HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Skateboard Park CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 9, 1989
SUBJECT Skateboard Park
EXHIBITS ATTACHED A) Skateboard Risk Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION 1 . Deny request to pursue Skateboard Park
2 . Consider Park and Recreation Commissions
recomendation to locate a skateboard park in
the Dougherty Hills Park . Authorize the
Commission to hold neighborhood hearing(s) to
solicit public comment and report back to the
City Council .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION At the May 9 , 1989 meeting of the Park and
Recreation Commission , the Commission was asked by a group of Dublin
residents to study possible construction of a skateboard park . As a result
of this request , staff was directed to obtain additional information on
skateboard parks with regards to liability exposure , probable costs for
construction , and possible locations . The Commission studied these issues
at three subsequent meetings and are recommending that the City Council
pursue development of a skateboard park in Dublin .
In order to assist the City Council in formulating a decision on whether to
pursue development of a skateboard park , staff has completed background
information on the issues discussed by the Park and Recreation Commission .
Liability
The City is a member of the ABAG PLAN (Pooled Liability Assurance Network)
of which 26 bay area cities are members . To determine the premium that
each City pays for insurance , the plan takes into account the population of
the City , the employee payroll , and the number , type and dollar amount of
losses incurred . As a self-insured agency , the most successful way of
keeping insurance costs low is to minimize the number of claims incurred on
an annual basis . In the past several years , staff has worked diligently to
identify and minimize exposure and hazards . As skateboarding is by its
very nature inherently dangerous , staff believes that it would not be
prudent risk management to encourage activities such as skateboarding on
City property which would increase the potential for claims .
However , in the Skateboard Risk Evaluation prepared by the Contra Costa
County Municipal Risk Management Insurance Authority (Exhibit A) , the
following statement is made :
Skateboard Parks reduce risk exposure because the
environment can be controlled . However , skateboarding
even at a planned facility is considered a hazardous
recreational activity .
Consequently the evaluation identifies three viable options for the
development and operation of a community skateboard park . They are
discussed below .
A . City Operated Facility
The City would design , construct , and operate the skateboard park
just like any other park and recreation facility (i . e . , City
community pool) . Benefits derived from this option are that the
City would control all aspects of the operation . In addition , a
design immunity may be afforded in the event of a lawsuit alleging
dangerous condition of public property . Once again , the City is
positioned as a target deep pocket .
•
ITEM NO. 04 Copies to : Dublin Residents
AGENDA STATEMENT — Skat yard Park
October 9 , 1989
Page Two
B . City Owned/Vendor Operated
The City can design , construct and own the facility but contracts
with a leasee for the operation of the skateboard park .
Once again , the City benefits by having a say in the design and
construction of the facility .
The City can set guidelines with the vendor to regulate and
control the operation of the facility , in particular , mandating
safety features .
The paramount feature of this option is it allows the transfer of
the risk to a third party . The vendor contract should include a
hold harmless and indemnification agreement , protecting the City
in the event of a claim . The City may be able to be named as an
additional insured under the vendors insurance policy . In the
event of a claim , the City ' s defense would be tendered to that
insurer .
C . Private Ownership
Allow private enterprise to design , construct and operate the
facility . An argument can be made that the City should not be
providing a recreational facility that can be provided by private
enterprise . The City can encourage the development of a skateboard
park by offering favorable conditions to an entrepreneur .
Conditions such as offering a long term lease of City owned land
at a very inexpensive rate .
The Skateboard Risk Evaluation summarizes by recommending either Option B or
Option C . Under either of these two options , users of the park would be
required to pay. fees to utilize the facility . Comments from those
skateboard advocates present at the Commission meetings indicated that fee
based facilities are undesirable .
Location
In the current parks masterplan , a skateboard park was not identified nor
even considered by those in attendance at the Community meetings during the
development of the masterplan . Consequently , space has not been set aside
in any developed or future City park for this type of activity .
After reviewing the opportunities and constraints of the City parks
scheduled for renovation or future development (Alamo Creek , Dougherty Hills
Open Space , Dublin Sports Grounds and Mape Park) the Commission recommends
that the Dougherty Hills Open Space be considered as a site for the
skateboard park . The south end of the future park which fronts onto Amador
Valley Boulevard was suggested by landscape architect Ron Hodges as a
possible location . In the current masterplan for the park , this area is
designated for parking , group picnics , a small play area and an interpretive
center/restroom building .
Staff however would not recommend development of this area for a skateboard
park without undergoing a series of public meetings in order to get
neighborhood input .
Survey of Other Jurisdictions
Staff has located two public agencies that currently operate skateboard
parks . The City of Santa Cruz operates two parks which have been open for
over five years . During this time they have experienced only two claims .
