The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAG RPTS 2012 0604 PR REG f., City of M007par • PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 fax(805)532-2550 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA June 4, 2012 6:30 p.m. Moorpark Community Center 799 Moorpark Avenue 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. ROLL CALL: 4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY COMMISSIONERS: 8. PRESENTATIONS/ACTION/DISCUSSION: A. Consider Bicycle Use at the Poindexter Park Skate Park. Staff Recommendation: 1) That bicycles not be allowed in the skate park at Poindexter Park and does not recommend revising Moorpark Municipal Code Section 12.16.190, Skate Facilities, to accommodate bicycles; and 2) The Commission request that the City Council direct staff to continue to seek possible site opportunities and funding sources in an effort to provide a facility for Free Ride BMX bicycle use. B. Reschedule a Park Tour from the May 19, 2012, Canceled Meeting. Staff Recommendation: Schedule a date and time to conduct a park tour. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Approval of Minutes for Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting of April 2, 2012. Staff Recommendation: Approve as presented. B. Approval of Minutes for Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission of April 11, 2012. Staff Recommendation: Approve as presented. Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda June 4, 2012 Page 2 C. Recreation Programs Winter Quarterly Report. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file report. D. Parks Quarterly Report. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file report. 10. ADJOURNMENT: All writings and documents provided to the majority of the Commission regarding all agenda items are available for public inspection at the City Hall public counter located at 799 Moorpark Avenue during regular business hours. The agenda packet for all regular Commission meetings is also available on the City's website at www.ci.moorpark.ca.us. Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Discussion item.Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Discussion item must do so during the Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item.Speaker cards must be received by the Recording Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting; and for a Discussion item, prior to the Chair's call for speaker cards for each Discussion agenda item. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu of speaking orally for Discussion items. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Parks and Recreation Department at 517-6227. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Parks and Recreation Department at(805) 517-6227. Upon request, the agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request for disability-related modification or accommodation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104;ADA Title II). City of Moorpark ) County of Ventura ) ss. State of California ) I, Patty Anderson, Administrative Assistant of the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I posted a copy of the agenda for the regularly scheduled meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission for June 4, 2012. Executed this 30th day of May 2012, at Moorpark, California. Patty Anderson Administrati e Assistant Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department ITEM CITY OF MOORPARK PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA TO: The Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Hugh Riley, Assistant City Mapages-r PREPARED BY: Jeremy Laurentowski, Landscape and Parks Manager • DATE: May 23, 2012 (Meeting of June 4, 2012) SUBJECT: Consider Bicycle Use at the Poindexter Park Skate Park BACKGROUND In November 2009, Poindexter Park was expanded to include the addition of an in- ground skate park. However, prior to the completion of the skate park, several discussions took place with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council, the City's attorney, the skate park designers and the City's insurance carrier, California Joint Powers Insurance Association (CJPIA) in regards to the use of bicycles in the skate park. It was ultimately determined that bicycles should not be allowed use of the skate park for various reasons. During the May 4, 2009 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff informed the Commission that a set of rules and regulations for use of the skate park needed to be established prior to opening the skate park facility. Staff asked the Commission to review staffs proposed Skate Park Rules, previously reviewed and approved by the City's attorney and insurance carrier, and offer comments and recommendations. On the issue of bicycle use in the skate park, staff recommended against allowing bicycles and offered the following justification: 'The CJPIA recommends that its member agencies not allow bikes, including BMX bikes, in their skate park facilities for liability reasons. It is their opinion that the potential for injury for anyone using the facility increases when bikes am included. If an agency elects to allow bikes, the CJPIA recommends that separate hours be designated for bikes and skaters to eliminate the increased risk. Bikes within a skate park am also not identified as a hazardous recreational activity under the Government Code. A large majority of the California skate parks ban bikes and scooters, allowing only skateboards and skates for liability reasons and to reduce the added wear and tear bikes create to the facility. The City's MMC limits the use of its skate path to those riding skateboards and in-line skates only. Staff recommends no change to this policy.' The Parks and Recreation Commission June 4, 2012 Page 2 It should be noted that the current Government Code, Section 831.7, lists bicycle jumping as a 'Hazardous Recreational Activity.' SOME HELPFUL DEFINITIONS: BMX — is an abbreviation for Bicycle Motocross; stunt riding on rough ground over an obstacle course on a bicycle. It is also a trade name for bicycles designed for motocross. STREET RIDING — is performed on unimproved obstacles found on typical streets. Handrails, ledges, slanted walls, and other common features are used to perform tricks. DIRT JUMPING — is similar to BMX racing in that the rider jumps mounds of dirt. It differs in that the jumps are usually much larger and designed to lift the rider high into the air. FLATLAND— is performed on smooth, flat pavement and riders test their hand-eye and foot coordination. The riders travel at a low rate of speed and stand on various parts of the bike while spinning it around in various ways beneath them. VERT — the riding is done on a halfpipe and allows riders to go higher than any other obstacles. Consequently, this is the most dangerous form of BMX and is considered somewhat elite. • PARK RIDING — is performed in a skate park, and BMX bikes are increasingly being allowed to ride terrain that used to be exclusive to skateboarders. This is the most versatile type of riding and the types of ramps available are unlimited, incorporating elements of all the various types of riding. FREERIDE — is a discipline of mountain biking closely related to downhill cycling and dirt jumping focused on tricks, style, and technical trail features. It is now recognized as one of the most popular disciplines within mountain biking. The term freeridinq was coined by snowboarders as riding without a set course, goals, or rules. In mountain biking, it is a riding trail with the most creative line possible that includes style, amplitude, control, and speed. Since it is foreseeable that the use of bicycles for park riding at the Poindexter Facility could involve jumping, these activities are recognized as a Hazardous Recreational Activity, contrary to the report presented to the Commission in 2009. This statement is supported by the Law Offices of Collins, Collins Muir and Steward, LLP and referenced later in this report. The specific rule on bicycle use in the skate park that was presented to the Commission in 2009 follows: `Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC) Section 8.34, requires all users of the City's skate park to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads at all times while using the facility. The Parks and Recreation Commission June 4, 2012 Page 3 Only skate boards and in-line or roller skates are allowed in the skate park (no bicycles, scooters, or motorized vehicles.) Violations am subject to a fine in accordance with MMC Section 1.10.' There was one speaker who spoke in favor of bicycle use in the skate park and after some deliberation on the subject, the Parks and Recreation Commission supported a motion in favor of the proposed Skate Park Rules with the following three suggestions: • Specify where skating is prohibited at the park. • Add a rule that allows the City the right to close the skate park. • If needed, at its discretion, revisit the issue of allowing bicycles once the skate park is completed and has a history of operating smoothly. On June 17, 2009, staff revised the Skate Park Rules to include the Commission's recommendations and presented the rules to the City Council with similar justification against allowing bicycles in the skate park. The City Council supported a motion approving the proposed Skate Park Rules with the following amendments (Refer to Attachment No. 1, MMC 12.16.190, Skate Facilities): • Create a separate bullet point indicating any violations of these rules may result in the temporary closure of the facility and penalties in accordance with MMC. • Clarify that any violations of MMC Section 8.34 am subject to a fine in accordance with MMC Section 1.10. • Move the bullet, providing the phone number to contact for reporting damages or hazardous conditions