HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0415 CC REG ITEM 08KITE
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works
' it NieeCrg
DATE: April 8, 1992 (Meeting of 4- 15 -92) Coup
of
SUBJECT: Request to Set the Date of a Public Hearing ACTION: - /�44�/
to Consider Revising the Fees for Public Worl4,ca2_
and City Engineering Services ��``�
By ;
Introduction
Fees for Public Works and City Engineering must be adjusted from
time to time in order to assure that the cost of the services being
rendered is borne by those benefitted. The cost of these services
gradually increase through time. From time to time the fees must
be adjusted in order to maintain effective programs and a high
level of service to the community.
Discussion
A. Status of Current Fees
Public Works and City Engineering fees were last adjusted on
July 31, 1984. Since then normal inflationary factors have
increased the cost of most services, including those discussed
herein. On July 1, 1991 the consumer price index had increased
by approximately 37 %. In addition to inflationary factors,
cumulative changes in laws and methods now require a higher
level of effort for plan checking, inspection, and coordination
than that which was customary when these fees were adopted.
One other factor which has contributed to the increase in costs
associated with these services, is the requirement to provide
City Engineering support for new programs such as film permits,
park dedications, etc.
Attachment #1 is a fee comparison which demonstrates that the
City of Moorpark's City Engineering fees have, in general,
fallen substantially behind neighboring jurisdictions. This is
regardless of the fact that the cost of professional
engineering services is generally equal in the cities in any
given area.
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
B. Proposed Fee Adjustment
2
The trend among neighboring Cities and the County is to expect
that City Engineering programs be 100% self supporting. Other
jurisdictions, however, do not always recognize that
administrative overhead is a cost of Public Works and City
Engineering programs. Moorpark's City Engineering fees provide
for the support an appropriate portion of the Administrative
cost of the program. Thirty per cent (30 %) of all fees
collected are retained by the City to offset administrative
costs. Only the remaining seventy per cent (70 %) covers
Engineering services.
The proposed fee adjustment are set forth in Exhibits A & B of
the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 2). The average
amount of the proposed increase is 43% over the existing 1984
rate structure.
The Park Land dedication fee is recommended to be deleted from
the list of Engineering fees. It is the intent of staff to add
this fee to the City's Miscellaneous Fee Resolution to cover
costs incurred by the Community Services Department in the
administration of this program.
r-�
C. Regular Review
Fees should be reviewed on a regular basis in order to assure
smooth continuity of program. Long delays between fee
adjustments necessitate increases which appear higher. Regular
review assures very modest adjustments. Such modest ad-
justments appear more rational and are likely to be less con-
troversial. Fee schedules that keep up with inflation will
help to avoid drastic adjustments and crisis situations in the
future. For these reasons several neighboring jurisdictions
have adopted fee resolutions which require regular annual
review of fees. The City of Moorpark has recently adopted a
resolution setting valuations for building permits and this
resolution mandates an annual review of this aspect of the fee
structure. The City's planning fees are also adjusted
annually.
D. Geology and Soils Review
The City has recently been faced with two significant problems
associated with geology and soil failures. More problems of
this type may be anticipated as the number of ideal building
sites dwindles. The City's engineering consulting firm is
familiar with other cities where entire neighborhoods have been
°^ devastated by landslides and other areas plagued by numerous
foundation failures. Many of these problems may be traced to
3
inadequate grading control and review. Major jurisdictions in
Southern California who have accumulated similar experience
have established geology and soil review systems to assure that
geology and soil engineering reports are reviewed by qualified
geologists and soil engineers who are specialists in these
fields. They are also best qualified to advise grading in-
spectors and building inspectors on matters relating to grading
compaction and control and foundation design when problems are
discovered during construction.
The City of Moorpark has six conditions that suggest the value
of establishing a geology and soil review mechanism. These
factors are listed as follows:
1. The City is in a hillside environment with more development
occurring in steeper areas;
2. Settlement problems have recently been identified that are
causing significant hardship to property owners in the City;
3. Typical development in the City involves extensive grading
operations with many hundreds of homes being built on
compacted fill;
4. The City contains an area of high water table and granular
soil that makes structures located within it more
susceptible to severe damage in earthquakes due to
liquefaction;
5. Known geologic faults traverse the City;
6. The City has a wide range of soil conditions from granular
to highly expansive clays.
