HomeMy WebLinkAbout0529.091I
I
j
I
December 5, 1991
TBB HOHORABLB CITY COUNCIL
Palo ~tC, california
Members of the council:
5
Proqr •• ' Repo,tt Oil Coullci 1 DirectiY~_!I Reg"_:r:.~ng Skat.eboard J'3.cility
Report in Brief
On september 9, 1991, Council gave staff several directives
regarding operation of the skateboard facility at Greer Park. On
october 24 and November 14, staff provided Council ~ith updates
regarding progress toward accomplishment of the directives. The
purpose of this report is to respond to all of the directives from
the september 9 meeting.
p'iseussiob.
The follo'Willq information represents progress toward acccmplishment
of council directives given to staff on September 9, 1991,
regarding operation o~ the skateboard facility at Greer Park:
1. Substantially re4uce bours of operation Il.t the skateboard
facility 4urinq school b~urs.
Previously, the facility was in operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. daily. The new fac!lity hours are now from l~OO to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends.
with changes in seasons and daylight savings time hours, adjust
~ents to these hours ~ill be required.
These hours appear to work ""ell. They only complaints have been
from some of the older skaters, ",·ho have lost the morning and noon
hours. During the week days, use is fairly consistent from hour to
hour with an average of 30 to 35 skaters using the bowl daily. The
period before school is out is used primarily by adults. The later
hours are fairly evenly divided between adult and youth use. Week
end use currently averages 30 to 40 young ::.;katers in the morning
hours, and 60 skaters in the afternoons, for an approximate total
of 100 skaters each 'ilI'eekend day.
The follo~ing annual schedule is proposed:
January through March 31:
April 1 through end of school year:
Sc~ool summer vacation:
Start of school year through October
November 1 through December 31:
CMR:529:91
~~_~kdd.vS
1:00-5:00
1:00-6:00
10:00-8:00
31: 1:00-6:00
1:00-5:00
Weekends·
8:00-5:00
8:00-6~OO
8:00-8:00
8:00-6:00
8:00:5:00
----
".
page Two
opening the facility at 1:00 p.m. on. school days ... ·as selected in
o,der t~ accomodate students on minimum days and to provide limited
hours to the older skaters~
school vacation and holid~y periods will have opening and closing
ti:nes consistent with the designated weekend schedule. D'..lrinq
inclement weather the bowl ~ill not open, and ~ill be posted as
IJ:clo&ed". Signs 'Will also bs posted stating the appropriate
operating schedule.
The cost to staff the faci1itf ~ith one person at this level of
operat.ion is estimated at $25,000 annually. Should legislative
remedy, as later discussed, be successful, the need for staffi~q
may be substantially ~educeu or eliminated.
2. Increase houra for younger and 1.a8 pr~fici.nt skaters:
Previously~ the facility was reserved for skaters 14 years and
under on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m~ to 11:00 a.m. Those hours have
been expanded to saturdays and Sundays tram 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Implementation of these hours for younger skaters have been well
received. A substantial increase has been seen by staff in the
number of young skate=s using the facility.
3. Reduce tbe nuabar of skaters in tho bowl at _ny one time:
Previously, the number of skaters was informally limited to twelve
at any given time. That number is now strictly limited to no more
than seven at one time.
skaters have been cooperative and this limitation appears to be
wor-king well. There have beer. fewer accidents since implementation
of this policy.
4. Install an adequate fence:
A six-foot c~'clone fence, with two feet of slant fencing at the
top, was installed on October 30 at a cost of $6,500. This fenCing
is consistent with the height of fencing surrounding the Palo Alto
swimming pools. The contract night security was discontinued upon
completion of the fence. Since installation of the security fence,
there have been three police reports of skaters in the facility
aft~r hours. One of the after-hour uses resulted in minor damage
to the fence from a skateboarde~ climbing over the gate.
S. Survey public and private ska.teboard taeilities, noting fees,
satety concerns, insurance and aecurity~
staff surveyed six private sxateLoard facilities and six cities who
currently operate, or are in the process of developing, a skate
board facility. cities surveyed include Benicia, Santa Cruz, Napa,
=;529;91
_., .
Page Three
San Jose, Saratoga and Farmington, Ne ..... Me:dco. Complete results of
that survey are found in attachment ~A~. The facilities range from
cement bowls to woOOen vertical ramps. Some of the ~jrivate facil i
ties are indoor; all the public f3cilities are outdoor. Of the
public facilities, none are comparable ~o Palo Alto's in design.
