Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-17 PRC Agenda PktCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting on Wednesday, February 1, 2017 @ 5:30p.m., Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener ROLL CALL: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman, Susan Updegrove and Jeff Whitener Public Comment Period. At this time, you may address the Commission on items that are not on the agenda but are of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission may not discuss or take action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements made or questions raised, or to ask staff to follow up on such issues. PRC Meeting Agenda 1.Consideration of Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 4, 2017 2.Parks and Recreation Fee Study: Review Fees and Make Recommendations to Council (Hyfield & Carloni - 45 minutes) 3.Presentation: Open Space Maintenance Annual Report (Carscaden – 45 minutes) 4.Director’s Report (Stanwyck – 5 minutes) 5.Subcommittee Liaison Reports Committee Liaison Adult and Senior Programming Doug Single Bicycle Advisory Susan Olson City Facilities (Damon, golf, pool, joint use) Greg Avakian Jack House Committee Susan Updegrove Tree Committee Rodney Thurman Youth Sports Association Keri Schwab 8.Communications Adjourn to Regular Meeting of March 1, 2017 APPEALS: Administrative decisions by the Parks and Recreation Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the appeal procedure set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. Minutes - DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 4 January 2017 Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 4th day of January, 2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Whitener. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman, Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener Absent: Commissioner Schwab, Commissioner Single, Vice Chair Updegrove Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Senior Civil Engineer Manny Guzman, Consultant RRM Design Group Leif McKay, Consultant JFR Consulting John Rickenbach. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None PRESENTATIONS, INTRODUCTIONS, APPOINTMENTS None CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2016 AS AMENDED, MOTION BY AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN. 1. Consideration of Minutes CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the meetings of 12/07/16. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Presentation of the Preferred Mission Plaza Concept Plan 1-1 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 2 Senior Civil Engineer, Manny Guzman, and design consultant (Leif McKay of RRM Design Group) presented to the Commission the preferred conceptual design of the Mission Plaza Master Plan. Staff Guzman said the Mission Plaza Master Plan was developed based on community, business, and City feedback which included a year of public review and input through various community workshops, which was used to develop the preferred design concept. Mr. McKay shared that RRM Design Group also evaluated the Mission Plaza’s uses, existing infrastructure conditions, and the feasibility of expanding the Mission Plaza into Broad and Monterey streets. Mr. McKay added that the Mission Plaza Master Plan design as presented to the Commission balances both the active and passive recreational needs, presents options for activating the space to improve safety and encourage positive uses, improves connectivity within, and to, the Mission Plaza, and creates more flexible and functional spaces. Mr. McKay presented the main features of the preferred design Mission Plaza concept, which include the following elements: Main Plaza with a formal entrance Raised platform for special event staging Water feature in Main Plaza ADA accessible pedestrian bridge crossing the creek Central Plaza with outdoor café and patio Historic Adobe retrofitted as an interpretive building Remodel of public restrooms Amphitheater renovated to improve functionality and accessibility Sculpture Garden adjacent to the SLO Museum of Art with pathway to accessible bridge crossing “Dog-leg” section of Broad Street converted as an extension of the plaza to encourage a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly street (parking preserved and opportunity for a new bus stop location) Mr. McKay added that the Mission Plaza Master Plan preferred concept improves ADA and Emergency Vehicle accessibility to the Plaza. The project could be phased-in over the next decade as funding becomes available. Public Comment None Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Avakian asked about the size of the stage areas. Mr. McKay responded that it was similar to a performance platform which would be approximately 18” high; allowing flexibility for multiple uses. Commissioner Avakian asked if there were historic trees at the plaza that would need to be removed as a result of this design concept. Mr. McKay responded that all heritage trees would be preserved and in accordance with City adopted arboriculture practices. Commissioner Avakian stated he was in support of the multi-functional use of the Mission Plaza. Commissioner Avakian also asked if plaza elements would be added to deter skateboarding. Commissioner Olson was in support of modifying the current amphitheater to a more functional space. Commissioner Olson asked if the Sculpture Garden would include both temporary and permanent public artworks. Mr. McKay responded that the Sculpture Garden is still in the concept stage and would be fully explored at a later date through the City’s Public Art Program. 1-2 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 3 Commissioner Thurman stated he was in support of the water feature but recommended consideration of an alternative location other than the main entrance to the plaza. Commissioner Thurman asked if there were vehicle barriers proposed for the “Dog-Leg” to limit the interaction between vehicles and pedestrian/bicycles. Mr. McKay responded that the design is conducive to vehicles slowing down but would not completely limit vehicle access. He added that the concept would require further review and study by the City’s Traffic Engineering program. Commissioner Thurman asked about use of permeable paving materials in the construction of the plaza to capture stormwater and he encouraged the use of drought tolerant turf. Chair Whitener asked about if bicycle racks would be added to the Mission Plaza and if complete closure of the “Dog-Leg” was considered. Mr. McKay responded that the City is required to provide street and parking access to the residents located on this “Dog-Leg”. Chair Whitener read a question aloud from Vice Chair Updegrove regarding the location of the restrooms in which Mr. McKay responded that the restroom location is conceptual. The Parks and Recreation Commission is asked to comment on all de sign features and amenities of the draft Master Plan, including but not limited to the following: 1) Is the Commission in support of the overall Mission Plaza design style which includes the Woonerf design concept for the “dogleg” (Broad to Monterey Street), outdoor café, public restroom location and replacement of the amphitheater with a flat surface plaza? The Commission was in support of the preferred Mission Plaza design concept as presented. 