The City has recently adopted a new Building & Safety Fee
Schedule. That schedule refers to the attached Engineering Fee
Schedule for the collection of fees for Geological and
Geotechnical Engineering review. Those fees are set forth in
Section 4 of Exhibit "B" of the attached resolution.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
• set May 6, 1992, as the date of a Public Hearing to consider
revising the City's Public Works and Engineering Fees;
• direct the City Clerk to post and publish notice of said
Public Hearing in a manner consistent with the requirements
of Section 66016 of the Government Code.
'`� vpSl�rpt�eigfegb
�a
4
1.
Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 2) rescinding
Resolution No. 84 -119 and adopting a new fee structure for
Public Works and Engineering Services
2. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code by
providing more detailed provisions relating to geologic hazards
and soils conditions.
FEE COMPARISON NOVEMBER 1991
FOR MAP CHECK OF A 60
gpro \mpkfees
MOORPARK OXNARD SIMI CAMARILLO VEN CO TH OAKS
LOT FINAL TRACT MAP $2,280 $3,439 $3,580 $3,439 $3,439 $4,094
FOR AN ENCROACHMENT RELATING
TO A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY
$35
$84
$85
$75
$125
$62
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 500
FEET OF CURB AND GUTTER
$35
$398
$290
$35
$275
$350
FOR REVIEW OF SOIL REPORTS
NA
NA
$300
NA
NA
NA
FOR DEPOSIT OF MATERIAL IN
THE STREET AS FOR A POOL
/
$35
$123
$40
$45
$75
$135
FOR GRADING 150,000
CUBIC YARDS
$1,275
$1,554
$1,648
$2,529
$2,529
$1,975
NOTE: SIMI VALLEY FEES WILL INCREASE IN JANUARY
Attachment 1
H
v
U
4J
p
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR
SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THE
MOORPARK CITY CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC
WORKS AND CITY ENGINEERING AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 84 -119
PERTAINING THERETO
WHEREAS, State law and the Moorpark City Code require the
performance of certain plan review, inspection and other services
by the Public Works Director and City Engineer for the purpose of
safeguarding the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Moorpark adopted
Resolution No. 84 -119 providing for the collection of certain fees
to allow the cost of such services to be borne by the users and
beneficiaries of same; and,
WHEREAS, the fee schedules for these services must be revised
from time to time to assure adequate recovery of all costs
associated with rendering such services; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That fees for encroachment permits shall be as set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
SECTION 2. That fees for processing of land division ap-
plications and related improvement plans shall be as set forth in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
SECTION 3. That resolution number 84 -119 relating to fees for
land use and development services is hereby rescinded upon the
effective date of this Resolution provided, however, if it is
determined that the rates, fees and charges set forth herein are
wholly or partially invalid by virtue of any statutory or
constitutional provisions, then the repeal of resolution 84 -119
and adoption of this resolution as to any such rate, fee or charge
is void.
RESOLUTION 92-
PAGE 2
SECTION 4. That the fees established in this resolution do not
exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is imposed.
SECTION 5. The Public Works Director shall report to the City
Council on the cost of development services and the adequacy of the
fee schedule to recover these costs and shall make such report
during the second quarter of each calendar year.
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days
from the date of adoption in accordance with the provisions of
Section 66016 of the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause this resolution and its cer-
tification to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City
of Moorpark.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
11-
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF MOORPARK
ENCROACHMENT FEE SCHEDULE
PRESENT PROPOSED
FEE FEE
I. GENERAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
1. Ap2lication /Issuance Fee
Without Engineering Review 10.00 36.00
With Engineering Review 25.00 72.00
2. Permit
/Inspgdion Fees: Permit fees shall be collected in addition to the issuance fee as
follows:
a.
Construction of curb, gutter
and /or sidewalk.
Less than 50 In ft.
25.00
72.00
More than 50 In ft.
25.00
Per Exhibit "B"
b.
Construction of residential
driveway (each opening).
25.00
72.00
c.
Construction of Commercial
driveway (each opening).
25.00
180.00
d.
Use of City right -of -way
for access to private
property (swimming pools,
equipment access, etc.)
25.00
72.00
e.
Major tree trimming, tree
removal, stump removal.
25.00
72.00
f.
approved landscaping
25.00
72.00
g.
Surveying and traffic
counting (per year)
50.00
143.00
h.
Miscellaneous construction
and /or use of City road
right -of -way.