The facilities in Benicia and Napa are the lEast challenging; those
tn Saratoga, Santa Cruz, and San Jose are moderate in challenge;
and Palo Alto's facility has the most challenging design. 'I'he
private facilities are not comparable due to the use of vertical
ralflps, but 1Il.cst offer significant challenge. All the private
facilities are supervised: none of the public facilities are
supervised at this time, although the Ci~y of saratoga does plan to
do so. San Jose and Na~a do not plan to supervise their facilities
upon completion of their bowls.
The hours of operation of these facilities range from all day to
limited afternoon and weekend hours, similar to Palo Alto's. The
public facilities do not charge fo?" admission~ The private
facilities charge an average of three to five dollars per day.
Some charge an annual membership lee of t~enty dollars. Atten
dance ranges from ten skaters on weekdays to 125 skaters on
.,.eekends.
All but one of the private fa::ilities have insurance~ Of the
public facilities, Benicia and Saratoga are insured through their
ABAG insurance pool. Napa has secured private insurance with a
$2CC,OOO deductible~ Santa Cruz, San Jose, Farmington and Palo
Alto all are, or propose to be, self-insured. The private
facilities require helmets; and several require additional elbow
pads, knee paas, or wrist guards. Safety l'eq-o.lirements of the
public facilities range from posted signs recommending helmet.
elbow, and knee pads. to no signs or requirements (as is the case
in Santa CruZ). None of the surveyed facilities have reported any
serious accidents requiring hospitalization. There have been
reported cases of broken bones: ~ost have reported minor injuries
of some sort. All the private facilities have, or are in the
process of developir.~·J some form of lia!::.l.lity waiver. Limited
ir.formation is available regarding operating costs, due to the
short time they have been in operati~n and/or an un~illingness on
the part of private operators to share such information.
6. Explore th. possibility of cbarqinq nonresi~e~t user taes and
iaplement use of waivers of li~i~ity:
Nonresident user fees can be collected, but not ~ithout difficulty.
From a cash handling perspective (entrance kiosk, cash register,
safe~ I~omis pick-up, additional staffing), it is not practical or
cost effective to collect fees on site. Fees could be collected
off site by purchasing admission tickets at one of the cOmlIlunity
centers. Until nonresident users are educated about the process,
this would require turning users away u~til they r.ad p ..... rchased
tickets.
Cl!R529:S1
•
.-.-<
page Four
tickets. This ... ould be further c·.:nnpl icated by the fact that the
community cen~ers are closed on ~eekends. It is extremely
difficul t to estimate potential revenue from such a fee. staff
does not have complete information on the number of nonresident
users or what implications ch~rging a fee may have upon that use,
though ve estimate that use to be approximately 50 percent. Making
the assumption that half the curr~nt use is by nonresidents, and
that implementing a $3.00 fee would reduce tha~ use by 50 percent,
$8,250 could be realized in revenue. That dollar amount is
probably a little on the lov side, but hinges entirt:!ly upon the
willingness of nonresiderlts~ first, to pay a fee, and secondly, to
travel otf site to pay the fee. The issue of some sort of photo
identification care. to ide)"l_tify resid.ents, particularly children
without driver's licenses, would. also need to be ir.vestigated.
It seems evident in light of the above difficulties l that
collection of fees "'ould require a commi trnent to staffing tt.e
facility over the long term. Staff re~ommends that fees not be
implemented until the issues regarding legislative remedy and the
need to staff the bowl are resolved. If staffing is not required
by law, collection of fees 'Would net be cost effective. Should
continued staffing be required, staff could then return to Council
with a recommendation regarding charging fees.
Finally, the City Attorney has advised that fee collection ~ould
cause the City to lose its iD"..munity from liability for ultra
hazardous recreational activities under Government Code section
831. 7.
High-risk waivers ~ould be required but~ once again, it ~ould be
difficult to collect them. If waivers \tiere to be collected on
site, it vould require turning away minors until their parents
could sign 'W3ivers for them~
Waivers could be collected oft site at the con~unity centers, but
vith all of the difficulties e::r.:perience.::i above ... ith off-site
collection of fees, ~agnified by the total number of skaters using
the bowl and the number of minors re~liring parents' signatures.
Some sort of photo identification "'ould be required of .:.11 users in
order to assure that waivers were in fact signed for each skater.