to the end of the list to make it more prominent. • Design the sign in the most visible, efficient manner possible. In addition, during both the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council meetings, staff discussed the fact that the skate park would not be supervised in an effort to lower the risk of liability. The justification that was presented during the June 17, 2009, City council meeting follows: 'While most everyone agrees that skateboarding is a potentially hazardous activity, when an injury occurs, individuals involved may look to place the blame on the facility owner, in this case the City. The California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), through which the City is insured, recommends that its member agencies not supervise their skate parks. Doing so has the potential of increasing exposure to liability. The presence of a staff person often gives users and/or parents an expectation that skaters are less likely to be injured and incidents are less likely to occur. When an incident or injury occurs, agencies are blamed and claimants seek compensation. In an effort to lower risk of liability and provide some immunity, the State Legislature adopted legislation. In 1997, SB 1296 was passed, classifying skateboarding at public skate parks as a hazardous recreational activity under the California Health and Safety Codes (Section 115800). The legislation, as later amended in 2006, provides limited immunities from liability to government entities, provided specified conditions are met, including: person skateboarding is 12 years of age or older; the activity was a stunt, The Parks and Recreation Commission June 4, 2012 Page 4 trick, or luge; for unsupervised facilities, the public agency must adopt an ordinance requiring the use of helmets, elbow and knee pads, and such requirements am posted,. and for supervised facilities, the public entity must ensure that the aforementioned safety gear is worn. In 1998, the City adopted an Ordinance (MMC Chapter 8.34) requiring users of the City's temporary ramp course at the Arroyo Vista Community Park, which was then in use, to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads as required under the Health and Safety Code. Violations of MMC Chapter 8.34 are infractions. Most skate parks in California am unsupervised due to the liability issue, as well as the cost of providing staff. Agencies depend on law enforcement to patrol skate parks to enforce rules, as well as self-policing from fellow skate park users. Agencies are encouraged to build their facilities in a highly visible area, giving law enforcement easy view of the facility from the street. The most common threat used by skate park owners to gain compliance with the rules is temporary closure of the skate park. There are some agencies that do provide supervision and some of those agencies also charge skate park users an admission fee. It's important to note that charging a fee for skate park use can also increase liability exposure. Under Government Code Section 831.7, the immunity provided for certain hazardous, recreational activities does not apply if a fee is charged. Staff recommends that the skate park not be supervised.' On February 13, 2012, during the Special Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, four public speakers addressed the Commission and requested that bicycles be allowed in the skate park. During the meeting, the Commission requested that staff prepare a report on this issue and bring it back to the Commission at a later date for discussion. The issue was also discussed at the City Council's Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on April 11, 2012. DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Commission is being asked to once again review the use of bicycles within the skate park at Poindexter Park. As presented to both the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council in 2009, staff does not recommend allowing bicycles within the skate park due to the potential of liability and the fact that it was not designed for bicycle use. On May 21, 2012, staff contacted the Poindexter Park skate park designers, Tim Maloney of Community Works Design Group (CWDG) and Scott Rice of California Skate Parks. Scott Rice formerly worked for CWDG and was the person directly responsible for the design of the Poindexter Park Skate Park. The text of Mr. Rice's e- mail response is attached. (Refer to Attachment 2) In addition, staff had the opportunity to discuss the issue of skate park design vs. bike park design with several bicycle ramp vendors and bike park designers during the California Parks and Recreation Society conference in March of this year. Staff was informed that there are inherent design differences between the two uses that are considered when designing parks for either user. Bicycles have a wider turning radius The Parks and Recreation Commission June 4, 2012 Page 5 and there is a certain rhythm that needs to be captured to allow for safe use of the facility. This is generally due to the size of the bicycle, distance between the wheel base and requirement for larger sweeping turns. Skate boards generally require tighter turning radius and a very different rhythm that allows the rider to turn quicker and sharper due to the maneuverability of the skate board. On May 17, 2012, staff contacted Bob May with the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency again to discuss the issue of allowing bicycles within the Poindexter Park skate park. Mr. May stood behind his 2009 recommendation that bicycles should not be allowed within the skate park and referred staff to Michael L. Wroniak with the Law Offices of Collins Collins Muir+ Stewart LLP. Mr. Wroniak provided staff with a detailed Memorandum (Refer to Attachment No. 3) outlining the inherent risks involved with allowing bicycles within the skate park and again supported staffs recommendation that bicycles should not be allowed. According to Mr. Wroniak, allowing BMX riders' use of the Poindexter Park skate park, when it was not designed for BMX use, creates a potential for a finding of a dangerous condition of public property, per Government Code section 835, which states: Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Government Code section 830(a) defines a 'dangerous condition as follows: "(a] substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it would be used." According to Mr. Wroniak, allowing a skate park that is designed for skateboarders only to be used by BMX riders could create a substantial risk of injury for the BMX rider when the park is used in the manner that it is reasonably foreseeable that it would be used. In addition, the City had the park designed specifically for skate boards. Allowing bicycles within the park could ultimately become an act of negligence on the park of the City by allowing the use and creating the condition. Mr. Wroniak also does not feel that the City would have design immunity under Government Code Section 830.6, which provides immunity for injuries caused by the plans, designs, and improvements to public property where the plan or design has been approved in advance by the appropriate agency, and where such approval is reasonable. Due to the fact that the skate park was designed specifically for skate board and not bicycles, as stated by the skate park designers e-mail, the City would not have The Parks and Recreation Commission June 4, 2012 Page 6 immunity under section 830.6. In addition Moorpark Municipal Code section 12.16.010 defines a 'skate facility' as "portable or permanent facility specifically established for use by skateboarders and in-line skaters...which skate facility is also designed and intended specifically for use by skateboarders and in-line skaters and is located on City property and maintained by the City." This section does not reference BMX bikes and again supports the argument that the park is not designed for BMX riders, ultimately eliminating design immunity. According to Mr. Wroniak, the Health and Safety Code section 15800 also does not apply to BMX riders using a skate park, as this section of the Health and Safety code only applies to skateboarding: "no operator of a skateboard park shall permit any person to ride a skateboard therein, unless that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads." Section 115800(6) states that for facilities that are not supervised, the posting of signs at the facility advising that users need to wear a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads, satisfies the requirements. Further, Section 115800(d) provides that skateboarding at a facility or park owned or operated by a public entity shall be deemed a hazardous recreational activity under Government Code section 831.7 if all of the following are met: (a) The person skateboarding is 12 years of age or older. (b) The skateboarding activity that caused the injury was stunt, trick, or luge skateboarding. (c) The skate park is on public property that complies with subdivision (a) or(b). Lastly, Government Code section 831.7 states that a public entity is not liable to anyone who participates in a 'hazardous recreational activity' or for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of the activity. Section 831.7(b)(1)(3) specifically identifies activities that have been deemed to be 'hazardous recreational activities' and includes "bicycle racing or jumping." According to Mr. Wroniak, BMX riding in a skate park involving "jumping" is a hazardous recreational activity and more likely than not, BMX riding in a skate park generally will be found to be a hazardous recreational activity because it involves substantial risk of injury to those performing stunts and tricks inherent in the activity. Staff has had the opportunity to research other skate parks in neighboring Cities and has discovered that many Cities allow bicycle use. The majority of the Cities that allow bicycles either have different times during the day or different days during the week where bicycle use is allowed. Staff did not discover any skate parks that allowed the two uses to occur simultaneously. However, it has not been determined if these skate parks have been designed for bicycle use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. That bicycles not be allowed in the skate park at Poindexter Park and does not recommend revising Moorpark Municipal Code section 12.16.190, Skate Facilities, to accommodate bicycles. The Parks and Recreation Commission June 4, 2012 Page 7 2. The Commission request that the City Council direct staff to continue to seek possible site opportunities and funding sources in an effort to provide a facility for Free Ride BMX bicycle use. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Moorpark Municipal Code 12.16.190, Skate Facilities 2. E-mail from Scott Rice, Park Designer 3. Collins, Collins Muir+ Stewart LLP. - Memorandum 12.16.190 Skate facility. Page I of I ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Moorpark Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames TI eJj STREETS,SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PIACES chanter 17.16 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE - -12.16.190 Skatefadlity. ---- - The following provisions for skate facility use are in addition to the other requirements of this chapter. Section 12.16.020,Hours of operation,Section 12.16.040,Animal control,and Section 12.16.160,Requirement and enforcement of park rental permits,are modified by the following skate facility use requirements. A. Only individuals riding skateboards and in-line skates are authorized to use the city's skate facility.No bicycles,scooters,or motorized vehicles are permitted to be operated in the skate facility. B. All users of the city's skate facility must wear protective gear at all times while using said facility. C. Skate facility age restrictions for users may be established by city council resolution. D. Skate facility hours of operation and provisions for closure for city sponsored events or for potentially hazardous conditions shall be established by city council resolution,and hours of operation fora skate facility may vary from the hours of operation established by Section 12.16.020. E. No person owning or having charge,care,custody or control of any dog,livestock,or other animal shall cause,permit,or allow the same to be brought into,allow to be loose within,or run at large upon the skate facility.Even with a chain or leash,such animals are prohibited within the skate facility. F. No private rental of a skate facility is permitted. G. No formal or organized contests or activities of any kind shall be held in a skate facility with the exception of a city sponsored event. H. Ramps,jumps,or other obstacles,equipment,or structures may not be brought into the skate facility, unless written approval is obtained from the city manager or designated representative in conjunction with a city sponsored event. I. All food and beverages are prohibited in a skate facility,unless written approval is obtained from the city manager or designated representative in conjunction with a city sponsored event.(Ord.392§ I,2010) ATTACHMENT I http://gcode.us/codes/m s=on 5/23/2012 EMAIL FROM POINDEXTER SKATE PARK DESIGN FIRM Community Works Design Group From: Scott Rice fmailto:scott@comworksdg.coml Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:57 AM To: 'Tim Maloney' Subject:RE: Moorpark trying to find space for bike riders - While many of the features and layout at Poindexter are desirable to BMX'ers, the park was designed to be used by skates/skateboards only. Certain materials present in the skate park, such as the pool coping/ pool tile are especially vulnerable to damage from bicycles. Flatwork and shotcrete ramp surfaces are also susceptible to "pock marks" from BMX frame/ peg impact, which can render the surfaces dangerous for subsequent skateboard use. Many Cities have explored having certain hours/ sessions set aside for BMX only within skate parks. It should be noted that the majority of the BMX user group is respectful of skate park facilities and does not cause intentional damage. However, the fact remains that BMX bikes are capable of more severe destruction in a skate park than is even possible from a skateboard (think sledge hammer vs. framing hammer), and unfortunately it only takes one vandal-minded or reckless BMX rider to compromise the safety and finish of the entire skate park. It is possible to retrofit certain features of the skate park to make them more resistant to BMX damage. This typically entails adding %" thick steel plate to particularly vulnerable surfaces. The downside is that retrofitting is typically rather expensive and requires a good degree of cutting and drilling into existing materials. It is also possible to exclude bikes from the most bike-vulnerable portions of the skate park, such as the "pool" and deep bowl areas with pool coping. But without on-site supervision, this is nearly impossible to enforce. ATTACHMENT 2 LAW OFFICES OF COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP MICHAEL L. WRONIAK SOUTH 111 L PASADENA in wroniaha ccmSlaN.rom 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 400 POST OFFICE SOY 250 ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 688684840 SOUTH PASsAO 103b FAX f 820)A3 3111n www.ccmalaw.COM. (714) 8334100 FAX (714) 023-4101 May 17,2012 MEMORANDUM TO: BOB MAY, CJPIA FROM: MICHAEL L.WRONIAK DATE: May 17, 2012 RE: BMX RIDERS AT CITY OF MOORPARK SKATE PARK ISSUES 1) If the city of Moorpark allows BMX riders to use the skate park that is not designed for BMX use, does the city create a dangerous condition of public property? 2) Does design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 apply to the city of Moorpark skate park for BMX riders if the park was not designed for BMX use? 3) Does Health and Safety Code section 115800 apply to BMX riders using a skate park? 4) Does BMX riding qualify as a hazardous recreational activity under Government Code section 831.7 for which immunity would apply to the city of Moorpark for allowing BMX riders to use the skate park? CONCLUSIONS (Based on information obtained to date) 1) Allowing BMX riders to use the city of Moorpark skate park if it was not designed for BMX use creates the potential for a finding of a dangerous condition of public property. 2) Design immunity would not apply to the city of Moorpark skate park for BMX riders if the park was not designed for BMX use and/or the possibility that BMX riders would use the facility was not considered in the design phase. 3) Health and Safety Code section 115800 does not apply to BMX riders using a skate park. 1665 MEMO U)MAY Rh BMX IUOLAC MOOR ATTACHMENT Bob May May 18,2012 Page 2 4) BMX riding in a hazardous recreational activity for which immunity would apply to the city of Moorpark for allowing BMX riders to use the skate park. ANALYSIS 1) Allowing BMX riders to use the city of Moorpark skate park if it was not designed for BMX use, does create the potential for a finding of a dangerous condition of public property. It must be noted that we are not dealing with any specific fact pattern to be applied to the elements necessary to establish a dangerous condition of public property. Accordingly,this analysis is in the abstract and is intended solely for purposes of allowing the city to assess the potential liability exposure for allowing BMX riders to use the skate park. Further,as discuss below,this analysis assumes the park was not designed for BMX riders. If we learn otherwise,the analysis will change. Liability for a dangerous condition of public property is governed by Government Code section 835,which provides: Except as provided by statute,a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition,that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred,and either: (a)A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Here,there are two primary issues that could result in a finding that the skate park is a dangerous condition for BMX riders. First,Government Code section 830(a)defines a"dangerous condition"as one creating:"[a] substantial(as distinguished from a minor,trivial or insignificant)risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it would be used." Allowing a skate park that is designed for skateboarders only to be used by BMX riders could create a substantial risk of injury for the BMX rider when the park is used with due care in the manner it is reasonably foreseeable that it would be used. This is because it is foreseeable that BMX riders will do stunts and tricks on the obstacles, bowls,rails and other features of the park. Likewise,because BMX riding involves jumps and tricks,which the skate park is designed to encourage, substantial risk of injury is inherent in the activity. Secondly,the city designed the park or had it designed and signed off on it. Therefore,the city created the condition. By designing the skate park specifically for skateboarders,then allowing BMX riders to use the Bob May May 18, 2012 Page 3 park provides a strong argument that a negligent act of the city created the condition. Conversely, actual or constructive notice will likely be met for these same reasons. 