (i.e. course closure). In this scenario, Golf Fund operating
expenditures and liabilities are eliminated; however, the capital and maintenance costs of converting the
courses to a non-golf recreational use remain unfunded.

Table 1: Short – and Long – Term Implications of Golf Course Management Options
Eliminates Addresses
GF subsidy long-term
Option for golf? capital needs? Comments
Status Quo No No City maintains courses; private operators manage
concessions. General Fund subsidy of Golf increases
over time; course conditions continue to deteriorate,
resulting in less revenue and declining quality of golf
Nonprofit Management Yes Yes Nonprofit manages all course operations; leverages
Model cost savings to finance capital investments. At least
revenue-neutral (or slightly revenue positive) for the
Course Closure Yes No City closes courses and repurposes them for non-golf
uses. Assets deteriorate absent adequate capital and
maintenance resources.

As described by NGF, the nonprofit model has the following components:

Long Term (30+ years) lease arrangement for Harding, Lincoln, Sharp, and Golden Gate Park. The
RFP should include requirements for capital improvements, maintenance standards, and green fee
guidelines for residents.

“Face-lift” rehabilitation of Lincoln and Sharp Courses. Rather than a full Harding-type renovation,
NGF outlines a series of more modest capital investments needed to improve playing conditions and
operational efficiency.

Moderate fee increases after capital improvements. With much needed renovations at Lincoln and
Sharp, NGF proposes the enactment of moderately higher rates for residents, and much higher rates for
non-residents at Lincoln and Sharp Park.

Resident ID Card revenue stays with the City. Given the substantial capital investments required, NGF
recommends that the city keep Resident ID Card revenue (worth about $300,000 currently), but shift all
other revenue and expenditures to the nonprofit operator.

In addition, the nonprofit model offers several other potential benefits:

Meet staffing shortages in RPD’s parks. As presented to the Commission earlier in the year, the
Department needs 227 additional gardeners to meet Prop C maintenance standards in our parks. With a golf
nonprofit model in place, RPD staff would be reassigned to neighborhood parks, increasing gardener
staffing by roughly 37 FTE (full-time equivalent).

Shift risks and liabilities of golf courses from the city to another entity. As NGF notes, currently the
city assumes all of the risks and liabilities – but none of the benefits – of owning the courses. With a
nonprofit entity responsible for operating costs and capital investments, the burden of risk associated with
improving these assets shifts away from the city.

Benefit of expertise lacking in the department. A diverse, professional nonprofit board would connect
the golf courses with a variety of resources currently unavailable within the department, including golf
industry, marketing, and community outreach expertise.

As illustrated in the table above, the Department believes that the nonprofit model offers the best
opportunity for addressing the short- and long-term challenges facing the city’s courses.