The City of Benecia has a neighborhood park which contains a small concrete
multi—use area which is heavily used by skateboarders . The problems
experienced by Benecia are limited to noise and trash , but they are working
closely with the neighbors and skateboarders to alleviate these problems .
The City has not had reports of any accidents resulting from the
skatebaorders use of the park .
AGENDA STATEMENT
October 9 , 1989
Rage Three
The .Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore have been approached by groups
wanting a skateboard park in their cities . Both cities have denied these
requests based on potential liability exposure .
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following alternatives :
1 . Deny request to pursue Skateboard Park
2 . Consider Park and Recreation Commission recommendations to locate
a skateboard park in the Dougherty Hills Park . Authorize the
Commission to hold neighborhood hearing(s) to solicit public
comment and report back to the City Council .
•
v
i't` CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Alcks,, ik:ikA 5-
MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE AUTHORITY
.,1 :,..,.z. 1407 OAKLAND BOULEVARD • SL. .200 • WALNUT CREEK. CA 94596
I (415) 943-1100 • FAX (415) 9..3-1S01
- SKATEBOARD RISK EVALUATION
•
I. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK .
•
A. Skateboarding by its very nature is inherently
dangerous. The dynamics of the activity (speed;
exposed unprotected body, hard surfaces) . exposes-
participants to accidents resulting in injuries.
The gamut of injuries range from minor contusions
and abrasions, to fractured limbs and serious
head injuries.
1. Skateboard use on sidewalks, streets and other
public right of ways has a greater - •--
exposure for injury which results in claims .
Accidents can be caused by uneven surfaces,
. steep hills, collision with fixed objects, and
• - -Collision with other users of the right of
way (i.e. pedestrians , automobiles ) . There •
is a limit of ,environmental controls.•
Plaintiffs involved in skateboards accidents
on public streets and sidewalks will generally
sue for dangerous condition of public
property, (i.e. , sight obstruction,
surface defects, placement of fixed objects, .
etc. ) -- • - . - --
B. Skateboard parks reduce risk exposure because -
the environment can be controlled. However,
skateboarding even at a planned facility is
considered a hazardous recreational activity.
1. When a city is involved in the operation
of a skateboard park, a natural deep pocket,
• target defendant exists. In the event
of a catastrophic injury, the City would be
sued as the lone defendant. Often times the
injured plaintiff evokes enough sympathy to
• cause the jury to ignore liability and award
a sizeable judgement..
C. Cities may restrict by Ordinance, the use cf skate_.
boards in public right of way. To satisfy the needs
of the community who enjoy this sport, a public
• .
. Skateboard Risk Evaluation
,s''-• Page 2_ TV
. I
•
1
• • 1.
v may be desireable. The City can either
faer to park within their Park and
operate the skateboard or use an appropriate risk Recreation department, the burden of the}�, risk
to shift
transfer technique
and liability to a third party- - -
II. 0_ OF SYATE30ARD PARR
OPERATION`3T_O�I
• for t`�e devele_meat and
There are three viable options park. They are
operation of a community skateboard
discussed below-
A. C, tv Operated Facility
construct, and overate the . •
-The City would design, park and skateboard park just like any other ,r. �a pool)_ recreation facility. (i.e. , City comma---it r
rec_ F_ this option are •
' Benefits derived from `- of to°-
1 would control all as:ects may
the City design irmunit_:
• operation- In addition a' lawsui.. alleging
al ng
afforded in the event of Once
be a-� public property. ••��
dangerous condition of p"
again,
the City is positioned as a target deep
pocket. -
CiL Owned/Vendor Ope=aced
_._ - B. �v
-_•i �- and own the
.' can design, construe.
The City acts with a leasee for the
but contracts facility the skateboard park-
� operation of
(i.e. , Walnut Creek golf course) • Orce again,
the City benefits by having�a,say. in the design
_ _ and construction of the facility.
` set guidelines with the vendor
The City can l the operation and control_ to regulate
of the facility, in particular, mandating sa`ety
feature S-
Of this option is i`-
The paramount feature of the risk to a third party.
al lows the transfer harmless -
contract should include a hold
ane vendor agreement, protecting the
and indemnification ag- �
in the event of a claim. The City may be able to
. be named as an additional insured under the vendors
4
•
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Pace 3 .
•
h
• In'•t event of a claim,the
*insurance policy: " . e
City' s defense would be tendered to that insurer-
" •
C. Private Cwnershin - - ..
. . design, construct and
• Allow private enterprise te"
An argument operate the facility. can be made .
a recre-
ational City should not be providing that �v that can be provided by ._
ational f acili..
private enterpr ise. The City can cour ag e the
he
develon ment oy a skateboard p ark by offering
.
- favorable conditions to an entrenreneur.
Conditions such as offering a long term lease of
Y
City owned land at a very _nexnensive rate.