25.00
72.00
Annual blanket permit
100.00
250.00
/1
ENCROACHMENT FEE SCHEDULE
PAGE 2
PRESENT PROPOSED
FEE FEE
i. Placing and /or relocation
of power or telephone poles
(blanket permit per year) 100.00 250.00
Each permit for pole placement
and /or relocation 15.00 36.00
j. Handling and loading fruit
containers on shoulders of
the road (per year) 100.00 Deleted
II. EXCAVATION PERMITS
1. application /Issuance Fee:
Without engineering review
10.00 36.00
With engineering review
25.00 72.00
2. Permit /Inspection Fees for excavations shall
be collected in addition to the issuance
fee as follows:
100 linear feet or less
50.00 179.00
101 to 1,000 linear feet
75.00 250.00
1,001 to 3,000 linear feet
100.00 322.00
3,001 to 5,000 linear feet
150.00 465.00
Excavations exceeding 5,000
linear feet
150.00 465.00
plus 0.05 plus 0.143
over 5,000. In ft.
Any additional costs related to the review of soils reports and /or shoring plans required for
trench depths in excess of five feet shall
be subject to additional charges sufficient to cover
actual costs plus City overhead.
3. Annual blanket permit for
utility trenches not exceeding
two feet in width and sixty
feet in length, dug at a right
angle to the centerline of the
road, or an excavation not
exceeding thirty square feet
in area
100.00 250.00
per Quarter
Each excavation permitted
under blanket permit
15.00 36.00
ENCROACHMENT FEE SCHEDULE
PAGE 3
4. An atlas fee of $0.114 per linear foot of subsurface installation paralleling the centerline of
the road will be charged. Laterals are excluded.
PRESENT PROPOSED
FEE FEE
III. MOVING PERMITS
1. Application /Issuance Fee:
Without Engineering Review 10.00 36.00
With Engineering Review 25.00 72.00
2. Permit Fee: Truck or tractor
and load exceeding legal width,
legal length, legal height and/
or legal weight as per State
of California Vehicle Code (per
vehicle per trip) 10.00 72.00
3. Annual Blanket Permit: Truck
or tractor and load, maximum
width 12 feet, maximum height
(loaded) 16 feet, maximum
total length 75 feet, weight
not to exceed purple loading
(per vehicle per year) 50.00 Delete
IV. MOVIE AND TELEVISION FILMING
1. Application /Issuance Fee:
Without Engineering Review
10.00
36.00
With Engineering review
10.00
72.00
2. Permit Fee: A filming fee
shall be charged for each
day 24 hours) or partial
day
100.00
Actual cost
Plus City Overhead
3. Inspection Fee: The City
may require that an
inspector be present during
filming on City public roads.
The permittee shall pay to
the City the actual costs of
providing the inspector
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Plus City Overhead
Plus City Overhead
ENCROACHMENT FEE SCHEDULE
PAGE 4
V. EXTRAORDINARY INSPECTION COSTS AND CHARGES FOR CITY LABOR
AND MATERIALS.
Extraordinary costs and charges for inspection labor and materials due City shall be charged on the
basis of actual cost plus City overhead. Extraordinary costs and charges for City inspection labor and
materials shall be defined for purposes of this resolution as any costs or charges incurred by City
resulting from permittee's failure to comply with all applicable permit conditions, ordinances and
statutes.
VI. EMERGENCY "CALL OUTS"
Charges for emergency "call outs" shall be paid at the overtime rate, plus City overhead, for the
positions responding for the time of the "call out" (Saturday, Sunday, Holiday, etc.). The charge for
any emergency "call out" shall be based upon a minimum time of four hours per employee used, regardless
of the actual length of time of the "call out," for up to the first four hours used, and then at said
applicable hourly overtime rate, plus City overhead, for the actual number of hours worked. Emergency
"call outs" for the purposes of this resolution shall be defined as providing men and equipment called
to work at times when normal Public Works operations are secured.
VII. FEE EXEMPTION
As required, any Federal, State or local agency shall be exempt from the fees set forth herein, in
accordance with applicable State and /or Federal law.
VIII. TIME EXTENSION FEE
PRESENT PRESENT
FEE FEE
For extension of each permit beyond the
expiration date. one (1) extension is allowed. 15.00 36.00
IX. GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW DEPOSIT
When the policies, guidelines and procedures of the City require geological or geotechnical
submissions, investigations, reports, or reviews, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional
fee based on the actual or anticipated actual cost of review services including City overhead.
X. OTHER
The fee for records search and other services for which no specific fee is otherwise specified shall
be the total cost to the City including City overhead as determined by the Director of Public Works.
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF MOORPARK
SUBDIVISION FINAL PROCESSING FEE SCHEDULE
NOTE: IN EACH ITEM BELOW THE CURRENT FEE IS IN PARENTHESES BEFORE
THE PROPOSED FEE.