2) Design immunity would not apply to the city of Moorpark skate park for BMX riders if the park was not designed for BMX use and/or the possibility that BMX riders would use the facility was not considered in the design phase. Government Code section 830.6 provides immunity for injuries caused by the plans,designs,and improvements to public property where the plan or design has been approved in advance by the appropriate agency,and where such approval is reasonable. The legislature enacted Section 830.6 to prevent the reexamination of the discretionary determinations of public officials who adopted or approved a particular plan. Design immunity precludes liability when the public entity can establish three elements: (a)a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident;(b)discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction;(c)substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. Gov. Code § 830.6; Grenier v. City of Irwindale(1997)57 Cal.App.4th 931,939; Cornette v. Dept. of Trans. (2001)26 Ca1.4th 63,69. Design immunity applies to aspects of the plan that were considered,even if they were not actually implemented. Thus,to determine if design immunity will apply to a BMX rider injured while using the skate park, several critical questions need to be answered: 1) Was the park planned or designed to accommodate BMX riders(meaning were issues such as space requirements around features,dimensions of bowls and transitions designed for both skateboard and BMX use)?; 2) Does the design need to materially change to accommodate BMX riders?;and 3) Did the design intentionally omit BMX riders? In order to determine if design immunity will apply,we need to obtain answers to the above questions(and potentially others)from the designer. To do so, I recommend we interview the architect/designer,as well as the city employee(s)who approved the design,along with the documents submitted to the city during the design and approval process. Without this key information,a complete analysis of the elements necessary to establish design immunity cannot be properly undertaken. Furthermore, I have two concerns relating to the applicability of design immunity. The first arises from Mr. Boswell's letter wherein he indicates that he has attended a few City Council and Parks/Recreations meetings and it was asserted that"The skate park was not designed for bicycles." If this is an accurate quote from the City Council and/or Parks and Recs,and it is contained in the meeting minutes,this provides strong evidence against design immunity because it shows that the engineering plans and/or design for the skate park did not anticipate BMX use. Bob May May 18, 2012 Page 4 My second concentis Moorpark MunicipalCndesection 1216_010,wherein itdefines a"skate facility"as "portable or permanent facility specifically established for use by skateboarders and in-line skaters...which skate facility is alsu designed and intended specifically for use by skateboarders and in-line skaters and is located on city property and maintained by the city." This section does not reference BMX bikes and supports the argument that the park is not designed for BMX riders. A properly prepared plaintiff's counsel will utilize this section in an effort to eliminate design immunity. It should be noted that Moorpark Municipal Code section 17.28.240,entitled"Bicycle and skate parks", indicates that its purpose is to"establish reasonable and uniform limitations,safeguards and controls for the design,placement and use of facilities and structures(hereinafter referred to as"facilities")for bicycle and skates such as,but not limited to: skateboards,bicycles,unicycles,tricycles and roller skates." The Code goes on to address such issues as zoning, setbacks,hours of operation and indemnity. Section 17.28.240, when read in conjunction with Section 12.16.210 appears to make a clear distinction between"bicycle parks" and"skate parks." Based on the above,additional information is needed on this issue before a more definitive answer can be provided. Also,it should be noted that design immunity can be lost if the Plaintiff proves changed physical conditions or a trap existed. Accordingly,under certain factual circumstances,there remains a possibility that a court may determine that the immunity has been lost. 3) Health and Safety Code section 115800 does not apply to BMX riders using a skate park. Health and Safety Code section 115800(a)provides that"no operator of a skateboard park shall permit any person to ride a skateboard therein,unless that person is wearing a helmet,elbow pads,and knee pads." Section 115800(b)states that for facilities that are not supervised,the posting of signs at the facility advising that users need to wear a helmet,elbow pads and knee pads,satisfies the requirements. Further, Section 115800(d)provides that skateboarding at a facility or park owned or operated by a public entity shall be deemed a hazardous recreational activity under Government Code section 831.7 if all of the following are met: (A) The person skateboarding is 12 years of age or older. (B) The skateboarding activity that caused the injury was stunt,trick, or luge skateboarding. (C) The skateboard park is on public property, that complies with subdivision(a)or(b). In interpreting statutory language,courts will look to the plain language of the statute. Applying this standard,Section 115800 only references"skateboarding",which is a distinct activity from BMX riding. Therefore,on its face Section 115800 does not apply to BMX riding. I have not found any case law expanding this section to BMX riding. Bob May May 18, 2012 Page 5 Further,the question was raised as to whether Section 115800 expired. It has not. In 2011,the January 1, 2012 sunset clause wns_deleted from the statute. Therefore,the section is still applicable and currently has no expiration date. 4) BMX riding is as a hazardous recreational activity for which immunity would apply to the city of Moorpark for allowing BMX riders to use the skate park. Government Code section 831.7 states,in pertinent part,that a public entity is not liable to anyone who participates in a"hazardous recreational activity"or for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of the activity. Further,the immunity applies not only to the activity,but to objectively foreseeable risks associated with the activity. Wood v. County of San Joaquin(2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 960,968. The phase "hazardous recreational activity"means an activity engaged in on public property that creates a"substantial" —as opposed to a"minor"or"trivial"—risk of injury to a participant. Section 831.7(6)(1)(3)specifically identifies activities that have been deemed to be hazardous recreational activities and includes"bicycle racing or jumping." Thus,BMX riding in a skate park involving"jumping" is a hazardous recreational activity. Furthermore,it is more likely than not,depending on the individual circumstances,that BMX riding in a skate park generally will be found to be a hazardous recreational activity because it involves substantial risk of injury to those performing stunts and tricks inherent in the activity. However,under Government Code§831.7(c)(2),the immunity can be lost if any of the following is established: I) Failure to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition. This exception applies to conditions not inherently part of the activity out of which the danger arises. 2) Permission to participate for a fee. If the public entity charges a"specific fee"for participation in the hazardous recreational activity,the immunity does not apply. A"specific fee"does not include a fee or consideration charged for a general purpose such as a general park admission charge,a vehicle entry or parking fee,or an administrative or group use application or permit fee. 3) Improper construction or maintenance. This would directly apply to the situation at hand. 4) Improper promotion of participation. This requires active promotion of the activity,not mere notification(i.e., information on City newsletter or website). 5) Acts of gross negligence. This is a tough standard to meet and requires that the gross negligence proximately cause the injury. It is possible that failing to restrict access to the park arise to gross negligence,unless other factors come into play, such as the location being a known rockslide area,etc. Bob May May 18, 2012 Page 6 Based on my prior analysis provided to you relating to the concrete issues with the skate park,and assuming the.issue&have not_heen_resolved_2 the 5 mechanisms to lose immunity.under Section_ are present here. First,it is well known that concrete cracks. However,the size of the cracks and potential for skateboard and BMX wheels and other apparatus to be caught in the cracks is what is important here. Skate park users do not anticipate that the concrete in a skate park will be in such disrepair that wheels can get stuck in the cracks. Photographs previously provided show several areas where the cracking is beyond that normally expected in concrete. Thus,the city is aware of the cracking and deterioration of the concrete and the danger it poses to users. This is supported by the City Council previously voting to shut down the park(and then subsequently reopen it). As a result,failure to warn or guard against the dangers posed by the condition of the concrete will result in the city losing this immunity. The second way the city could lose immunity is through improper construction or maintenance of the skate park. Here,once again the photographs provided show several areas where the cracking is beyond that normally expected in concrete. A strong argument can be made that the park has not been constructed properly. The city can attempt to salvage the immunity by maintaining the cracks. However,this is only a temporary fix,and it could ultimately lead to liability exposure. ITEM , Reschedule a Park Tour from the May 19, 2012, Canceled Meeting. Verbal Presentation No Staff Report ITEM 9 r9 MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Moorpark, California April 2, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on April 2, 2012, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. _�.. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Pflaumer called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Michele Willer-Allred led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Zachary Cook, Thomas Pflaumer, Sandra Thompson, and Julie Weisberger. Chair Patrick Ellis submitted his resignation on March 29, 2012. Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Hugh Riley, Parks and Landscape Manager Jeremy Laurentowski, Landscape/Parks Superintendent Allen Walter, Recreation Superintendent Stephanie Shaw, and Administrative Assistant Patty Anderson. 4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: A. Consider Nomination and Selection of Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Weisberger moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded that Commissioner Pflaumer serve as Chair for one annual term. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Thompson moved and Chair Pflaumer seconded that Commissioner Cook serve as Vice Chair for one annual term. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commission to pull Items 9.A, 9.B, and 9.0 from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration, upon the request of Commissioner Cook. P&R Commission Meeting April 2, 2012 Page 2 CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commission to hear the Consent Calendar prior to Item 8.A on the agenda, upon the request of Commissioner Cook. 9,.._ CONSENT CALENDAR: __..._. A. Approval of Minutes for Parks and Recreation Commission Special Meeting of February 13, 2012. Staff Recommendation: Approve as presented. Commissioner Cook stated that he would like to correct the meeting minutes from February 13, 2012, to reflect that he was not in favor of raising field usage fees to the non-profit Moorpark Sports organizations at this time. He had requested a financial summary for review before discussing this issue any further. In addition, he would like to discuss other alternatives rather than raising fees. B. Winter Camp Event Summary. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file report. Commissioner Cook discussed participation feedback on this event with staff. C. 2011 Visits from Santa Program Summary. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file report. Commissioner Cook inquired of staff if perhaps the fee increase for this event may have affected the participation decrease. Staff stated that the cost increase was necessary to cover costs for this event, and an increase in participation is anticipated for 2012. D. 2011 Breakfast with Santa Event Summary. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file report. MOTION: Commissioner Weisberger moved and Commissioner Cook seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Weisberger announced the upcoming production of Harvey at the High Street Arts Center. P&R Commission Meeting April 2, 2012 Page 3 Commissioner Thompson announced the success of the recent annual Moorpark Has Talent Show. Commissioner Thompson requested as a future agenda item the discussion of the feasihility_of a Community Garden Commissioner Cook felt it was important to point out that there was a recent accident in the City's Skate Park due to bikes being present. This was an issue discussed at the February 13, 2012, Commission meeting. Chair Pflaumer thanked Patrick Ellis for serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission and wished him luck with his new endeavors. Chair Pflaumer gave a brief oral report on his recent attendance to the CPRS Conference in March. Chair Pflaumer announced the upcoming Joint City Council and Parks and Recreation Meeting on April 11. 8. PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION: A. Consider Youth Sports Organization use Agreement Policy and Fees for Use. Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve staff recommendation for a Youth Sports Organization Use Agreement Policy; and 2) Approve staff recommendation for a fee schedule for use of City facilities under a Youth Sports Organization use Agreement. Stephanie Shaw and Jeremy Laurentowski both gave staff reports. Ms. Shaw reviewed the proposed policies and fees, and Mr. Laurentowski reviewed the maintenance and financial status of the parks. At this point in the meeting Commissioner Cook stated that he wanted it noted that he is not in favor of the proposed fee increase, due to his concern of it affecting participation. There were six speakers. Daniel Cronk, 13445 Laurelhurst Road, with the Moorpark Soccer Club, spoke in opposition of the different categories and fees for different leagues. Michael Scanlon, 4422 Terreacemeadow Court, with Moorpark Soccer Club, spoke in opposition to a fee increase, as well as different categories and fees for different leagues. P&R Commission Meeting April 2, 2012 Page 4 Joseph Johns, 3934 Timberridge Road, with Moorpark Soccer Club, spoke in opposition to a fee increase, as well as different categories and fees for different leagues. Lisa Houston, Moorpark resident, spoke in opposition of the different categories and fees for different leagues. Robert Babcock, 4256 Hilburn Court, was not representing any one particular sports organization. He stated that he supports all Moorpark sports organizations and opposes any proposed fees. Bill Gratke, 4618 Big Country Court, with Moorpark AYSO, stated that AYSO currently makes donations to the City to assist with maintaining fields. He stated that he is concerned about the proposed fees affecting AYSO participation, because this will result in registration fees increasing. Commissioner Cook disclosed that he had had a phone conversation with Bill Gratke following the February 13, 2012, meeting. The Commission and staff then discussed different issues regarding this item, such as alternatives to raising fees, including the sports organizations cutting back if possible; which organizations and levels, if any, would be inclusive or restrictive; the consequences if fees are not raised; adjusting the phase-in fee schedule or a applying a cap; and how long the sports agreements' terms should be. It was suggested that the Commission recommend to Council that the issue of parks maintenance finances be directed to the Finance, Administrative, and Public Safety (FAPS) Committee for review and discussion. Following discussion, the Commission made the following recommendations: 1. To eliminate the terms inclusive/recreational use and restricted/club use and to charge all Moorpark non-profit sports organizations the same fee. 2. Extend the maximum use allowance from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. 3. To adjust the phase-in of the fee schedule, starting the first year at $3.25, which is a 33% increase, the second year adjusting the fee by 50%, bringing the hourly rate to $4.88, and then the third year, P&R Commission Meeting April 2, 2012 Page 5 implementing a 75% increase, bringing the hourly rate to $7.31. At this time the Commission would like to recommend this item be brought back to them for review. only the regular use fees. The Commission held a voice vote approving staff recommendation with the above stated changes for consideration by the City Council. The motion was carried by 3-1, with Commissioner Cook being the dissenting vote. 10. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. APPROVED: Respectfully submitted Thomas Pflaumer, Chair Patty Anderson, Administrative Assistant ITEM 9 B MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Moorpark, California April 11, 2012 A Special Joint Meeting g of-the Moorpark Cfly Council and Parks & Recreation Commission was held on April 11, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. at the Moorpark Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Parvin called the City Council to order at 7:10 p.m. Chair Pflaumer called the Parks and Recreation Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Hugh Riley, Assistant City Manager, led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: City Council: Councilmembers Mikos, Millhouse, Pollock, Van Dam, and Mayor Parvin. Parks& Recreation Commission: Commissioners Cook, Thompson, Weisberger and Chair Pflaumer. Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Hugh Riley, Assistant City Manager; Deborah Traffenstedt, Deputy City Manager, Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Landscape Manager, Allen Walter, Landscape/Parks Maintenance Superintendent, Stephan Shaw, and Maureen Benson, City Clerk. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Gary Boswell, a Moorpark resident, presented an intemet petition with 300 participant comments regarding a bicycle park for Moorpark; and requested information on why bicycles are not allowed to use the skatepark within Poindexter Park. Joel Shuler, a Moorpark resident, requested consideration be given to making the skatepark within Poindexter Park available for bike usage and if not, then he Minutes of the City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission Moorpark. California Page 2 April 11, 2012 requested the text on the signage prohibiting bicycles at the park be enlarged so the public is more aware. 5. PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION: A. Consider Bicycle Usage at Skatepark within Poindexter Park. A discussion followed among the Councilmembers, Commissioners, and staff which focused on: 1) The need for the Parks and Recreation Commission to look at other options for a bicycle park; and 2) Staff continues to recommend against allowing bicycles at the skatepark based upon the contractor's restrictions when the skatepark was presented for approval. MOTION: Councilmember Van Dam moved and Councilmember Millhouse moved to refer consideration of the options for a bicycle park for Moorpark to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. B. Consider Status Report on Mission Statement, Priorities, Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 and Direction for Fiscal Year 2012/2013. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Kueny gave a brief report A discussion followed among the Councilmembers, Commissioners, and staff which focused on: 1) Reviewing park lighting in the evening with a Parks and Recreation Commission park tour using the Master Park Plan as a guide, and re- positioning of the court lighting at Mammoth Highlands Park; 2) Continuing to explore opportunities for cost reductions in maintaining the parks; 3) Desire for a community swimming pool; 4) The continuing need for an alternative entrance to Arroyo Vista Community Park; 5) Possibilities of introducing social media for park rentals, notification of rain delays, and class registration; 6) Parks and Recreation Commission exploring community involvement in establishing a community garden as it relates to Top Ten Priority No. 10 promoting sustainability; 7) Reasoning for retaining construction of a restroom at Country Trail Park as a future objective; 8) Continuing consideration in the 5+ Year category of a ball-wall as a possible shared use; Minutes of the City Council and Parks& Recreation Commission Moorpark. California Page 3 April 11 , 2012 9) Upgrading of plumbing fixtures in public restrooms to sensor-activated on a repair case-by-case basis; 10) Continuing to include as a Potential Objective, a small lake in a City Park as a passive recreation opportunity which would be located, for example at the 80-acre open space site 11) Moving installation of outdoor fitness equipment to the actual objectives for 2012/13; 12) Continuing efforts to construct the pocket park for Walnut Acres on Second Street despite the loss of Redevelopment Agency funding; and 13) Requesting Chair Pflaumer to attend the Council meeting were the Youth Sports Organization Use Agreement Policy and Fees for Use of City Facilities will be discussed. Mr. Kueny stated at a future City Council meeting, the updated Goals and Objectives will presented in legislative format with staff recommendations. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Parvin adjourned the City Council meeting and Chair Pflaumer adjourned the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor Thomas Pflaumer, Chair ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk ITEM 9 G CITY OF MOORPARK PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: The Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Hugh R. Riley, Assistant City Manager PREPARED BY: Stephanie Shaw, Recreation Superintendent and Recreation Division Staff DATE: April 15, 2012 (Meeting of June 4, 2012) SUBJECT: Quarterly Report: Recreation Programs and Rentals Winter Quarter: December 2011, and January and February 2012 This memo serves as a review and analysis of Winter 2011-2012 Recreation Division programs and park and facility rentals. It should be noted that beginning with the Summer 2009 quarter, figures for programs offered through the Arroyo Vista Recreation Center were calculated using a comprehensive cost allocation system. This system was implemented to account for division overhead costs, more accurate facility overhead costs, and all full-time staff costs associated with the programs. Previously, division overhead costs were not included at all, and only partial facility overhead was accounted for. Also not accounted for previously were costs associated with the Recreation Assistant position and full-time recreation division staff not assigned directly to the program. The full-time staff cost allocations for summer 2009 through spring 2010 were calculated based on estimates of past history, as no data was available. Beginning with the fall of 2009, full-time recreation staff began tracking time spent on various programs. Utilizing a full year of data (fall 2009 through summer 2010), the full-time staff cost allocations have been revised to more closely reflect actual reported hours. This resulted in significant changes in reported full-time staff costs for some programs from 2009 to 2010. The process of accounting for full-time staff costs continues to be refined each year in an effort to produce the most accurate figures possible. In January 2012, the City Council passes the "Recreation Programs and Services Cost Recovery Policy" which dictates the minimum and target cost recovery for each recreation program. A section indicating whether the program has met its minimum and target recovery goals has been added to this report. z 8 WINTER EVENTS Visits from Santa Visits from Santa were scheduled on December 22, 23, and 24 from 8:00 to 10:30 a.m.; December 16 and 23 from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m.; and December 17 from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. A total of 22 time slots were purchased. A total of 20 different homes were visited. The program served a total of 108 children and 93 adults. The registration fee for a visit was $52 on all days except December 24, which was $75. Each visit lasted approximately 10 minutes and included stories, songs, and photos with Santa. Santa also delivered parent's gifts upon request. Enrollment was down this year. This year there were two different performers contracted to work as Santa. One, a real- bearded Santa who also works as Santa Claus at Universal Studios, had limited availability due to his other performances. Therefore, another local performer was ' contracted to fill the generally more popular evening times. Both contractors provided excellent service and the Recreation Division received very positive feedback from the event participants. Two time slots were reserved for Camp Moorpark, which is not included in the total participation or demographic summary. I Visits from Santa 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Participants 201 233 441 Direct Costs $430 $863 $1,828 Indirect Costs F/T Staff $2,392 $1,621 $817 Overhead Costs $135 $132 $149 Gross Profit/ Loss $591 $387 $677 _)° s . Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($9.63) ($5.86) ($0.66) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Other Event): % Direct Costs Recovered: 100% % Division Indirect Costs Recovered 23.5% Minimum Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) _ Participants 72 _ 50 4 0 75 Breakfast with Santa Breakfast with Santa was held on Saturday, December 17, 2012 at AVRC. The doors opened at 8:00 a.m. and the event concluded by about 10:45 a.m. The event featured a gourmet breakfast catered by the Grinder restaurant, photos with Santa, and holiday craft projects. Overall attendance for the event was 83 participants. Registration fees were reduced this year in an effort to increase attendance. Fees this year were $15 for children, $10 for toddlers, and $8 for adults. Included in the registration fee was breakfast for all participants, a photo with Santa for toddlers and children, and a holiday craft project for children. Staff received very positive feedback from the participants and the event ran smoothly. This program was initiated in 1989, and due to its popularity the City of Moorpark began offering a Brunch with Santa on Sunday in addition to the Breakfast on Saturday. After 2005, both programs were discontinued. The event was reinstated in 2010 with the Breakfast only. Attendance increased this year compared to last year, and it is anticipated that attendance will continue to increase each year. Breakfast with Santa 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 A Enrollments 83 60 Not offered R' _ $916 Direct Costs $1,144 $1,235 Indirect Costs HT Staff $2884 $2,432 Overhead Costs $217 $250 'sl �"y,,�,� `trig�y r' - Gross Profit/Loss $290 $319 Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($40.85) ($50.01) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Special Event): Direct Costs Recovered: 75% % Division Indirect Costs Recovered 0% Minimum Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Enrollments 14 19 1 1 48 i - Teen Iron Chef This event was not offered this year. Teen Iron Chef 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Participants Not offered 3 Not offered enu , i i;; e $30 Direct Costs $160 F/T Staff $1,549 Overhead Costs $287 Total Costs w,` z� P.. 1 9`96 �.��'..c3'.-n�Y1��Vn•r+ '�, �_ .-. �, 7 �.., Gross Profit/ (Loss) ($130) Net Profit/'(Loss) ($1,966) Net Profit / (Loss) Per Participant ($655) Karaoke Night(formerly Friday Night Frenzy) This event was not offered this year. Karaoke Nite 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Partici•ants Not Offered 3 18 Number of events 2 1 Revenue' $90 Direct Costs $165 $286 Indirect Costs FIT Staff $3,098 $909 Overhead Costs $578 $191 .r. . r .� � _ . 86 Gross Profit/ Loss $150 $196 Net Profit/ Loss Per Partici•ant =DM $72 Band Jams One Band Jam was offered this winter, on January 14 at AVRC from 7:00-10:00 p.m. Admission to the event was $5.00. A total of three bands performed at the event. Featured bands included the Mark Cross Band, What Goes Up, and The Addiction. Admission for the event was $5. The event was targeted at middle and high school students, ages 12 and older. A total of 87 people attended the event. The event ran smoothly. { Band Jams 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Partici•ants 87 85 Not offered t4 1,r .y +5ar. Direct Costs -- $144 -- -$146 Indirect Costs F/T Staff $1381 $1,549 Overhead Costs $247 $296 Gross Profit/ Loss $221 $168 "67 Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($16.17) ($19.72) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Special Events): % Direct Costs Recovered. 