It is likely that this system ~ould be too cumbersome to implement
and would have some associated co~t to pTovide staff and the photo
idectification. AS ~ith fees, collection of ~aivers relies upon
the use of staff. Recreation staff and the City Attorr:ey agree
that the City should be moving toward eliminating the need for
staffing the facility. Therefore, pending the outcome of legisla
tive remedy, collection of waivers is not recommended. Should that
remedy not be successf111, staff will return to coun.cil .,ith a
recommendation regarding the collection of waivers~
=:529:91
I
I
i
paqe Five
7. p.eviev facility de.ign and analYI. any design cbang_
pouibiliti ... ,
PUblic Works does not propose any design changes to the facility a,t
this time. lbe only feasible change, which is not recommended due
to exper.se, would be tv raise the bottom of the bowl several feet.
This ~oulJ also require decreasing the side slopes and would cost
an esti~ted $40,000 to $60,000. Such a charge would make the bowl
less challenging and may attract fe\ller of the more proficient
skaters.
I. continue to explore t~. po8sibility of chanqes in leqi8latioB
t.o clarify a.n4 further assure pU])lic entity ilUlWlity tr~
llability for injuries incu~red at publicly owned skateboard
faoilities.
At the October League of Cities meeting, a resolution sponsored by
Palo Alto., was passed, clarifying and further assuring public
entity ilMr-.unity from. liability for injuries incurre.d at publicly
owned. skateboard facilities. The Attorney's Office is working with
l~l legislators to develop legislation at the State level.
Staff has sought assistance from the California Park and Recreation
Society's Legislative Committee in pursuing this issue~ Robert
overstreet, Director of San Jose Parks and Recreation and Chair of
the CPRS Legislative committeE; is leading this effort at the State
level.
Since implementation of Council directives, the number of skaters
remains relatively unchanged. Depending upon the weather, 30 to
100 skaters use the bowl daily, with ~eekend use being heaviest.
The number of young skaters has increased on weekends with
implementation of the new schedule~ Since reporting to council on
September 9, there ha.ve been tioo'O reported inj uries--one resulting
in a broken arm a~d one r~quiring no medical attention .
... ..ndy shute, representing Explore Post 900, has recElr.tl:t submitted
a proposal to take full responsibility for independe~t operation ot
the skateboard facility as ~ private concessionaire. The proposal
~as received November 18 and assumes all responsibility for
operation, supervision and liability at the facility. Staff will
revie~ the proposal carefully and report back to Council as quickly
as po3sible, if the proposal is viable.
Staff continues to meet. with local skaters on a regular basis.
Thus far, skaters have been supportive of the changes implemented.
Keeping the bo~l open as a $afe ~lace to skate appears to be their
driving force.
CMR:S29:H
•
•
",
Page si".
Sn._ary
In response to the council's September 9. 1991 directives regarding
the skateboard facility at Greer Park, staff has taken the
tollo~ing actions:
1. Reduced the operating hours or the facility during school
hours, as outlined on attachment ~6";
2. Increased skating hou~s for younger, less proficient skaters,
as outlined on attachment WB":
3. Reduced the numl:>er of skaters in the bowl to a maximum of
seven at any one tim~;
.~ Installed a security fence consistent with palo Alto swimminq
pools at a cost of $6,500;
5. Surveyed other-public and private skateboard i,acillties, 'With
information regarding fees, hours of operation, safety
concerns, insurance, security, etc., the results of which are
outlined on Attachment ~A"~
6. Received a proposal from a pro~pective outside contracter to
independently operate the skate board facility as a private
concession.
I~plementation of increased skate time for young ~xaters has been
well received, and staff has seen an increase in the number of
'joung ska.ters us.ing the bowl. ~ith the reduction of skaters in the
bawl at a given tima and installation of the security fence, two
sinor accidents have been reported since September 9, and three
after-hour uses have ~een reported.
Staff has explored the possibility of charging nonresident fees and
collecting liability waivers. on-site (;ollection of fees is not
feasible due to cash-handling procedures~ i.e. entronce kiosk~ cash
register, safe, Loomis pick-ups, etc. Tickets could be sold off
aite, but not without difficultYr Collection of fees and waivers
require a co~ittment to staffing the facility. Staff recommends
that the issue of collecting waivers and nonresident fees not be
decided until the issues regarding l~gislative reme~y are resolved
and it is deterl!lined 'Whether the facility will be staffed on a
permanent basis.