1. MAPS
a. Issuance of tract or parcel (25.00) 45.00
b. Final Nap, Parcel Nap Fixed fee of ($200.00) $360.00 plus ($3.50) $6.30 per lot plus cost
*(including overhead) to City, not to exceed ($1,020.00) $1836.00 plus ($21.00) $37.80 per
lot. This will cover the first three checks only. For the fourth and each subsequent check,
the fee will be ($340.00) $612.00 plus ($7.00) $12.60 per lot. Any alterations to the
exterior boundary or redesign of any interior lots after the initial map check will be
considered as a new submittal. The deposit shall be made at the time the map is submitted.
*Actual costs (including overhead) represents staff labor costs plus overhead and /or contract
labor costs plus overhead.
,.� 2. PLAN CHECKS
a. Subdivision and Other major Improvements: Actual cost to City, not to exceed the amount set
forth in the Fee Deposit schedule in Section 5 of this Exhibit, which is based upon the
estimate of improvement costs including work for which a grading permit must be obtained. A
fee deposit in said amount shall be made at the time improvement plans are submitted.
b. Subdivision and Other Major Improvement Plan Changes: An Improvement Plan Change Fee of 31
of the estimate of costs of additional improvements including work for which a Grading Permit
must be obtained.
C. The number of plan checks covered by the above described fees shall be limited to three. The
third plan submittal shall be checked to confirm that said plan submittal is correct and
complete. Any additional plan checking efforts required to approve said plans, shall be
subject to additional fees based upon actual cost plus City overhead.
3. INSPECTION
a. Subdivision and Other major Improvement Construction Inspection: Actual cost (including
overhead) to City, not to exceed the amount set forth in the Fee Deposit Schedule in item 4
herein, which is based upon estimate of improvement costs including work for which a Grading
Permit must be obtained. A fee deposit in said amount shall be made prior to approval of the
improvement plans.
SUBDIVISION FEES PAGE 2
b. Subdivision Time Extension of Improvement Agreement: A ($300.00) $540.00 processing fee plus
a deposit of 101 of the fee deposit made under 3a above, plus City overhead. The Time
Extension deposit shall be collected for the purpose of offsetting all costs associated with
the requested time extension. Any costs associated with a time extension shall not be charged
to the remaining portion of the inspection deposit. Upon completion and acceptance of the
improvements, any balance of the Time Extension Fee remaining shall be refunded to applicant.
C. Deferred Construction Agreement: ($300.00) $540.00 fixed fee for processing this agreement.
d. In the event the actual cost of inspection, including City overhead, exceeds total amount of
the inspection fee deposit, developer shall pay the difference upon receipt of a City invoice
and prior to the City's final acceptance of the improvements.
4. GEOLOGY AND SOIL ENGINEERING REVIEW
For review and processing of geology and soil engineering reports submitted when required by the City
Engineer:
Geotechnical
Single lot $1600.00
2 -6 lot subdivision $2100.00
7 -50 lot subdivision $3000.00
Subdivision over 50 lots $3000.00
- for each lot over 50 $ 200.00
Geo
M
$1600.00
$2100.00
$3000.00
$3000.00
$ 200.00
Special submittal, investigations, reports, or reviews will require deposits based on the actual or
anticipated actual cost including City overhead. The above fees will cover one review and one follow -
up review. Fees for additional reviews are to paid on a actual time basis plus City overhead.
5. FEE DEPOSIT SCHEDULE (To be used separately with 2, 3 and 4 above)
Improvement Costs 01 Deposit 01
0 -
999
(300)
1,000 -
9,999
(300)
10,000 -
49,999
(1,650)
50,000 -
99,999
(5,650)
100,000 -
999,999
(8,150)
1,000,000 and over
(26,150)
6. PARK LAND DEDICATION
540.00
540.00 + 15% of cost over 1,000
2,970.00 + 10% of cost over 10,000
10,170.00 + 51 of cost over 50,000
14,670.00 + 21 of cost over 100,000
47,070.00 + it of cost over 1,000,000
Costs incurred in processing the park land Dedication requirements
($150.00) Deleted
SUBDIVISION FEES PAGE 3
7. CERTIFICATES
Issuance of Certificate of Compliance
($250.00) $450.50 per parcel (fixed fee)
8. OTHER
The fee for records search and other services for which no specific fee is otherwise specified shall
be the total cost to the City including City overhead of any time spent retrieving said records as
determined by the Director of Public Works. Time shall be in 1/4 hour increments at the then
applicable hourly rate(s).