During public comment the January 31st Commission meeting, it was suggested that allowing advertising or
sponsorship on the courses might fix the Golf Fund’s deficit. The Department acknowledges that an
advertising revenue stream could offset the costs of operating the courses; however, in recent year both the
Board of Supervisors and voters have consistently rejected the idea of any visible corporate branding
presence on park property.
Justin Hetsler gave his background and stated that he started a website for anyone interested in providing
information on the issue of San Francisco’s golf courses. Cliff Smethurst stated that the Commission needed to
carefully scrutinize the NGF’s report in that it may not be as unbiased as it should be in order to make a good,
informed decision regarding golf courses operated by San Francisco. He stated that the people who funded the
report stand to gain the most. Julius Yap a high school teacher and golf coach at that high school, stated that his
concern was for the youth of San Francisco and particularly the high school golfers. Although the high schools
have been run out of Harding, Sharp Park has been good enough to take them in. He thanked Mark Dwayne for
all of the help he has given them to use Sharp Park. Nancy Wuerfel asked that a copy of the revised NGF Report
be posted on the website. She stated that with the proposal there will be $1.5 million in overhead that will not go
to the administration of Recreation and Park which is one of the reasons that they can balance the books. In
addition to trouble paying back the Open Space Fund back, there will be a problem just supporting the
Department. Isabel Wade stated that NPC did not believe that the Commissioners had the data to make a decision
before the Board of Supervisors about what direction they would go to regarding golf. She stated that if the
Commission moved this forward just to have the money released that they were basically putting forward NGF’s
proposal. Joe Chmielewski spoke on problems with outsourcing including the reduction in the number of civil
servants, weakening unions and lack of oversight. David Davis stated that if fees are raised you will not get
citizens to play. Kevin O’Connor with Local 2, Hotel Workers, represented the workers at the Sharp Park
Restaurant. Although they are not on the City payroll they will be impacted by whatever decision is made by the
Commission including a change in management. He requested that they retain their jobs with union wages,
benefits and pensions. Bob Killian spoke about the deficit at Harding – including the amount the Department pays
for professional services. Michael Johnson, a gardener at Sharp Park, said that he believed that they could turn this
around but that they needed support. Neil Sofia stated that Sharp Park brings a sense of community to Pacifica. It
is a place where people meet. He also stated that although he lives in Pacifica and does pay the resident fee, he
only gets the discount at Sharp Park whereas if he lived in the City he would get a discount at all the courses.
Dan Briesach, Golf Course Superintendent at Sharp Park brought up the Harding Park renovation, the new
clubhouse, new maintenance facility, the environmental gem the Department has with Sharp Park and the Lincoln
Golf Course. Andrew Sun representing Yugi Golf Management, stated that there were significant problems with
the report. He also stated that the final report was not released on the web until a couple of days ago so most
people did not have an opportunity to read the final report, the assumptions are incorrect, and the conclusions are
somewhat bias. He asked that the Commission require that the City Attorney spell out that the bid process for any
nonprofit meet any City bid processes and all the requirements are there and that specific requirements clearly
defined and outlined in that process and sufficient time so that the community has sufficient time to look at
whatever bids are in the nonprofit. Wayne Kappelman was astounded that Harding Park did not make enough
money for the whole system. He directed a question to Mr. Singer with NGF about the Harding burden of debt.
Ellen Bucchianeri stated that she looked at some of the decisions being made in regard to partnerships and the
problem with nonprofits. Deanna Laura stated that Sharp Park is a community not just a golf course. It is a place
that should be enjoyed by golfers and environmentalists alike and there is no reason that they can’t coexist. She
also stated that the reason Sharp Park was in need of repair is because the people running it were on a month-to-
month. Rich Chaney stated that Harding was a mistake. He asked the Commission not to make the same mistake
with Sharp Park. Dan Lim stated that Sharp Park is a beautiful course for everyone and everyone will end up
delinquent if they can not go to the course. Sean Sweeney pointed out corrections in the final report and that a lot
of the information in the report is based on some of those mistakes. Jason Pitkin stated that he read the whole
report and that it appeared to be very slanted towards spending a lot of money and hoping to recoup the money
spend through an increase in fees. Frank Ingersoll stated that he has been playing golf at Sharp Park since he was
12. He had seen all styles of management but he had not seen one that is any more accommodating than Sharp
Park. He said that according to the report, Sharp Park is generating revenue and is predicted to continue doing so..
George Ambrosio stated that municipal golf was originally for the blue collar man, however when Harding Park
was renovated, it stayed a public course but was no longer a municipal course. He also stated that David Diller
stated that RPC has the expertise to take care of the golf courses without contracting out to a nonprofit. He hoped
that so there was no possibility of misconception that NGF and those behind it would even have possibility of
getting the contract to run the golf courses. Zachery Salom that the Department golf division, through the
integrated pest management program is on the cutting edge of environmental safety. The regulations that govern
the use of pesticides for the City and County are some of the strictest around and the golf division limits the use of
pesticides. He asked what assurances the citizens of San Francisco would have that a company coming in would
have the same respect that the Department shows.
The Commission had further detailed discussion and questions of staff.

On motion by Commissioner Lazarus and duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RES. NO. 0702-016
RESOLVED, That this Commission does direct staff to: 1) Refine National Golf Foundation's pro forma
fiscal projections to accommodate various capital financing and operating scenarios; 2) Work with the City
Attorney's office to identify the steps necessary to transfer management and operations of the City's golf
courses to a nonprofit entity; 3) Work with the City Attorney’s office to identify the steps necessary to
transfer management only of the City’s golf courses to either a profit or nonprofit entity; 4) Work with the
City Attorney’s office to identify the steps necessary to allow a variance to the ordinance banning
advertisements in parks; 5) Determine the rate increase needed across the board to make the golf fund
solvent; 6) Determine if a change in the repayment terms with the Open Space debt – like a deferred
payment as recommended in the report -can occur; 7) Put together a marketing plan utilizing the City’s
Convention and Visitors Bureau as suggested in the report; 8) Determine what sort of authority the
Recreation and Park Commission would have over a nonprofit if that is the final decision; 9) Present these
various models to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and the Recreation and Park Commission; and 10)
Analyze the differences between an enhanced revenue and enhanced staffing of a City-Only model and the
various other models listed above.


The Commission Secretary read into the record the Notice to amend the Recreation and Park Commission Bylaws
to: 1) change the regular meeting date to the first and third Thursday of each month and 2) amend the “Rules of
Order” to include two new items – “Agenda Setting” and “Communications”. This item will be heard for vote at
the March 2007 meeting of the Recreation and Park Commission.

Isabel Wade pointed out that she handed the Commission the annual report for ParkScan Program and
hoped that they had a chance to review it. She complimented the staff for the close out rate. She then
asked how they could get on an agenda. Andrea O’Leary gave the Commission a run down on the last Dog
Advisory Committee specifically about the timed piece agenda. Ellen Bucchianeri spoke about problem
solving, politics and morality.

Commissioner Lee extended an invitation to staff to attend the Chinese American Voters Education
Committee annual dinner.

The Regular meeting of the Recreation and Park
Commission was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Margaret A. McArthur
Commission Liaison