Bond plan surprises city’s parks commission
Tension rippled through the normally placid Recreation and Park Commission meeting Thursday after some commission members said they felt excluded from discussions around a proposal to put a $545 million park bond before San Francisco voters on the November 2019 ballot.
Last month, in an effort to give the parks department faster access to money needed for a number of major renovation projects, thenMayor Mark Farrell directed city officials to create one large bond for voters to consider next year by merging two smaller ones originally planned for 2019 and 2025.
Farrell and Recreation and Park Director Phil Ginsburg said that the larger, combined bond would allow the city to begin the renovations sooner, before they become more expensive.
Should voters approve the bond next year, Ginsburg said the bulk of the $545 million would be directed toward five major renovation projects: Portsmouth Square in Chinatown, the Gene Friend Recreation Center South of Market, Peace Plaza in Japantown, the India Basin Waterfront Park in the Bayview and Kezar Pavilion in Gold-
en Gate Park. Most of those projects have estimated price tags of $50 million or more.
But several commissioners said they were frustrated to first learn about the proposed size of the bond and what projects it would fund from an article in The Chronicle. Allan Low said it felt as though the commission, as well as the public, were cut out of a critical decision-making process.
“I’m concerned that you have moved forward with this bond without commission approval,” Low told Ginsburg during Thursday’s meeting. “When I read the article, my impression was ... the number is already set, the projects are already selected and this decision was made before commission approval. It seems that a lot of this is premature. You still have not completed the community engagement on some of these projects,” which could affect their final costs.
“It might be nice if we had been given a headsup before (the story came out),” said Commissioner Kat Anderson, who is administrative officer at the Pacific Media Workers Guild, which represents some Chronicle employees. “I feel like politics ... may have gotten a little bit involved here. We should be agnostic about what goes into the bond” before hearing from the community, she said.
Ginsburg replied that the park department’s ability to adequately address the core renovation projects, which were previously identified and discussed by the commission, required substantially more money, prompting the idea of creating a single, larger bond.
“The five core projects have all been at this commission and have been discussed on multiple occasions, and frankly, come from your direction,” Ginsburg said, referring to the commission. “Right now, our current bond doesn’t fund these five projects.”
Ginsburg also stressed that discussions around the final size of the bond and what projects it would fund are only the beginning of the process, and that the commission, as well as the public, would have ample opportunities to weigh in on how to prioritize the park system’s needs.
“We always want to keep you in the loop. This is the beginning of the process, not the end,” he said.
Bond funds have been critical to the park department’s ability to improve its facilities and recreation spaces, Ginsburg said. Revenue from park bonds issued in 2008 and 2012 have accounted for around $320 million worth of investment.
There are several layers of approvals needed before the park bond could go to voters.
In addition to Parks Commission approval, the bond would need the OK of the Capital Planning Committee, which determines how bonds are issued, staggering them to provide funds for projects but avoiding taking on so much debt that property taxes need to be raised.
Finally, before it could appear before voters in November 2019, the bond would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors next June.