Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMonitoring Hours at PD Skate Park CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of revised full-time monitoring hours at the Palm Desert Skate Park SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager DATE: March 11, 2004 CONTENTS: Memorandum from City Attorney Recommendation: By minute motion, that the City Council approve a revised full-time monitoring schedule at the Palm Desert Skate Park to Monday-Friday 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and weekends with park patrol conducting random checks during the non-peak hours (Monday-Friday 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). Executive Summary/Discussion: During the past couple of years, attendance at the Palm Desert Skate Park has stabilized. The majority of skaters use the park after school hours and on weekends. While there are skaters that use the park during the weekdays, the numbers are low. In fact, it is not uncommon during the non-peak hours to see only the monitor at the skate park. Staff is proposing that the City Council approve a revised full-time monitoring schedule at the skate park. The revised schedule will have full-time monitoring during peak hours (Monday-Friday 3:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m. and weekends) while still allowing access to users during non-peak hours(Monday-Friday 6:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.). During non-peak hours, park patrol will conduct random checks to ensure compliance with safety rules and regulations. Reducing the full-time monitor at the skate park by 9 hours per day will save the City approximately $32,700 per year and the revised schedule will still allow full access to the skate park. G:\PlanningUeff Winklepleck\wpdocs\BegSk8Park\revisedmonitoringhours.wpd Staff Report Skate Park Monitoring Page 2 March 11, 2004 The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal and indicates in the attached memorandum that, based on state law, the revised full-time monitoring schedule will not increase the City's liability. The Joint Powers Insurance Authority also reviewed the proposed changes and concurs with the City Attorney's findings. Both indicated that if the revised schedule is approved, signage indicating the new schedule will need to be installed. Staff recommends that the City Council approved the revised full-time monitoring schedule at the Palm Desert Skate Park. Submitted by: Department Head: A C Je le leck, Parks and Recreation Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Planning nager Approval: Homer Cro , for Development Services A 1 Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager CITY COUNCIL ION: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETIN DATE A91 ' / ifr's� NOES: 04L ABSENT: er n Sb BBSTAIN:/Jr>7 e� VERIFIED BY: .jr- Oriainal on File withity Clerk' s Office G:\Planning\leff Winklepleck\wpdocs\BegSk8Park\revisedmonitoringhours.wpd MEMORANDUM To: Jeff Winklepleck CLIENT-MATTER NO.: 72500.00001 FROM: City Attorney DATE: February 3,2004 RE: Reduction of Hours at Skate Park I. INTRODUCTION We understand the City, among other alternatives, is considering reducing the number of hours it staffs a monitor at the skate park in order to reduce the operating costs of the park. As such, you have asked us to provide the City with a memorandum addressing any liability issues that may arise through the use of any of these alternatives. II. DISCUSSION The City is considering several options to reduce the operating costs of the park. In doing so,the City has proposed the following options, or a combination thereof: • Reducing the operating hours of the park, but still maintaining a monitor at the park at all times; • Maintaining the same operating hours, but only staffing a monitor at the park during the peak use hours of the park, and having the park patrolled during the times the park is open, but not staffed with a monitor; • Only supervising the park through the use of park patrol; and • Providing no supervision of the park. A. Immunity Pursuant to Section 115800 As you know, Health and Safety Code Section 115800 provides the City limited and conditional immunity from claims brought by anyone injured as a result of using the park. In order to receive immunity, the following factors must exist: (1) the City may not supervise the park on a "regular basis", (2) the person skateboarding must be over fourteen years of age, (3) the skateboarding activity that causes an injury must be stunt, trick, or luge skateboarding, and (4) the City must adopt an ordinance requiring any person skateboarding at the park to wear protective gear.' The City must also post signs at the park which provide reasonable notice that any person using the park must wear protective gear and that any failure to do so will subject such person to citation under the ordinance. RMLIT\CZC\2290 19.1 Although Section 115800 grants cities immunity for injuries occurring at the park, this does not mean that if the City decides not to comply with Section 115800, the City will be found liable for all injuries occurring at the park. Section 115800 simply provides a mechanism by which cities are guaranteed immunity in certain circumstances. B. Analysis of Alternatives Alternatives that Provide for Use of Monitor As long as the City maintains a monitor at the park, it is opting out of the immunity provided to the City pursuant to Section 115800. Section 115800 provides that the City may not supervise the park on a"regular basis." As such, choosing an alternative that provides for having a monitor stationed at the park would be considered supervision on a "regular basis" and make Section 115800 inapplicable. Alternatives that Provide for Use of Park Patrol If a city patrols the park on a consistent and systematic basis (i.e., on a routine/regular basis), then this would seem to qualify as supervision on a "regular basis" and compromise a city's immunity pursuant to Section 115800. However, if the park is patrolled on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis (i.e.,by simply driving by the park on any given hour and day), then it seems a city's immunity would not be compromised.2 Therefore, if the City chooses an alternative that provides for the patrolling of the park on a consistent and systematic basic, then the immunity would not seem to apply. However, if the alternative chosen provides for the patrolling of the park on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis, then it seems the City would be granted immunity pursuant to Section 115800. Alternatives that Provide for No Supervision on a"Regular Basis" Pursuant to Section 115800 cities are granted immunity for injuries occurring at the park if they do not supervise the park on a "regular basis." As such, if the City chooses an alternative that provides for no supervision of the park, or provides supervision, but not on a"regular basis," the City will be granted Section 11580 immunity, provided it complies with the other requirements of Section 115800. C. Practical Considerations Since the City is currently operating the park with a monitor stationed at the park at all times, the City has opted out of immunity granted by Section 115800. As such, the choosing of• any of these alternatives would not expose the City to any more liability than it is currently 2 We do not believe the legislature,in enacting Section 115800,intended to discourage law enforcement agencies from enforcing the safety provisions of skateboard park ordinances for fear that such enforcement would constitute supervision on a`regular basis." Indeed, Section 115800 requires that such ordinances include a requirement that park users wear protective gear or be subject to citation. As such,the legislature seemingly intended that cities enforce the safety provisions of these ordinances. -2 - RMLr\CZ0229019.1 . •' exposed to. Moreover, the City has the option to choose an alternative that does not provide for the supervision of the park on a "regular basis," bringing it within the protection of Section 115800. At best, the City will limit its liability by choosing an alternative that does not provide for the supervision of the park on a "regular basis," and at worst, any of the alternatives will at most only expose the City to same liability it is currently exposed to. The City's exposure to liability must be balanced with the practical implications inherent in the operation of the park. It seems parents would rather have a monitor on-site in order to guard against injuries. Moreover, having a monitor on-site may actually reduce the number of injuries sustained at the park by ensuring park users are using the park appropriately and complying with the safety requirements. III. CONCLUSION Under the current operation of the skate park, the City has opted out of the limited and conditional immunity provided by Section 115800. As such, in choosing an alternative that would reduce the operating costs of the park, the City could choose an alternative that will expose the City to the same liability or choose an alternative that will provide it with the immunity of Section 115800. Moreover, the City's exposure to liability must be balanced against the practical implications that parents would rather have a monitor at the park and having a monitor at all times may make the operation of the park safer. • -3 - RMLI7TCZC\229019.1