HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Skateboard ParkCITY OF DUBLIN
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989
SUBJECT Skateboard Park
EXHIBITS ATTACHED A. Skateboard Risk Evaluation
B. Layout Plan - Willow Glen Park
C. Willow Glen Park Rules and
IN Regulations
.
RECOMMENDATION \ Discuss
FINANCIAL STATEMENT None
DESCRIPTION At the July 11, 1989 meeting of the Park
and Recreation Commission, the Commission reviewed a report
prepared by staff discussing the ramifications of constructing a
skateboard facility on City property. The Commission, on a four
to one vote, agreed to pursue a skateboard facility and directed
staff to obtain information regarding a possible location, costs
and insurance information.
Attached in Exhibit A is a copy of the Skateboard Risk Evaluation
prepared by the Contra Costa County Municipal Risk Management
Insurance Authority. The report discusses the following issues:
1. Identification of Risk
2. Operation of Skateboard Park
3. Loss Prevention Measures
4. Coverage
5. Survey of Other Municipal Skateboard Facilities
The report summarizes by stating that it appears that as
skateboarding is here to stay, carefully planned skateboard parks
may offer the safest environment, provided that adequate loss
prevention criteria is implemented.
Attached in Exhibit B is the layout plan for the City of
Benicia's multi -use facility at Willow Glen Park. This is the
area that is utilized heavily by skateboard enthusiasts.
This facility was constructed for approximately $17,000.
Factors contributing towards the relatively low cost are
as follows:
1. Engineering & design was donated by a local firm
2. Asphalt work was done in-house by City crews
3. Curbs were already in place as site was previously used
as a parking lot
4. City owned land
As stated in previous reports, Benicia's facility is classified
as a multi -use facility and therefore rules specifically targeted
to skateboarders are not posted. A copy of the park rules and
regulations are attached in Exhibit C.
Although it appears that the City could possibly construct a
skateboard facility and limit it's exposure by following the loss
prevention criteria outlined in the Skateboard Risk Evaluation,
there still remains the unavailability of land and funding.
Unless the Commission was willing to pursue changes to the
masterplans for the parks scheduled for future development, Mape
and Dublin Sports Grounds, staff recommends that the project be
put on hold until additional parkland becomes available in the
East and West planning areas.
ITEM NO. �]• l Copies to: William Pennington
7065 Portage Road
Dublin, CA 94568
t
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE AUTHORITY
1407 OAKL.AND BOULEVARD • S= 200 • WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(415) 943-1100 - FAX (415) 943-1801
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 I - ---
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 of skate-
boards in public right of way. To satisfy the needs
of the community who enjoy this sport, a public
ti!
r -
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Page 2. i
faciltiy may be desireable. The City can either
operate the skateboard park within their Park and
Recreation department, or use an appropriate risk
transfer technique to shift the burden of the risk
and liability to a third party.
II. OPERATION OF SKATEBOARD PARR ti
There are 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 andool)
recreation facility. (i.e., City community p
Benefits derived from this option are
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.
a ,
B. Citv Owned/Vendor Operated _---
The City can design, construct and own the
facility but contracts with a leasee for the
operation of the skateboard park.
Walnut Creek golf course) 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
.. - _ .. _ - ...�-:_:..(:JI✓w]CvFf�.-..Yr-..r:f+u..�:,:o•.�.a:wZC�..'
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Page 3.
-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 recre-
ational 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 off ering a long term lease of
City owned land at a very inexpensive rate.
SUAI_•LkRY
Under ideal conditions, we believe the City should
opt for Plan B (transfer risk) or Option C (avoid
risk).
III. LOSS PREVENTION MEASURES
We suggest some of the following loss prevention
techniques be utilized in the operation of a
- skateboard facility.
A. Registration - All participants must pre -register
- before they are admitted to the faciltiy. The
registration packet should include a liability
release, a waiver of liability or disclaimer, as
on of risk document. Basically,
well as an assumpti
these documents declare:
1) Skateboarding is a hazardous activity.