9. GRADING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECK FEES SCHEDULE
ITEH FEES
a. Grading Rgrmit fees
50 cubic yards or less ($ 30.00) 54.00
51 to 100 cubic yards
($ 45.00) 81.00
101 to 1000 cubic yards ($ 45.00) 81.00 for the first 100 cubic yards,
plus ($20.00) 36.00 for each additional 100 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards ($225.00) 405.00 for the first 1000 cubic yards,
plus ($17.00) 30.60 for each additional 1000 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards ($378.00) 680.40 for first $10,000 cubic yards,
plus ($76.00) 136.80 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or more ($1,060.00) 1908.00 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards, plus ($43.00) 77.40 for each additional
100,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
SUBDIVISION FEES PAGE 4
ITEA FEES
b. Plan Checking Fees *(valid for the first two checks)
50 cubic yards or less
($ 28.00)
50.40
51
- 100 cubic yards
(43.00)
77.40
101
- 200 cubic yards
(62.73)
112.91
201
- 300 cubic yards
(82.00)
147.60
301
- 400 cubic yards
(102.00)
183.60
401
- 500 cubic yards
(122.00)
219.60
501
- 600 cubic yards
(141.00)
253.80
601
- 700 cubic yards
(161.00)
289.80
701
- 800 cubic yards
(182.00)
327.60
801
- 900 cubic yards
(202.00)
363.60
901
- 10,000 cubic yards
(213.00)
383.40
10,001 - 100,000 cubic yards
100,001 - 200,000 cubic yards
200,001 cubic yards or more
C. Grading Permit Time Extension Fees
($213.00) 383.40 for the first 10,000 cubic yards
plus ($15.00) 27.00 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards or fraction there -of.
($348.00) 626.40 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards, plus ($9.00) 16.20 for each additional
10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
($429.00) 772.20 for the first 200,000 cubic
yards, yards, plus ($4.00) 7.20 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
($75.00) 135.00 time extension fee will be required for each time extension of up to six
months.
d. Grading Permit Change Order Fees
($75.00) 135.00 or 501 of the Grading Permit fee, whichever is less, will be required for
major revisions to the original grading plan.
($37.50) 67.50 or 501 of the Grading Permit fee, whichever is less, will be required for all
major change orders.
Additional plan checks shall be based on actual costs plus City overhead
e. Exception for Subdivisions and Other Hajor Improvements.
^ Grading Permit and Plan Check fees do not apply to subdivisions and other major improvements,
inasmuch as the actual costs of plan checking and inspection have been included in the final
plan checking and construction inspection fees.
SUBDIVISION FEES PAGE 5
f. Illegal Grading Fees
200$ of the applicable Grading Permit fee, plus City overhead, will be charged for any grading
project undertaken without a grading permit that is in violation of the Grading Ordinance.
ITEM `1
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
TO: The Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Management Analyst
DATE: April 9, 1992
SUBJECT: Shakespeare in the Park Activity
Summary
Attached is a copy of information provided by Recreation Supervisor
Shelly Shellabarger, which presents for the Commission's
consideration adding a new activity to occur this fall; Shakespeare
in the Park. The following report requests that the Commission
recommend to the Council that staff be authorized to pursue
scheduling this activity.
Discussion
As described by the Recreation Supervisor in the "Special Event
Report /Proposal" to the Commission, the "Shakespeare in the Park"
acting troupe may be available to perform The Tempest for City
residents this fall. The estimated cost of this event is $1,1251
which includes the following:
1) Hiring the acting troupe
2) Advertising
3) Staff time
$675
$150
$ 50
4) Videotaping for re- broadcast $250
Taping the event is intended to allow the community to see the
Tempest in the event that they cannot attend. It is proposed to be
broadcast on Channel 10.
The costs of the troupe has increased from $550 to $650 in the past
two months.
The Moorpark Community Arts Committee ( "Committee ") in Moorpark has
tentatively agreed to sponsor the event. The Committee needs to
hold a formal meeting to discuss the details of cosponsorship and
approve the funding, but in discussing the idea with various
representatives, they have agreed that they could possibly provide
$300 and some volunteers if the City is successful in procuring the
entertainment. This could potentially lower the cost to $825.
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Printed On Pecvcled Parma
V
It is urgent that the City move as - quickly as possible to procure
the acting troupe. The Troupe has been booked, but not formally
scheduled for this fall. In order complete the scheduling, the
Troupe has requested a purchase order, a letter stating the City's
commitment or a deposit of $650. This arrangement will be pursued
by staff with the Commission's and Council's concurrence in the
form of a letter of commitment, but has to be completed by April
25, 1992. Currently, the event is booked for this fall.
