Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/1999 FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 1 EDITOR- THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN FAX NUMBER SENDING MESSAGE TO: 395-7519 BAKERSFIELD Jacquie Sullivan, Chair. Patricia J. DeMond Randy Rowles Staff: Alan Christensen *** REVISED *** AGENDA COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield - Wednesday, June 2, 1999 6:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT 'MARCH 11, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF SKATEBOARD PARK ALTERNATIVES - Ford 6. NEW BUSINESS COMMUNITY SERVICES MEETING SCHEDULE 7. ADJOURNMENT AC:jp FILE COPY BAKERSFIELD Jacquie Sullivan, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Randy Rowles Staff: Alan Christensen AGENDA COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Wednesday, June 2, 1999 6:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 11, 1999 AGENDA SUM MARY REPORT 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF SKATEBOARD PARK ALTERNATIVES - Ford 6. NEW BUSINESS COMMUNITY SERVICES MEETING SCHEDULE 7. ADJOURNMENT AC:jp DRAFT BAKERSFIELD ~ ~~-~--'~ Jacquie Sullivan, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Patricia J. DeMond Staff: Alan Christensen Randy Rowles AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, March 11, 1999 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:05 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Jacquie Sullivan, Chair; Patricia J. DeMond; and Randy Rowles seated at 4:20 p.m. 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 11, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. SKATEBOARD PARK City Manager Alan Tandy summarized sta~s research requested at the last Committee meeting. Recreation and Parks Director Stan Ford has estimated that a skateboard park will cost $142,500 if built in Beach Park. The City Manager stated that a suggested budget would be to use $71,250 of the funds that are dedicated to Beach Park with a like amount of $71,250 to come from private sector donations. Mr. Ford stated that he has contacted the surrounding businesses including the .Racquetball Court and there were no objections to the skateboard park site, as long as the City mitigates any traffic or parking issues that might be generated. In response to a question, Mr. Ford answered that at this point he feels the existing parking can accommodate the skateboard park. Monies DRAFT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, March 11, 1999 Page -2- were not included in the budget estimate for additional parking. Mr. Ford suggested that if a decision is made to proceed that two neighborhood meetings be held, one near the proposed site and one before the Committee. Mr. Ford, as requested, researched pdvatization of the facility and it does not seem to be a viable option as some pdvate sector ventures in this area have not been successful. The City Manager stated that as elected officials, a decision will need to be made as to whether Councilmembers want to assume 'the dsk on behalf of their constituents for the benefit of providing this facility, or whether unwilling to do so. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen spoke on limited immunity for dries and age limitations, posting requirements and that this is really a decision as to whether or not the Council wishes to assume the potential exposure to lawsuits. A discussion was held on the different park site options. Mr. Ford stated that Option A at Beach Park seems to be the most ideal. This is based on general park usage, the buffer away from other activities, adequate drainage, utilities on site including electricity and sewer connection, good access, bus service which is critical to young people who do not ddve, rest rooms, visibility, and money that is dedicated for use in Beach Park. After discussion, Committee member Rowles made a motion that staff continue to work with the group that is trying to solicit pdvate contributions and continue to have that move forward and the Committee continue to meet on this. Secondly, he would like to go ahead and schedule some public meetings. Mr. Rowles stated with that and more work, he would like to see this essentially come out of the Committee into the full Council as a budget item and work it out at that point. The Committee approved the motion. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. City Staff in Attendance: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Deputy City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Police Sergeant Phil Clarke; Recreation and Parks Director Stan Ford; Assistant Recreation and Parks Director Allen Abe; and Parks Assistant Superintendent Mike Doyle. Others: Reporters from TV - 17 News and TV - 29 News; Herb Benham, Susan. Benham, Cathi Guerrero, Arthur Doland, and Matthew Doland, citizens for the skateboard park. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:~AC\C SCommittee~cs99mar1 lsummary.wpd MAY -6 1999 DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS .. DATE: May 6, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks SUBJECT: Public Meeting on Proposed Skateboard Park Last night we hosted the first of two public meetings regarding the proposed skateboard park. Our sign-in sheets indicate that forty-eight individuals attended. Two of the local television stations and the local newspaper had reporters in attendance. The department staff made some general comments regarding the background of the project and the possible process. At this point, we accepted comments and questions from the floor. Comments and questions, and a summary of our responses were: 1. The proposed 15,000 square feet does not sound large enough to meet demand. We indicated that if additional capacity was needed we would conSider options such as expansion or facilities at other locations in the city. 2. Area businesses use Beach Park for employee parking. 3. With parking an issue, where will we drop-off our kids? We stated that we would address this concern. 4. Can the skateboard park be located somewhere else, because rm concerned about kids riding their skateboards across Oak St.? We had no response. 5. Who will be responsible for the design? We responded that we were recommending a committee comprised of department staff, skaters, and a professional consultant(s) develop the design. 6. Will the city accept volunteers on the design committee? '" Our response was yes. 7. Is age a factor on who can be on the design committee? Our response was no. 8. The city should pay for the entire project, not the tax payers. 9. Why can't one night's revenue from the arena and Sam Lynn ballpark be used to pay for the project? We did not respond to this. 10.Was the Hanford park privately funded? We could not answer this. 11.How is fund raising supposed to happen and who is going to do it? We indicated that our proposal was to incorporate pdvate funding and that we would not be responsible for any fund raising efforts. 12. One person indicated that she had contacted several local skateboard shops and that they all indicated that they would make donations. 13. When will the park be done? We responded that it would depend on the council's approval of the project and availability of funds. 14. Will the city accept volunteer labor and materials? " We indicated that we had not recommended in-kind donations and that there may be some problems with volunteers providing labor. However, we had not discussed this specifically. 15. Will there be an admission charge? We indicated that we were recommending that the facility be open to the public with no admission fee. 16. Will the facility be lighted? We indicated that lights were listed as on option in our cost estimate. 17. If use of the facility is free, who will monitor the number of users? We indicated that we are not recommending monitoring the facility. We are approaching this like other facilities in public parks such as tennis courts or playground equipment. 18. Won't the police have to patrol the park? We did not respond to this question. 19. Will other types of skating, like in-line skating, be allowed? How can you allow one type and not another?. We indicated that at this time the only type of activity that we have recommended against was the riding of bicycles. After all of the discussion, we asked for a show of hands to indicate support or opposition. The group was unanimous in their support. There was not a single person that indicted opposition or concern about the project. We collected thirteen names of volunteers to participate in the design of the facility. The majority were youth. c: Citizens' Community Services Advisory Committee Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: March 5, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks SUBJECT: Memo of February 12, 1999 - Skateboard Park In response t° your memorandum of February 12, 1999: Budget Staff has developed a line-item construction cost estimate for the proposed skateboard facility (attached). To develop this estimate, we used recent bid information from two similar projects, San Dimas and Mission Viejo. Based on this information, we estimate our proposed facility will cost approximately $142,500 to construct. This includes A/E fees for design and construction inspection. The budget estimate includes some optional items that may be considered and an estimate for a contingency fund. If all options are included and the city budgets for a 10% contingency, the estimated construction cost would be $173,650. At this time, the department would recommend two possible funding alternatives. Note: the Capital Outlay Fund includes $95,573 the city received from the sale of the racquetball facility at Beach Park. These funds are currently budgeted for improvements at the park. Based on a construction cost of $142,500, alternatives are: A) Use $71,250 of the funds currently budgeted for Beach Park as a match for $71,250 raised via pdvate donations. I recall that at their last meeting, the Community Services Committee was told by a member of the public that private funding may be available for 50% of the cost. This funding structure would allow the city to use the remainder of the budgeted