2) Injuries are common, some of which are
very serious, including fractures, head
injuries, spinal injuries, etc.
3) That participants are assuming the risk
of injury.
4) That parents are responsible for training,
maintenance of equipment, etc.
E
as
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Page 4.
5) Participants waive any rights to file a
claim against the City.
Recognizing that most of the participants
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
facility. When the child checks in at the
park we suggest that they be required
to sign a sign-up sheet which includes
a short waiver of liability.
B. Supervision - Guidelines should be set for
on -site supervision. A requirement
that one supervisor per 25 participants
(such as the standard at ice skating rinks),
would be reasonable. Also, certain
dangerous skateboard stunts, such as
excessive speed and flips, would be out-
lawed. Participants violating those
restrictions would be expelled.
C. Signing- Adequate warning signs should be
posted at visable locations warning of risk
'to injury, as well as restricting and
prohititing excessive speed, jumps, etc.
- Facility should require
D. Safety Apparel
helmets, knee pads, elbow pads and other
recommended safety apparel.
E. Maintenance - The facility should be
maintained to avoid any debris or
structural defect which would contribute to
an accident.
IV. COVERAGE (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.
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Page 5.
Risk transfer to a leasee is a means by which liability
Coverage may be obtained. The City could demand they be
named as an additional insured under the leasees policy.
The JPA is studying whether they will rescind the
exclusion for skateboard liability. That determination
will be made before July 1, 1988-
V. DEFEYZSES
A. Disclaimer/Hold Harmless Agreement
B. Parent -Guardian Release from Liability -
(notice of danger, allowed minor to assume risk)
C. Assumption of Risk
D. Immunity from Liability- Gov't. Code Section
831.7. Immunity from hazardous recreational
activity.
E. Design Immunity - Gov't Code Section 830.6
VI.
F. Indemnification from Leasee, Vendor - They
will defend. City as an additional insured
is owed a defense. No cost to City.
SURVEY OF OTHER MUNICIPAL SKATEBOARD FACILITIES
The City of Santa Cruz operate two skateboard parks. Accord
-
-.ing to their Risk Manager, the parks have been open for five
years. During that time span, they have only experienced two
claims, the most serious resulting in a $20,000 settlement_
This seems to be a remarkable record. We cannot determine if
this case study is indicative of the risk exposure, or they
have been blessed with a streak of good fortune. We suggest
further follow-up with their Parks and Recreation Superinten-
dent.
The City of Benecia also operates a skateboard park. Accord-
ing to the Risk Manager of their JPA, they have incurred no
claims. However the facility has only been open a short
_ 1l
Skateboard Risk Evaluation
Page 6.
time. We are unable to validate a trend from this limited
data.
VII . SUMI? LUV 10N
Given the fact that skateboarding is a youth recreation
activity that is here to stay, we submit that carefully plan-
ned skateboard parks may offer the safest environment. If
adequate loss prevention criteria is implemented, we believe
public or comaunity sponsored parks are a viable solution.
Moreover, if the City can ensure the adoption and implementa-
tion of suggested safety and risk reduction measures, the JPA
Staff would be willing to endorse a coverage amendment to
provide liability - coverage.
WILLOW GLEN PARK RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Willow Glen Park shall be closed to public use between the
hours of 7 P.M. and 9 a.m. all year round.
2. Use of equipment which produces electronic amplified noise,
sound or music shall be prohibited at the Willow Glen Park.
3. It is unlawful to litter in the Willow Glen Park and all garbage
and refuse shall be placed in the garbage receptacles made
available for that purpose.
4. No bicycles, scooters, or motorcycles shall be permitted in
Willow Glen Park for any purpose whatsoever.
5. Park users are required to park their cars on the north side of
West K Street.
Thank you for your cooperation. City of Benicia