For this reason, the item requesting authorization to proceed is on
the Commission's agenda tonight. A Special Meeting Notice is being
postponed at this time, until the Commission has an opportunity to
discuss the activity. If the Commission agrees that the City
should go forward, the matter would be placed on the Council's
Special Meeting Notice and be discussed in closed session prior to
the regular meeting of the Council on April 15.
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission request from the Council that
the Shakespeare in the Park activity be cosponsored by the Moorpark
Arts Committee and that staff attempt to coordinate a performance
for this fall by April 25, 1992.
Attachment: Informational Materials Provided by the Recreation
Supervisor
The
5,111 F1-(Illasco
Shahesivare
Festival
March 24, 1992
Ms. Shelly Shellabargar
Recreation Supervisor
City of Moorpark MAR 2 7 1992
799 Moorpark Ave
Moorpark, CA 93021
CI"'y C',
Dear Ms. Shellabargar:
Thanks for booking The Tempest for this Fall! We're well
into the Spring leg of the tour and getting an enthusiastic
response. So much so that our Fall schedule is nearly fully
booked.
To confirm your reservation and move to the next step --
which is to assign you the best possible date -- we require
advance payment in full. Under certain conditions we can accept
a purchase order or letter of commitment on your stationary
(though we prefer a check). Please complete the slip at the
bottom of this page and return it in the enclosed stamped,
self- addressed envelope today!
We will be mailing you promotional material including
posters, publicity photographs well in advance of our
performance date. Also, our actors will be bringing programs on
the day of the show.
Please do not hesitate to call me directly at 415- 666 -2310
with any questions you may have. we must have your check,
purchase order or letter of commitment in hand by April 25. On
behalf of the entire troupe, thanks again for the privilege of
performing for you and your community. See you this Fall!
Sincerely
Jeri i er R
Togr Coord ' nator
----------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Shelly Shellabargar
City of Moorpark
Please find our check /purchase order /letter of commitment
enclosed for the following:
Balance Due:
$675
Lone Mammin Team
P.O. Box W386
San Francuco. California
94164 -0366
Phone: 415 -666 -2222
Fax: 415-221-0643
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Our TEMPEST and AS YOU UKE IT are distillations
that run between 50 minutes and one hour and
feature 5 actors who are available after the
performance for informal "talk- backs" Mith the
audience.
We arrive at least one half -hour before the scheduled
performance time and set -up takes about 20 minutes.
We prefer a slightly raised 25'x 20' performance area
but just about anyplace will do. We do not require
amplification or lights but we do need a private place
to dress.
Our shows work for audiences of up to 400 and all
age groups. Our experience tells us that smaller
groups are most successful.
We do everything possible to schedule a performance
when it works best for you. Costs, travel time, and
other logistical concerns may mean that we will have
to ask you to be flexible.
In the Bay Area one performance is $550, two shows
in the same location on the same day are $850, and a
three performance day is $950. Outside of the Bay
Area (where we must stay overnight) the costs are
$675 for one show, $975 for two and $1075 for three.
We offer reduced rates to underprivileged schools;
please indicate if your school qualifies We also offer
a very limited number of discounted `standby"
performances, meaning you must be truly flexible as
to date and times.
Payment is required at least four weeks prior to
performance. There is a 50% cancellation fee
providing we have at least fourteen dais notice;
otherwise the full amount is non - refundable.
Call our hotline with questions
415.666.2310
"I give this play a thumbs up! Everyone should
go and see it."
— Megan Bourne,
8th Grader, St. Gabriel School, San Francisco
"I took my 6th period students primarily for
purposes of exposure. They, as well as many in
the audience, were surprised at how much they
understood because of the superb acting. But,
even more importantly, they really enjoyed the
experience. "
— Jo Murdoch,
Teacher, Milpitas High School, Milpitas
"We read the book in English and, well, it
didn't exactly keep us on the edge of our seats.
You made it exciting! I loved it. "
— Hilary,
7th grader, Digueno Junior, Encinitas
"I wish you could have been in my classroom
the day after we saw the play. I was hard put to
contain their enthusiasm. They talked and
raved the entire class period. You brought
Shakespeare to life for my students, and for
that I most sincerely thank you. "
— Drama Teacher,
Bore] Middle School, San Mateo
"I really enjoyed the play. Iwo uld like to see
another of Shakespeare's plays. "
— Alexandria Rodriguez,
5th Grader, Brightwood School, Monterey Park
"You were marvelous! We so enjoyed your
talent and enthusiasm."