100% Division Indirect Costs Recovered 13.5% Minimum Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) _(5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Participants 0 0 0 70 17 Black And White Ball The Black and White Ball held at AVRC on February 11 from 7:00-10:00 p.m. The event included a DJ and photo booth. A local teen band, What Goes Up, performed at the event for free. The dance was targeted to high-school students. Thirty-two teens attended the event and no problems were reported. Attendance at dances has been poor for the past several years. Staff will consider eliminating dances from teen events to focus on other events which may be more popular with today's teen population. Black and White Ball 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Participants 32 Not offered Not offered - Revenue Direct Costs $1,335 Indirect Costs F/T Staff $1,381 Overhead Costs $247 $2,963 Gross Profit/ Loss ($1,245 -- -- Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($89.78) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Special Events): % Direct Costs Recovered: 7% Division Indirect Costs Recovered 0% Minimum Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Participants 0 0 0 32 0 Holiday Movie Marathon The Holiday Movie Marathon was held at the High Street Arts Center on December 21 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Four films were featured, including A Christmas Story, Elf, The Grinch and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Admission was $5 per movie, or $10 all-day. A total of 163 attended the movie event. Future costs can be minimized if the High Street Arts Center purchases an annual movie license agreement. The overhead costs listed below do not include use of the HSAC or the theater manager's time. Holiday Movie Marathon 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Participants 163 Not offered Not offered• Revenue . ;3 h• Direct Costs $1,161 Indirect Costs _ F/T Staff $1,381 Overhead Costs $231 r Gross Profit/ (Loss) ($403) i401414' ti 5.. -ti g; ($2,015) Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($12.36) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Special Events): Direct Costs Recovered: 65% % Division Indirect Costs Recovered 0% Minimum Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Participants 25 45 17 26 50 Minute To Win It Minute-1-6-Win It was an event based on the television show. The event was held on Saturday, January 28 starting at 1:00 p.m. at AVRC. The entry fee to compete was $5 in advance or $8 at the door. Contestants competed in silly, one minute games for prizes. Two contestants participated in the event. Minute To Win It 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Participants 2 Not offered Not offered Revenue $13 Direct Costs $100 Indirect Costs F/T Staff $1,381 _ Overhead Costs $240 Total Costs $1,721 Gross Profit/ (Loss) ($87) Net Profit/ (Loss) ($1,708) Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($854) Cost Recovery summary: Y % Direct Costs Recovered: 13% % Division Indirect Costs Recovered 0% Minimum Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) - (18+) Participants 0 0 2 0 0 WINTER CLASSES Class participation and revenue increased for the third consecutive year. The number of classes offered this winter was increased, and the cancelation rate decreased. Programs with strong enrollment included the Away We Grow program, most dance classes, tot sports classes, Zumba, and yoga. Programs with mixed success included guitar, horseback riding, and baking. Programs that had poor attendance or lack of interest this winter included parent & me music classes, most art classes, roller hockey and in-line skating, and dog obedience. Several winter camps were offered, including science camp, theater camp, and winter horseback riding camp. However, only the theatre camp had sufficient enrollees to run. Staff will continue to analyze class enrollment to increase participation and reduce the cancellation rate. 11 1 Winter Classes 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Classes offered 110 100 71 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIMIIPL Plaiiiii cancelled 43 54 21 1 Enrollments 601.. 527 508 i D(r ::Cdsts $39,016 $34,680 $33,462 i k ti M ' 42047. - 20 4 . ''? 0cCr } z:� a t.;: 6l' I F/i'Staff $14,689 $17,880 $12,926_ I overhead Costs $5,511 $4,804 $4956 ter' .."o43 Gross.Profit/ Loss $18,374 $16,325 $17,152 g v. $6;3 ? ' . Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($3.04) ($12.07) ($1.44) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Recreation Classes and Specialty Camps): % Direct Costs Recovered: 100% Division Indirect Costs Recovered 91% Minimum Recovery Met: x Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes x No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) . Enrollments 254 132 44 14 157 CAMP MOORPARK Winter Camp Winter Camp Moorpark ran during MUSD winter break, December 19 through December 30. Winter Camp Moorpark was offered for boys and girls ages 5-12. Fees for the program started at $25 per day or $115 for a full week. Themes for winter camp were "Winter Wonderland" and "Penguin Parade." For the first week campers enjoyed watching "Frosty the Snowman," a snowflake scavenger hunt, and a visit from Santa. Originally, a walking trip to Baskin Robins was scheduled for the first week, but was cancelled due to cold weather and was replaced by an ice-cream social on-site. During the second week, campers enjoyed a bounce house party at Glenwood Park, watched "Happy Feet," had an Artic Cool party, and competed in a penguin costume contest. Average daily attendance for Winter Camp was 28.9. A total of 59 unduplicated campers attended winter camp, which is a nearly 50% increase in average daily attendance and a 30 % increase in children participating. Of the 59 campers, 23 1 campers were new to the program. Winter Camp has brought new customers to our 1 Camp Moorpark, which should help increase participation for Summer Camp Moorpark. Overall, the program ran smoothly and the children enjoyed the various. While Alla__._____________ program realized gross revenue, the program was not able to recoup all costs Winter Camp 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Total Enrollments 287 142 99 Average Daily Attendance 28.7 17.75 12.38 Partici•ants undu•licated count 59 35 25 Fbive 4 ? Direct Costs $4,074 $2,410 $2,203 Indirect Costs _ _ - E F/T Staff _ $3,478 $3,689 $4,893 Overhead Costs $993 $1,181 $1,592 'ot, t t X , , ., - > $7 279 $80688 Gross Profit/ (Loss) $3,536 $1,582 $648 Net Profit/(Loss) ($935) ($3,288) ($5,837L Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($15.85) ($93.94) ($233.48) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Day Camps): i % Direct Costs Recovered: 100% Division Indirect Costs Recovered 79% Minimum Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Participants 0 54 5 0 0 ADULT SPORTS LEAGUES (Adult Softball and Adult 7 on 7 Soccer are dark during the winter season.) Adult Basketball Adult basketball registration increased from 12 teams last year to 14 teams this year (eight teams on Thursday and six teams on Monday). The registration fee was $275. } } E 1 I The league ran for eight weeks, with games starting in January and concluding in March. The league offered two "C" divisions on Monday or Thursday evenings. Teams from both divisions were included in play-offs. Overall, the season ran smoothly. Basketball 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Pla ers 128 84 136 Direct Costs $2,437 $2,371 $3,182 FIT Staff $1,379 $1,323 $2,589 Overhead Costs $1,3/922 $1,278 $1 584 isikt Gross Profit/ Loss 66 $1,413 $1,530 $2,011 f s!o^ Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant ($10.60) ($12.75) ($15.84) Cost Recovery summary (Category: Adult Sports Programs): Direct Costs Recovered: 100% % Division Indirect Costs Recovered 51% Minimum Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) _ Participants 0 0 0 0 128 Adult Futsal Adult Futsal was offered for the second time this winter. This league is an opportunity for 7 on 7 soccer players who want to keep active during the winter, when 7 on 7 soccer is dark. A special ball and large goals are used for this form of indoor soccer. Eight teams registered for the league, which was the maximum that could be accepted. Games were held for eight weeks on Wednesday nights. The registration fee was $340 per team. The league ran smoothly and participants enjoyed having the opportunity to stay active during the winter months. The league will be expanded next year to include an Over 30 night. Futsal 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 - Players 86 100 Not offered Revenue $2,720 $2,600 Direct Costs $1,148 $1,652 ,l�i .. as1'g _ V,•x., w+x+s� A. ,i.., . �.5{:e. 4�s ^'°r::6. F/T Staff $1,002 $1,530 Overhead Costs $800 $1,050 • ...ay osts Ta b,',t, e A?# 'i'�Z �7 x. r¢. rZ.,.4, �-' s�.-ii rkii Gross Profit/ Loss $1,572 $948 `� '. �..: :l �� :7- z. tS � a S ,W„i . . {i 8 E Pi z :S-5 Net Profit/ Loss) Per Participant $2.67 $16.32 i I 1 Cost Recovery summary (Category: Adult Sports Programs): I ': % Direct Costs Recovered: 100% Division Indirect Costs Recovered 87% Minimum Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: ❑ Yes X No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Participants 0 0 0 0 86 YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE The Youth Basketball League continues to be successful, and enrollments increased for the third consecutive year. Part-time staff served as scorekeepers and referees for the league. Divisions were offered for Rookie (ages 5-7), Junior (ages 8-10), Teen (ages 11-13), and High School (ages 14-17). The registration fee was $68 for Rookie Division and $78 for all other divisions. League participants received a team shirt, photos, and a trophy. At the conclusion of the season, teams had a pizza party at Round Table Pizza, Pizza and More or Lamppost Pizza, where all teams received two large pizzas and a pitcher of soda pop. The league ran smoothly. Youth Basketball Lea•ue 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Partici•ants 192 188 150 R 1Y.G,�..y11nW'i 4-1 rt, :3; e*. -IIx r i' 't =y4'a y .., �3w ys!'