funds for other improvements at Beach Park. Staff has informed me that Cathi Guerrero, an interested citizen, has already received commitments for some private funding. .. B) Use ali of the $95,573 from the Capital Outlay Fund and have private sources contribute the difference ($46,927). Location Given the discussion regarding the California Welcome Center, the department still believes that Beach Park is the best possible location for the skateboard facility. Although the closing of the inner-loop road is still important for other reasons, the skateboard facility should be located behind the racquetball building. Mike Doyle has spoken with the manager of the facility and he indicted to Mike no problems with that location. Mike will be contacting other area businesses. The advantages of Beach Park are: (1) no land acquisition necessary, (2) existing utilities and support facilities such as restrooms, (3) adequate drainage and available sewer connection, (4) visibility, (5) available public transportation, and (6) easy traffic access. The department has not identified any disadvantages of this location. A second potential site would be at Saunders Park. This location is not as ideal as Beach Park, but still meets most of our criteda for a suitable site. Disadvantages for this site are that traffic access is not as ideal as at Beach Park and this site is closer to a residential area. Also, site preparation here may be slightly more costly than at Beach Park. Public Outreach For neighborhood input, the department would propose two public meetings held in the neighborhood (e.g. school site) with the Community Services Committee and staff. This method will allow staff to make any adjustments to the proposal, if necessary. We would also recommend that if the council approves the project, that the department create an advisory committee that includes representatives from the skating community to help us with the design of the facility. Privatization Mike Doyle has spoken with the managers of Camelot Park and Rollerama West as well as some local sporting goods stores. These individuals indicated that there have been pdvate skateboard facilities in Bakersfield in the past but none have been successful. One major factor has been Iow revenue. Apparently, local skateboarders chose to skate in public areas rather than pay at a private facility. At this time, we are aware of only one effort for a private Christian-themed facility. The development group indicated to me that this would have limited appeal as would the restrictions of their indoor design. Regarding the question of liability, our research supports the analysis made in Bart Thiltgen's memo of February 18, 1999. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let me know. JOB NAME: BEACH PARK SKATE PARK DATE: March 5, 1999 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES UNIT ITEM NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST 1 IEARTHWORK 15,000 SQ FT $1.00 $15,000.00 2 ICONCRETE WORK/FLAT 5,000 SQ FT $3.00 $15.000.00 3 CONCRETE BENCHES & LEDGES 100 LF' $85.00 $8,500.00 4 CONCRETE STEPS 200 LF $30.00 $6.000.00 5 CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS 500 LF $62.00 $31.000.00 6 ,SHOT CRETE/6 INCH RAMPS & BOWLS 7,500 SQ FT $5.47 $41,025.00 7 METAL RAILS/EDGES/COPING 360 LF $22.00 $7,920.00 8 METAL HANDRAILS 40 LF $40.00 $1,600.00 9 !DRAINAGE/6 INCH PIPE 300 LF $3,500.00 SUB-TOTAL $129,545.00 10 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER FEE 10% I ! $12.954.50 TOTAL $142,499.50 OPTIONS DESCRIPTION UNIT ITEM NUMBER QUANTITY UNIT COST COST OPTION1 6 FTCHAIN LINK FENCE 500 LF $10.00 $5,000.00 OPTION 2 LANDSCAPING 500 LF $3.00 $1.500.00 OPTION3 ILIGHTING-POLES 4 EACH $800.00 $3,200.00 OPTION3 'LIGHTING-FIXTURES 8 EACH $400.00 $3.200.00 OPTION 3 LIGHTING-WIRING & CONTROLS 400 ,FEET $10.00 $4,000.00 SUB-TOTAL $16,900.00 I 11 CONTINGENCY FEE 10% I I $14,249.95 TOTAL WITH OPTIONS AND CONTINGENCY $173,649.45 ~ ~_z.'~ s EAOH" ' _"' ~ ..... . F fill EI&,~EDiA1 L (~U~di't. ' ' PICNIC BOWl. C[)tJRSE ?500 S.I. ,..,. . BEGINNERS COL~RSE ADVA~-ICED OUN)TE ': ~~.'"~ CLUB . ' ~ 'u . .'.~.<:%.-:'.,,.~.<;~ n ! ~ ii ~1 CONCRETE IMPACT :I~" ,'~l~'~l~'! , STRUCTURES I?,:1 BUFFER AREA INSIDE ,' ~ ~ ~/~ '; / ........ , ,' .~t, ~ "~ , · ';,~ ~:"T'r~ -,~ ":?.~ ,- , ~~ · . .,, ,~ ..... ~..:~... '"" ..... '::'" .ow~ cou,s~ 5 ooo s ~ - ,~ '", , ~ ~:... ~ ~ :' ' ~ "~ I ADVANCEDGUNITG I ~' /~j . ~ ~,~ ..... :-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~.. .. .._::..-- ~ '.,,, . I ...... .' : K r[~. _ ........................ i~~' ~,~,c~,,~o~ x :~.,~~~j ..__ ~ I COURT I~ I ; F ~ ..' '~A~A.'.".....-, /~ I~ lI~.... J ' PIONIOAREA ;. I ................. l/ ~ , :;' ?' · I I A,~A ' "-~.,", : ~ ~,~ 8AUNDER8 I PARKING ,, ,, ~_ i . ,-.:',..': /~ l.I PROPERTY POOL ~: ~ ~,, ~ ~-~ ...... - I ................... ', .. ~ PALM AVENUE February 18, 1999 TO: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Jacquie Sullivan - Chair " Randy Rowles ~ RECEIVED .... ! Pat DeMond : FFR I 9 I FROM: BART J. THILTGEN. City Attorney ,, .. GINNY GENNARO, Deputy City A,ome~'~ :~.,~/,.,.:....,., .