The facility design has been reviewed by PUblic Works staff and
changes to the design are not proposed. Raising the bottom level
of the bowl and decreasing the side slope ~ould cost an estimated
$40,OCO to $60,000.
Legislative remedy to clarify and assure public entity immunity
from liability at publicly owned skateboard facilites is being
CHR: 529: 91
•
..... :r np ttll_
i ~ ;
•
'" " 'I
tl
:1 ,
:1
.page Seven
pur-sued by the City Attorney's office through the League of
California cities and our local lEgislative representatives. Staff
alsc has contacted the Chair of the Cali~ornia Park and Recreation
L~gislative committee who is pursuing the same action.
staff meets with local skaters on a regular basis and will continue
t.o do so. Skaters have been generally receptive and supportive of
the chang~s implemented. Staff also has receiv~d a proposal from
Andy Shute,. repi:esenting Explorer Post 900, to independently
operate the skateboard facility as a private concessionaire,
assuming all liability and responsibility for supervision of the
skateboard facility. If this proposal proves to be ~orkable, staff
will report back to Council on the viability of turning the opera
tion of the facility over to a private conc~ssionai:ce.
Daniel B~ Williams
Director, Recreation, _C?..P_~~ space and Sciencec:;
/-~. ·"L. / (. ~--E~ ~.
Director, Conmtuni.:ty Services
{'
. ~. ~\:!l{~;;in;-/ ~
~~sistant City Manage~
Related CMP~: 419:91, 475:91~ 505:91
CHR:529:91
•
~I
~I
~I
il
1 ..
~ o
~ ...... ~ '0-• , > · -. • •• • %~
t o _
... '" Cf>_ E .... r: .., • .co _ '" ... , c ..... o. ""="'., )I ....... -.. :1:<1' ..... 0:::
. . . ~
.~
>~
• >
• . ~ •
· · i~ . . o.
/
.
~ z
.
~ z
o z
~
i~ .. o.
o .
~ o -. ~o
';:'"'--.. ~ .. -.~
..
!
~
~ · · <
> :
.! • . . .!..::
· ••
-.-
"
\
il ~ z
~I
~I ;;II
. :
~ ~
•• 0
i~ c: 0-'
~ -, , ,
: <
• 0 • < 1 0
~ g.
· <
i
~ . -.
• 0 • O_D > ••
o >
~
f
.
~ ...... ~ i ~ 0
-~. 0-• xo.
-!1 . , -~
. .
e " , .
~ .
J~
· :
~ o
• . i ! 0
1 S~ f ~ "' .... -.... -~-
-. -. !Ji
• • f
~ •
<;::'::!l
, , 0
00.
,~ ,
)-
. " -" ... ~ )
o " • .. _ E ....
~ Oc_ gg -;: .. 0.
'0'" _ • ..".
c: -<I) .......... -.... ..". -.....
~------.. --.. --....
~ • • 0
! ..:..= · • •• • ......... '" ~ "".:=.:. '" o 0-""-",, ...
-
• 0 -~ • • -!
~
j
~ ~ ~ ... -.. <--L · .. 0;'<:: ..r: · , [ '" "
• • 0 <OD
" · · < · ~ .
It: f: .:,~ f .J:.:l .... a,., -'""0 _-.D ....
<0 "-""<_ ......... , '" ::;I " ,!.,i<il~.:=..;"~~~~ ~
· !
~ ..
00 -.
• • ~~
~ . . -" t ~ ., _D. 0-' xO.
· .
• 0 :1
~: o " . · . • -< """
•
o
ANNUAL OP~RATIN~ SCHEDULE
GREBR PARk S~TEBOARD FAC~LI~Y
W'lIkr5ays
January through March 31: .1:00-5:00
April 1 throuqb en4 o~ school yaar: 1:DC-6:00
School .umaar vacation: 10.00-8:00
Start o~ ~chOOl yeaz through october 31: 1:00-':00
Boveaber 1 through Dec~.r 311 1:00-5.00
·W •• kenda, 8:00-1~OO res&rver5 exclusively
~or skaters aqe 14 an4 under
W.ekends·
8:00-5:00
8:00-':00
8.00-8.00
8.00-51 00
8:00-5:r,0
Sohool holi~aJ. an~ vacation periods vill operate
under prevailinq weekend scbedule
Raeility closed during inclement veatber
-'; ;,