HomeMy WebLinkAbout0328.093-
June 3, 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Attention: Finan~e Corn~ittee
Members of the Cou~cil:
Report in Bri~_~
On April 12 ~ 19:93, Council directed staff to report during the
budget process on the feasibility of collecting fees at the Greer
Park Skateboard facility to offset the cost of supervising that
facility. This report is in response to that. request. Staff
recomroends that no fee be establis~~d.
Discussio~
User fees can be collected at the skateboard facility, but not
,dthout difficulty and sOr.le cost. In order to collect fees, the
following issues must be considered:
1. The cost of collecting fees is significant. For cash ha~dlina
purposes, an entrance kiosk, a safe and a cash register would
be required, at a one titne cost of $6,300. To avoid
compromising safety and supervision, the collection of fees
t,.;·ould require hiring a part-tine cashier. Collecting
admission fees and superv is ing the use, of the b01..:l could not
be safely done with only one staff person. The part-time
cashier \¥ould represent an ongoing cost of" approximately
$20,000 per year. Daily Loomis transportation of receipts
,",'ould cost an additional $7,800 per year. See Attachment "All
for a breakdown of these costs.
2. A less costly approach to collecting a fee onsitc "",·ould be to
collect the fees at facilities such as Lucie stern and
Mitchell Centers, where cash hr.\.ndling l:1echanis:rns are already
in place. Tickets or ticket boo};s could be sold. This ....,auld
eliminate the above costs, but would most likely result in
confusion and signi!i,=antly reduced attendance. Tickets could
not be purchased on 'f",eekends as the business office~ are
closed. Users might find it inconvenient to travel several
miles t.o a comnuni ty center to purchase tickets for use at
Greer Park.
CMR~32B:93
I
Page fira
3. Staff estimates that charging a fee onsite far admission to
the skateboard facil ity '<!ould cause a 50 perco:ont reduction in
use. On that basis, collecting a fee si~ilar to that charged
at Palo Alto swimming pools ($2.DO per use) wo~ld generate
only $12,000 in annual revenue. If fees were coll~cted off
si.te, use and associat-ed revenl;,es ... ·ould likely be even further
reduced. A higher fee cOuld be-charged, particul.;'lrly for
adults; however, the likely impact would be even less use and
a diminishing return in revenue.
4. ~,ost iJ:!".<portantly, the liability implications for the City
would he prohibitive. The City Attorney has advised thd~ fee
collection ... ·o~ld cause-th~ City to lose its immunity to
liability for ultra-r,a?.ardolls recreational activities under
Goverr,ment Code Section 831. 7.
Sta ff recommends that no fees be collected at the Greer Park
SkatebOard Facility. In addition to ttle costs outlined above, t.he
Cit}" cannot afford to lose its immunity to liability tor ultra
haazardous recreational activities.
~d/;;;J~
Can Williams
.c::-~~ ~ion, open space' sciences
{ . -Paul Thlltgen
uirector of Community Servi~es
;u e Flemin~
ci y Man~ger
Related C~~lS: 220:93
Atlachment
CMR:328:93
',.i
i.
o
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FEE COLLECT rON
GREER P~RK SKATEBO~ FACILITY
Qnfiln-Time Expense!!
Kiosk (Public Works Estim~te;
Cash Reqister
sate
On-Going ~_:q;>_~_nse
Loomis Pick-up @ $150/we~k
statt, Cashier 2665 hra. @ $7.S0/hour
Revenues
peekend~, 104 days x 25 u~ers @ $2.00
Weekdays, 221 days x 15 users @ $2.00
$ S,(lOD
800
500
$ 7,800
20,00.0
$27,800
$ 5,200
L __ j5_,!.(J.
$11,830
'"