—Traci Clevenger,
Teacher, Mineral King School. Visalia
"One student was amazed that it was the same
play we discussed in class. "
— Teacher,
McKinley Elementary School, Petaluma
i
GN"� P9
Shakespeare in the Schools
A Community Outreach Program
THE TEMPEST
Spring/Fall 1992
i
AS You LIKE IT
I
j Spring/Fall 1993
yI
1
jt
I
I
The
San Francisco
Shakespeare
Festival
Lone Mountain Theater
P.O. Box 640386
San Francisco, CA 94164
415.666.2310
...affordable, professional duality
Shakespeare plays for schools, parks
and community centers.
We're best known for Free
Shakespeare in the Park.
But when our season is
over we tour a shortened
version of our hit shows
to schools, parks and
community centers.
Since beginning this
program four years ago
we've brought
Shakespeare to life for
over a quarter million
people in 700 locations
all around California.
Let us perform for you!
You'll be surprised and delighted by
how much fun classical theater can
be. Our touring ensemble is young
and enthusiastic and our show is
flexible enough to work in just
about any location or setting. Our
costumes are outlandish, the
directing is sa�-q and our sets are
colorful.
And it's affordable!
Just $550 in the Bay Area and $675
where we must stay overnight. The
true cost is far greater but we keep
fees low by attracting corporate and
foundation sponsors. We even get
our hotel rooms donated by Motel 6!
But you must act soon!
We always sell out so return the
attached reply card today'
M
t_a�i
January 9, 1992
Mr. Steve Kueny
City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Kueny:
The
San Fran-isco
Shakespeare
Festival
Would you like to have Free Shakespeare in the Park in
your community? A special grant allows us to offer you the
chance to share great classic theater with your community for
a nominal fee in 1992. And it's The Tempest, our big hit that
delighted tens of thousands at Free Shakespeare in the Park.
last summer (see enclosed Chronicle review).
Saturday and Sunday afternoon performances are available
for $550 (a few subsidized shows are available but you must
let us know right away). We can perform in just about any
setting -- parks, community centers or auditoriums. We don't
need lights or sound and we do our own set -up and take -down.
These shows will be snatched up in a flash so act now to
reserve your place by marking the appropriate box on the
enclosed order form and returning it to us today!
If past is prologue we'll be sold out for all of 1992
soon. Join the over 150 schools, parks and community centers
who have already signed up. Please review the materials we've
enclosed describing our program and consider the advantages of
having us visit you. There are big discounts for booking more
than one show; our fee is $850 for two shows and $950 for
three.
Reserve your place today. Don't miss this chance to -give
your community the gift of Shakespeare. By acting quickly you
can help us arrange the time and date that works best for you.
I will call soon to discuss our plans and please don't
hesitate to call me directly at 415 -666 -2310 if you have any
questions. We look forward to performing for you!
Enclosures
Lone Moimnin Theatre
P.O. Box 640386
San Francisco. California
941644386
Phone: 415- 666 -2222
Fax: 415- 221.0643
8YJERRY rELFER; ref CMRQNiCtE
The Golden Gate Park audience saw Trinculo (Jeff Rai, left) and Ariel (Loren Nordlund) in `The Tempest'
A 'Tempest' Under the Sun
By Steven Winn
Chronicle StgD Critic
Sunday's glorious weather in Gold-
en Gate Park was beside the point for
the audience that packed Liberty Tree
bleadow for the opening of "The Tem-
pest." The crowd_ came to Aitness a
storm, in climate and character, and
its healing aftermath. They were re-
warded with a graceful and moving
performance of Shakespeare's late ro-
mance, diminished not at all by a trim-
med text and body mikes. The San
Francisco Shakespeare Festival pro-
duction continues through October 13.
The furies of rage, first love, con-
spiracy and finally forgiveness revolve
around Prospero in "The Tempest,"
never more so than here, with Sydney
Walker in the role of the magically
inclined Duke of Milan. in exile on an
enchanted island. (Walker plays two
more performances, on Saturday and
Sunday, before Bruce Williams takes
over for the final weekend in San Fran-
cisco and the October 17.20 run at Plaza
Park in San Jose.)
The ACT veteran actor's Prospero
con irms what his manv -fans here at
THE TEMPEST: ;:,mance by Wil-
liam Shakespec: e. Directed by
^C Albert Takozavcaas. (Al Liberty
Tree Meadow, Golden Gc v Park, through
(Xtober 13. At Plazo Pork. San Jose, Octo-
ber 17 -20.)
ready know: that Walker is our finest
and most beatific actor, a performer
whose surety of craft makes craft dis-
appear. From the moment he appears
onstage, a stately, sober figure in a rain-
bow- tinted robe and barb -like gray
beard, Walker commands focus. atten-
tion and most of all out sympathy and
vivid understanding of who this Pros-
pero is at the deepest level.