�'". $12172 48,992-' Direct Costs $6,426 $6,193 $3,954 az : ; i.i fin.s y4�ts -1 F/T Staff $3,898 $2,288 $2988 Overhead Costs $3,964 $3,674 $2448 Total Costs Z;' � k ` ,7 { Gross Profit/ Loss $6,965 $5,979 $5,038 Net Profit t 6>, . . ' w- s", k,a_ ,. ",. Net Profit / (Loss Per Participant $4.67 $.09 ($2.65 Cost Recovery summary (Category: Youth Sports Programs): % Direct Costs Recovered: 100% % Division Indirect Costs Recovered 88.5% Minimum Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Target Recovery Met: X Yes ❑ No Demographic summary: Ages Served Preschool Youth Tween Teen Adult (under 5) (5-10) (11-13) (14-17) (18+) Enrollments 0 157 35 0 0 EXCURSIONS Ski & Snowboard Trip This program was not offered this year. Ski & Snowboard Trip 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 Participation Not offered 0 Not offered Revenue Direct Costs .. ,. . 0 , ^ �a 1f1dtr4Ct Costs F/T Staff $1,549 Overhead Costs $282 :::To*FOOts Gross Profit/ Loss 0 r' r Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant N/A PARKS AND FACILITY USE Park and facility use decreased for the 3rd consecutive year. However, rental revenue increased, due to increases in park rental fees approved by Council in the fall of 2011. Figures for the Winter 2011/2012 quarter include attendance as indicated on paid rental permits for the Arroyo Vista Recreation Center and all park facilities. Figures in the chart below do not include repeated use by youth sports organizations, use by the public without permits, or use by City-run programs included elsewhere in this report. It should be noted that overhead costs for use of outdoor facilities (such as soccer fields and baseball fields) by rental groups are included in the calculations below for the winter 2011-2012 season. This has resulted in a significant increase in reported overhead costs, as previously only AVRC building overhead costs were included in the calculation. Additionally, in order to be consistent with cost reporting for recreation programs, costs for field lighting have been moved from direct costs to overhead costs this year. Revenue figures include fees paid on rental permits and field light fees. (Costs below do not include field use costs for youth sports organizations for use under their respective agreements, or full-time staff costs to administer of youth sports organization agreements or manage permits and use under the agreements.) Parks and Facilities 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010_ Participation 7,181 10,428 18,545 Revenue $24,118 $21,692 $26,420 Direct Costs $566 $8,088 $4,850 Indirect Costs F/T Staff $8,706 $12,865 $6,797 Overhead Costs $12,515 $3,084 $3982 Total Costs $21,787 $24,307 $15,629 Gross Profit/ (Loss) $23,552 $13,604 $21,570 Net Profit I(Loss) $2,331 ($2,345), $10,791 Net Profit/ (Loss) Per Participant $0.32 ($0.22) $0.58 Youth sports organizations operating in the winter season (December, January, February) include AYSO (1250 players, in session December), Moorpark Girls Softball (246 players, in session February), and Moorpark Soccer Club (150 players, in session 1 December.) Assuming one game and one practice per week, plus attendance by parents and spectators, Youth Sports use is estimated at 24,000. This use falls under $ the agreements with the various youth sports organizations. Field rental fees are not charged or collected for this use at this time. Fees for this use include only a $1.00 annual use fee. The cost recovery policy does not apply to park and facility rentals. • ¢4t { 1 ITEM CITY OF MOORPARK PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT -TO - - - Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Hugh R. Riley, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director PREPARED BY: Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Landscape Manager Allen Walter, Landscape/Parks Maintenance Superintendent DATE: April 15, 2012 (Meeting of 6/4/12) SUBJECT: Parks Quarterly Report January through April 2012 Arbor Day Celebration: This year, Arbor Day's sixth annual celebration and ceremony was held on Friday, April 27 from 4:00 to 5:00 pm at the Veterans Memorial Park. The invited dignitaries were the Mayor and City Council, the Parks and Recreation Commission, Boy Scout Troop 604, the ISA Western Chapter representative, and the State Forester. The selected tree this year was the Arbutus x "Marina". Boy Scout Troop 604, City Council, Park Commission, and the public planted (pre-dug holes) six, 15 gallon Arbutus x "Marina" trees in the park. Also, five gallon Arbutus x "Marina" trees were given away to the public. Mormon Helping Hands Volunteer Project: The 3"' annual Mormon Helping Hands volunteer organization was scheduled on April 28 from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm. 250 volunteers planted approximately 200 shrubs and four trees at Monte Vista Park and painted the perimeter fence and gates at the Shadyridge Buffer Zone. Moorpark High School National Honor Society Volunteer Project: 50 Moorpark High School National Honor Society volunteers planted 20 trees at AVCP around the football field to provide shade for the football spectators and 50 shrubs along the Villa Campesina Park north fence to stop or reduce graffiti on the wood fence. Turf Restoration: City Council approved $54,000 to complete the turf renovation at Arroyo Vista Community Park and Mammoth Highlands Park as outlined in the turf management report prepared by Guise and Associates. Funding for this work was not included in the FY 11/12 budget. Staff has started the fertilization program and will reseed these parks during the first week of May. In addition, staff has scheduled an annual aeration program at all City parks and will start with Campus Canyon, Miller, Mountain Meadows, Tierra Rejada, and Peach Hill Park during the spring of 2012. Parks Quarterly Report Page 2 Country Trail Park Tot Lot and ADA Surfacing: The ADA access tiles currently installed in the large tot lot area have exceeded their life expectancy and staff has obtained quotes to replace the surfacing. However, the tot lot equipment is scheduled for replacement in FY 12/13 and it would not be cost effective to replace the surfacing at this time without replacing the equipment. Staff has also discovered that the current pedestrian access to the park does not meet current ADA standards. Staff has surveyed the park and feels that a new walkway installed along the 4:1 slope would be the referred option to - obtaining_. ._-quotes p p '- provide ADA access. Staff is quotes for a complete renovation of the tot lot equipment and walkway. Parks Recycling Program: Seven additional recycle bins for AVCP were delivered and installed on February 15. Staff is in the process of purchasing the remaining recycle bins proposed for installation in 2012, which includes Tierra Rejada, Peach Hill, and Mountain Meadows Parks. $42,000 is remaining in FY 11/12 through the Recycle Beverage Container Grant. Peach Hill Park 2-5 Year Old Tot Lot: The small tot lot that serves children in the two to five year age group has exceeded its life expectancy. Staff has dismantled the tot lot, as access to the structure is no longer available and several major pieces have become damaged beyond repair. Staff will include the replacement of this structure in the agenda report for the Country Trail Park tot lot replacement. However, funding is not currently available for this project and staff will not recommend the replacement of this structure at this time. Peach Hill Park, Campus Canyon Park and the Community Center Park Tot Lot Repair: The rubberized deck coatings for three tot lot play structures manufactured by Miracle Play Equipment are in need of replacement, as the deck coatings have prematurely started to peel away from their surfaces. Staff has discovered that these products are under warranty and all the decking for the structures had to be replaced without additional costs to the City. Items were delivered on December 29, 2011. However, installation is not covered under the equipment warranty. Cost is approximately $8,000, and $11,000 was included in the FY 2011/12 budget for the repairs to the tot lot equipment. The repairs at Peach Hill Park were completed on April 25, and staff anticipates completion at the remaining parks by the first week of May. Campus Park and Poindexter Park Lighting: Staff is in the process of preparing a City Council Agenda Report to replace the lighting at Campus Park and install new lighting at Poindexter Park. The five light standards at Campus Park have outlived their life expectancy. The light standards at Poindexter Park have been damaged several times due to vandalism. Staff suggests replacing the lights with vandal resistant fixtures, raising them to 25', and leaving the back lights adjacent to the school on all night to deter future vandalism and loitering. Cost: Campus Park $30,000 and Poindexter Park $35,000. Staff has determined that a lighting consultant is required to complete the work at Poindexter Park and is in the process of preparing an Agreement with Seaport Lighting, Inc. Cost is $1,080. Parks Quarterly Report Page 3 Arroyo Vista Bicycle Path: Staff is in the process of preparing a concept for a bicycle/pedestrian path that extends from the pedestrian bridge at the east end of Arroyo Vista Community Park to the recreation center. $132,000 in TMA Article 3 funding ($66,000) and matching TSM funds ($66,000) were obtained by the Public Works Department for this project in FY 11/12. Staff is also exploring the opportunity to expand the parking at AVCP and include a separate pedestrian walkway. Staff anticipates that this project will exceed current funding as preliminary estimates show -that-this s projectiIlbe in the neighborhood of$550,000 to complete.