--~,.~-..-** ~, SUBJECT: Skateboard Parks This memorandum is in response to the request of Councilmember Rowi~'~t' the February 11, 1999 Community Services Committee meeting that the City Attorney's office * address the liability issues associated with skateboard parks. ~ In 1997, the California Health and Safety Code was amended to provide that skateboarding "at any facility or park owned or operated by a public entity' is a h~rdous recreational activity. That is, a City can claim immunity under the Govemment Code if it is sued as a result of the skateboard incident at a skateboard park. However, the immunity is limited in nature. That is, the immunity only applies if the minor is at least 14 years old, the incident involved a trick, stunt, or luge skateboarding, and appropriate signage was posted at the park. In addition, the new law requires cities to maintain end report all known or reported injudes incurred in a public skateboard'park or facility. These reports are to be filed with the Judicial Council every year through 2003. According to our research, there are several cities within our ACCEL group which · have skateboard parks. These cities are Palo Alto, Modesto, Mountain View, and Monterey. None of these cities have been involved in lawsuits involving skateboard accidents. Palo Alto, which has had a skateboard park in existence for ten years, has a history of one claim being filed. The claim was denied and no lawsuit was filed. Our office is not aware of any published decisions by California courts involving skateboard accidents and public entities. THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. S:~pAp. KSWIEMOS~=scs~atee~mmolWl~l COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE February 18, 1999 Page 2 Unlike the cities above, the City of Lodi has had a different experience. The City of Lodi co-sponsored an indoor skateboard park with a private business. The skateboard park has table tops, big ramps, and a series of half pipes. The Lodi City Attorney's office was not aware of the number of injuries incurred at its facility until they were served with a lawsuit. The lawsuit involved a minor suing for damages received at the skateboard park as a result of his skating through a plate-glass window on the top half of a door. The young man lost a tremendous amount of blood and" may incur permanent nerve damage to his wrist, hands, and fingers. The City had purchased special insurance through a Special Liability Insurance Program (SLIP) and tendered its policy limits of $25,000 in consideration for a dismissal from the litigation. The lawsuit is ongoing against the other co-owner of the park. Shortly after the settlement, Lodi sold its interest in the skateboard park to a private non-profit organization for a dollar. In conducting discovery (preparing for trial), the Lodi City Attorney's office discovered that the park had received approximately six injury reports per month since its inception. Although few of them resulted in claims, and only the one mentioned above resulted in the lawsuit, these injury reports could have been detrimental to the City on the issue of notice of a dangerous condition should the matter have proceeded to trial. The results in Lodi are significant for two reasons. First, the design of the skateboard park in the City of Lodi is not similar to the design of the successful skateboard parks mentioned above. As such, should Bakersfield develop a skateboard park, we should attempt to retain a "design expert" and have the park plans approved by the Public Works Department and City Council so that the City can use the 'design immunity" defense~ if litigation is pursued. Second, we must be able to establish a procedure whereby injury reports are maintained and reviewed by dsk management. This will fulfill our obligation under the law to report all injuries, and hopefully, avoid notice of a dangerous condition. Despite the historical lack of lawsuits involving skateboard park injuries, the opinion of the City Attorney's office is that construction of a skateboard park will provide an ~ The 'design immunity' defense is a different immunity than the skateboard immunity. However, it is usually difficult for public entities to prevail in court on any immunity. THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRMLEGES. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE February 18, 1999 Page 3 additional avenue for litigation against the City of Bakersfield. The fact that California cities have experienced few lawsuits is not a guarantee that Bakersfield will be immune from litigation. GG:cj cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Stan Ford, Recreation and Parks Director THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES, $:~PARKS WIEMOS1c~,cskatelx~mmo.w~l BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy, City Manager Patricia J. DeMond Staff: Alan Christensen Randy Rowles AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:12 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Jacquie Sullivan, Chair; Patricia J. DeMond; and Randy Rowles 2. ADOPT APRIL 28, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS None 6. NEW BUSINESS A. CALIFORNIA WELCOME CENTER AT BEACH PARK Alan Chdstensen reported that staff has been working on a request from the Board of Trade to assist with providing a site for altemative curbside parking at Beach Park for RV's and busses to help them achieve their goal of becoming a California Welcome Center. Their current parking lot is not sufficient. Three different options have been developed. ADOPTED AS SUBHITTED HARCH 11, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, February 11, 1999 Page -2- The first is to modify a grassy-tree area to form a pocket parking ddve-in area right along Oak Street for busses and RV parking. There are some safety concerns with bus passengers and RV doors opening up into Oak Street. The second is to come off Oak Street into the park and develop an underutilized park area by the soccer field; however, a parking lot, lighting, trees, irrigation and earthwork would cost about $69,000, which may be cost prohibitive as the Board of Trade is funding this project. Madon Shaw explained a third alternative of moving the curb and gutter in on the west side of the existing building on the east side of the street and developing a bus tumout, which would accommodate two busses at a cost of approximately $25,000. Ann Gutcher, Manager and Executive Vice President of the Board of Trade, explained that their application is ready to go to the State, but they must have the dedicated parking for RV's and tour busses to qualify, and that is what they are requesting from the City today. However, the parking option next to their building would require a change in their remodel plans unless it is moved to the park side of the street. The City Manager stated there are concerns with busses circulating through the Park on streets with asphalt not structurally built to support the weight. The plan options were designed to get the parking needed and not conflict with other activities in the park with cars parked along the narrow streets, which may not allow busses the turning radius to get in and out. The Committee was very much in favor of the Board of Trade's plan to become a California Welcome Center. As a short-term solution is needed to meet the application requirements and deadline, the Committee directed staff to dedicate 2 bus and 2 RV spaces on the east side of the park access road by the Board of Trade building. The Recreation and Parks Director expressed concems about the busses looping through the park. The Committee recommended the temporary solution be used for two or three months and directed staff to continue working on a long-term parking solution. The Board of Trade will see if there are any grants or other funding available. B. USE OF CENTENNIAL PLAZA Alan Chdstensen explained that this item is in reference to a letter the City received from the Centennial Celebration Foundation Board. The City Manager has wdtten a response and the Board is pdmadly satisfied, but have questions they would like clarified. Ms. Jeanette Richardson spoke on behalf of the Foundation stating that the Board is in agreement that there is need for maintenance and fire vehicles to be parked by the Plaza. The only question is that dudng events there have been vehicles parked blocking the fire lane. The City's Fire Marshall suggested that the vehicles could best be served by parking close to the reader board where there is cement and will not be blocking the fire lane or damaging the bdcks. Second, the Foundation is in agreement that the Community Services Committee be the oversight committee for the Plaza. Third, the Recreation and Parks pamphlet outlining fees is good,, but the Foundation wants to ensure that the Plaza AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, February 11, 1999 Page -3- is available to everyone and has a question that if only Ogden can serve food as stated in the pamphlet, how can non-profit groups have community events and sell food for fund-raisers? The City Manager cladfied that if a non-profit wants to use the Plaza for a fund-raiser, Ogden is not going to object or exercise their dght to food service unless the fund-raiser conflicts with events scheduled in the Garden. However, Ogden is the only liquor license holder who can serve liquor there under State law. Jim Foss, representing Ogden, stated they are handling this on a case-by-case basis and, for the most part, it has been working well. Committee member Rowles reiterated that the City has a good working relationship with Ogden and a commitment that the Plaza be a community-based facility. He suggested that we have a general policy statement on file regarding non-profits. The Committee approved the language of a resolution to include the Community Services Committee as the reviewing body for changes to the Plaza. They directed that the resolution be sent to the full Council. C. FIRST NIGHT EVENTS Jake Wager opened the issue by saying the City Manager directed him to get together with Jim Foss who has been working on this event. First Night was started in Boston in 1976 