Each time Walker entered the trans-
lucent rim of Dawn Swiderski's set on
Sunday, an almost unearthly silence
fell over the sunny meadow.
Built over the course of two hours is
a portrait, layered wit remorse, vani-
ty, cod- bemu -ement a ;d nobilirv, of a
man who seeks to set :`zings rieht in a
world that ha-; > done h: —1 much wrong.
When Walker s Prospero tea =es his
sprite Ariel (the rnarve:ous Lori n Nor-
dlund) about his itch to be free, you can
feel the old man's nostalgia for what it
meant to be youthful and impatient for
the world's riches.
That's conveyed, with extraordi-
nary economy and effect, in Walker's
uncanny mastery of vocal inflection.
"Moody," he says, needling Ariel with a
slight, insinuating lift of a syllable.
"How now ?"
This is a Prospero who can be as
abrupt in his anger as he can be patient
and forgiving. In the midst of an en-
gagement party conjuration of Beaver
Bauer's vaguely Latin American rod
puppet gods for his daughter Miranda
(Wilma Silva) and Ferdinan : )Michael
Sullivan), Prospero erupts it,, a fit that
seems at once calculated by the father
who has stage - managed this match and
beyond his control.
Wisdom, even this great. isn't al-
ways enough for this very m:rtal magi-
cian. When Walker observe: that "the
rarer action is in virtue than in ven-
geance," you can hear him reminding
himself as well as his listener_
There's a thorny strain o' _zotism in
Pape E3 Col. 5
An Enchanting Production of
'Tempest' in Golden Gate Park
From Page El
Prospero's thundering assertion
that "it was mine art" that saved
Ariel. Yet in his farewell to the
island and his magic arts, there's
not a speck of self -pity. "Every
third thought shall be of my
grave," he says. and like every-
thing else in this remarkably com-
plex but utterly lucid perfor-
mance, it's a simple truth of what
it means to grow old and how it
feels.
Supporting Cast -
.. There are other players and
colors in this `Tempest," of course,
and most come through admirably
in Albert Takazauckas' produc-
tion. Coated from head to bare toes
in a fine white powder and wear-
ing a fanciful array of gauzy drap-
es and Japanese fans that make
him seem a cross between Greek
god and Kabuki actor, Nordlund is
a wonderful Ariel — as alert and
delicately poised as a bird ready to
take flight_ In a clear and pretty
voice, Nordlund sings Donald
Seaver's Sondheimian songs in the
show.
Loamy and tar- streaked, Hec-
tor Correa is a juicily repellent Cal
iban, his voice as rough and gritty
as his stooped. Cro- Magnon ap-
pearance. Jeff Raz turns in a
cheerfully athletic turn as Trincu-
lo, a bumbling conspirator in
league with Caliban and Steve Lo-
gue's stock Stephano.
Michael Ray Wisely (as Sebas-
tian) and Timothy Flanagan (Anto-
nio) represent the more serious
danger, in plotting the murder of (L
Alonso ewis Sims). Though ser-
viceably played, that aspect of the
play is less prominent and substan-
tial here. Alonso's sins against
Prospero may have launched the
action of the play and of Pros -
pero's fury, but these island visi-
tors seem unworthy, largely dis-
missible rivals.
Young Lovers
Silva and Sullivan are sweet if
uncommonly serious young lovers,
as ardent at chess as they are about -
each other. That view of Miranda
is beautifully integrated into the
tone of this production when the
young girl gets her first look at a
crowd of men — the other ship-
wreck victims who have been
scheming against each other and
against Prospero.
The scene is usually played as a
kind of nudge in the ribs _about a
Young girl's dawning sexual
awareness. Here it takes on a rich-
er hue when Miranda marvels not
at the younger men in their Italian
finery but at the aged counselor
Gonzalo (the affecting and sympa-
thetic Ed Ivory), who has remained
unwaveringly loyal to Prospero.
Like her father, Miranda re-
sponds instinctively to the endur-
ing values. Her intuitive reaction
to Gonzalo bodes well for her mar-
riage to Ferdinand.
The hope that comes with the
reconciliations at the close of this
"Tempest," we feel, promises to
last. Even when Walker has laid
down his magic staff — and drop-
ped his voice into a more relaxed
and looser cadence — Prospero's
magic endures.
t -•