SUi(_••1 kRy - •
• Under ideal conditions , w e it should
opt for Plan B (transfer risk) or Option C (avoid
"
,
risk) .
III.
LOSS PR-12IL'"'? a M=-"'SuR=S
loss
the following p revention
We suggest some of ed in the operation a
technicues be utilized operation o
skateboard facility. -
Ail participants •
must pre-register
$= A. Registration - y• The ,
to the facilti
- they are admitted y
• " =='•� before include a liability
. - - tr L: on packet should
����-• -- - registration - : i : L or disclaimer,i as
a waiver of liability Basically,
• wellaas, : an of risk document.
well as an assumption
these documents declare:
- 1) Skateboarding
- is a hazardous activity.
' 2) Injuries are common , some oflwhich bred
very serious , including frac,.ures,
injuries ,
spinal injuries , etc.
• 3) That participants are assuming the risk
of injury. -
• That parents are res_cn s bee far training,
4) maintenance of equiment, etc. •
a .)
Skateboard Risk E valuation .
Page 4 .
5) Participants pants waive any rights to file a
claim against the City. .
Recognizing that most of the partici:a its
will be minors, it is questionable whether
a signed registration waiver is
enforceable. This is why we believe a _
pre-registration form must be reviewed and
signed by a
participants parents
before the minor is allowed access to the
i When the child checks at the
facility.
. park we suggest that they be required
to sign a sign-up sheet which includes
a short waiver of liability.
B. - Guidelines should be set for
A requirement
on-site supervision. 2- pa=.�: c= ca:.=s
that one supervisor :e `_ rinks ) ,• at ice skating rin
(such as the standard Also, certain
z
would be reasonable. Also, i
i
dangerous skateboard stunts, such as -
excessive speed and flips , would be out-
lawed. Participants violating those .
- restrictions would be expelled.
Adequate warning sic=s should be
C. Sid;:irg-- - posted at visable locations warning of risk
-: i .
to injury, as well as restricting and tc.
prohititing excessive speed, jumps,
requir e
- : _ D. Safety Apparel - Facility should'pads and other
helmets, knee pads , elbow p
recommended Safety apparel.
--- The f c'_lity s hculd be
E. Maintenance - L-G�y debris or •
. maintained to avoid
structural defect which would contribute to
an accident.
IV. COQ (NOT APPLICABLE TO CITY OF DUBLIN)
Currently the JPA Coverage Agreement excludes
(see Exclusion 17 ) injuries arising out of the operation
of a skateboard park.
e t.
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
,— Page 5.
Risk transfer to a leasee is a means by'which ch liability ilitye
Coverage may be obtained. The City could l )demand they
heycb.
named as an additional insured under the
whether they will
The JPA is studying ill rescind the -
exclusion for skateboard liability. That determination:
will be made before July 1, 1988 .
V. DEFENSES
A. Disclaimer/Hold Harmless Agreement
Parent-Guardian Release from Liability -
B. (notice of danger, allowed minor to assume risk)
. C. Assumption of Risk •
'ability- Gov't Code Sect''-on
D. Immunity from Li
831.7 . Immunity from hazardous recreational
activity.
•
- E. Design Immunity - Gov't Code Section 830 .6
F• i from Leased, Vendor - They
F. Indemnification
City as an additional insured
= will defend. �Y
is owed a defense. No cost to City.
T ?AL S ti 3OnRT� FACILI'T'IES
. . - VI. SURVEY OF OTHER MUNICIPAL
ACGCrd-
The City of Santa Cruz cperh� two skateboard
been narks. For five
-� ing to their Risk Manager, _
years. During that time span, they have only experienced two
rious resulting in a $20 , 000 settlement.
claims , the most se: record. We cannot deter:1-ne if
• This seems to be a remarkable tie risk sk e�cpos.:re, or t`�ey
,ve of
this case study is indicative streak of cod--�crtune. We mugged
have been blessed with a s e good ,--retest
with their Parks and Recreation Super
. further follow-up wi -
dent. .
operates a skateboard park. Accord-
The City of Benecia also op �their �� they have incurred no
ing to the Risk Manager of their JPA, i Y open r -edono
- claims . However the facility has only been or
a
• -
.• •
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Page 6 .
•
time. We are unable to validate• date a trend from this limited
data.
VII. SUMMATION -
r - youth recreation
Given the fact that skateboarding that carefully plan-
activity that is here to stay, _
offer the safest environment. If
plan-
ned skateboard parks may o_�e_ -.
adequate loss prevention criteria is implemented, we believe
z sponsored parks are a viable solution.
public or community *�e_.ta-
Moreover, if the City can ensure the adoption and i•l
and risk reduction measures , the JPA
lion of succested safety a^- sti i w- i 1 ; ^c to endorse a coverage amendment to
Staff would be
provide liability coverage.
•
•
•
•
•