as an effort to establish a new way of celebrating New Year's Eve with a non-alcohol event that is family oriented. First Night is an affordable annual event with all types of activities, which typically start at noon and last until the 12:00 midnight countdown. Buttons aro purchased in advance and worn as access to venues that aro available that day; small children are flee. It relies on corporate sponsorship as professional entertainers are used and the event budget can be from $100,000 to $500,000. If the community wants to call this a "First Night," a fee is required for the first year of $3,000 with a small yeady fee thereafter. It is recommended that a pdvate, non-profit assume the ownership the first year. The Arts Council of Kern has indicated that they would act as fiscal agents. The DBA has been contacted, as well as John Meroski for the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Jim Foss said that he has worked on these events for nine years in another city and it's really a groat time for the community. The Condors have released December 31't, so the Garden will be available, as well as the Convention Center, Plaza, and the Beale Library. The Committee enthusiastically gave their support. D. SKATEBOARD PARK Stan Ford briefed the Committee on staff's research on skateboard parks. Thero is substantial demand and community support for a skateboard park. The Citizens Community Services Advisory Committee recommended that this be brought to the AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, February'11, 1999 Page -4- Council. The Recreation and Parks Division is proposing Beach Park as a possible location. The City Attomey bdefed the Committee on liability issues. SB 1296 does provide limited immunity. For youth under 14 years of age, this law does not shield a public entity from liability. In case of injury, if a skateboard park design is challenged as a dangerous design, those charges would have to be defended in court. The City Manager stated that there is $95,000 from the sale of the racquetball facility that could be dedicated to improvements in Beach Park at the discretion of the City Council. The cost for a skateboard park, as proposed, Would be $200,000 to $225,000. Mr. Rowles requested that some neighborhood meetings be held with residents to address their concerns about the project. Cathi Guerrero spoke in favor of building a skateboard park. The Committee agreed that a skateboard park is needed and directed staff to bdng information back to the next meeting on funding strategies and additional liability information. If a decision is made to proceed, further information will be needed on a program for neighborhood input, forming an advisory group of local skateboarders, recommending a location in Beach Park, addressing concerns about noise, and exploring the possibility of a privately-owned facility. E. 1999 MEETING SCHEDULE The next meeting was set for .Thursday, March 11th at 4:00 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. City Staff in Attendance: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Chdstensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Deputy City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Recreation and Parks Director Stan Ford; Economic Development Director Jake Wager; Public Works Civil Engineer Madan Shaw; Parks Assistant Superintendent Mike Doyle; Recreation and Parks Business Manager Jane Gardner; Fire Safety Education Specialist Leslie Devitt; and Community Development, Development Associate Jan Fulton Others: Centennial Celebration Foundation Director Jeannette Richardson; Jim Foss, Ogden Entertainment; Vicki Adame, reporter with The Bakersfield Californian; Ann Gutcher, Bart Hill, and Mary Gdder from the Kern County Board of Trade; and Cathi Guerrero, Ben Smith, and Kenny Worthen, citizens for the skateboard park. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:~C\CSCommittee\cs99feb l I summary.wpd COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1999 PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE OcommunitySewices Committee r--] Council i?~ili;iiiiii:~iiiiiiiii!:~ cibj Meeting ?,ii':ililiiiiiii',ililili':ilJ Holiday 4:00 p.m. 6:30 - in Council Chamber [~--------]Budget Hearing p.m. or Department Presentations JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 10 11 12~'~ 14 15 16 14ii~?~iii~ii 16 19 20 14 15 161 171-T~ 19 20 17i?!ii:~t 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23~"] 25 26 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 123 I ;Q 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 10 11 12 11 12 131 141 15 16 17 9 10 111 121 13 14 15 13 14 151~-~1~ 17 18 19 25 26 271281 29 30 23 25 27 28 29 27 28 29 ; 30 ............ JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 22 23 24125{ 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 1 2131 4 5 6 .-~1 2 3 4 3 4 SI 61__Z7~~ 8 9 7 8 9~10 ...... =~= 12 13 5 6 7 8r9~ 10 11 13(143 1920 13 17 18 19~~ 22 23 21 22 23 24~,~[~[[~=~[[.~:~ 27 19 20 21 ~ 23~=~===~=:~[ 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 .~ 31 Revised April 30, 1999