2) Does the Commission have any significant concerns regarding the general site layout, plaza design, proposed recreational facilities or use? The Commission expressed some concern about the safety of the “Dog- Leg” with the proposed Woonerf design and intermingling of vehicles and pedestrian/bicycle traffic but recommend approval with further review and study by the City’s Traffic Engineering program. 3) What other types of active or passive recreation would the Commission like to see incorporated on-site? No additional recreation types were recommended by the Commission. 4) Is the Commission in support of the proposed “sculpture garden? The Commission was in support of the proposed public art sculpture garden. 3. Review and Determination of Avila Ranch’s Parks General Plan Policy Conformity; Review of Parks in Construction Phases One through Three; and Feedback on Parks Construction Phases Four through Five. John Rickenbach, JFR Consulting, provided background on the Avila Ranch Development plan. The applicant team received the Commission’s prior feedback in September and 1-3 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 4 November 2015 and have responded with a modified proposal that is consistent with the General Plan Park and Recreation. The applicant is seeking the Commission’s approval of 18 acres of parks, which include detailed park plans for Parks A through E, and conceptual designs for Parks F through I. Stephen Peck, Avila Ranch Project Applicant, said that specific effort was made to incorporate the Commission’s feedback into a modified design to include many design features and elements that the Commission had earlier expressed was absent in the original design. He added that the proposed Community Facilities District would provide dedicated funding through the assessment of property tax and for the maintenance of the project’s parks, open space trails and facilities within this development through a restricted fund. Melanie Mills, Landscape Architect for the project, shared with the Commission park design features and how the landscape celebrates the existing characteristics of the site. She added that the park landscape will focus on drought resistant native species, neighborhood turf areas, use of recycled water, bioretention integration areas that would receive and integrate stormwater, and low impact development bioretention areas for use of recycled water. Ms. Mills provided a review of the proposed parks within the Avila Ranch Development phases 1 through 5. The Commission was asked to provide feedback on the proposed park plans and recommend the City Council’s approval for the following recommendations: 1.Recommend to the City Council that the project parks proposal is consistent with the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan. 2.Approve detailed park plans for proposed Parks A through E. 3.Review and provide recommendations on conceptual designs for Parks F through I Public Comment Jean Hyduchak, Ambassador for National Pickleball Association and SLO Pickleball Club, spoke about the popularity of pickleball and asked the Commission to recommend that the applicant consider changing the proposal to add pickleball courts to Neighborhood Park G. Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Thurman thanked the project applicant for their thoughtful use of landscape and bioretention in the modified design. He added that the turf could be removed from Park B and that trees planted in decomposed granite typically fail to thrive. Commissioner Thurman expressed concern about the level of water and care needed for an orchard to produce. He added his support for a separate dog park and recommended permanent concrete seating for the farmer’s market area. Commission Thurman was also in support of dedicated pickleball courts. Commissioners Olson and Avakian were in support of the turf area in Park B. Commissioner Olson was in support of the proposed dog park and asked for separate consideration for larger and smaller dogs. Commissioner Olson asked if water would be a cost issue for the community gardens. Director Stanwyck responded that the proposed gardens would most likely use recycled water. Commissioner Olson was in support of dedicated pickleball courts in Park G. Commissioner Avakian asked about the density of the R2 development. Applicant Steven Peck said R2 is low density and is typically 4 to 6 housing units. He added that Park A could be considered as a potential location to add a basketball half-court. Commissioner Avakian asked about BBQ areas and Ms. Mills responded that the neighborhood park does include some BBQ areas. Commissioner Avakian asked if there was a standard size for the community gardens. Director Stanwyck responded that the typical size is a 10x10 raised garden bed and that 1-4 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 5 construction would be responsive to the surrounding housing. Commissioner Avakian was in support of dedicated pickleball courts for Park G. Chair Whitener asked if the bioretention areas are calculated into the open space requirement for park acreage. Director Stanwyck added that the applicant has provided a comprehensive proposal for parks. Chair Whitener expressed concern about maintenance and safety of the proposed orchard. Chair Whitener added his support for additional soccer turf fields in Park G. ACTION: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PARK PLANS FOR PARKS A THROUGH I, AS CONSISTENT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN. . CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to recommend Council Adoption. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE, 4. Review and Recommend to Council Adoption of the Proposed Recreation Agreement between the City and San Luis Obispo County YMCA Director Stanwyck provided an overview of the proposed recreation agreement between the City and the YMCA. The Parks and Recreation Department and the YMCA desire to continue to collaboratively offer programming together and avoid duplication of programs and efforts by memorializing their partnership via this proposed agreement. Director Stanwyck noted that for the past year, staff from both parties have met to develop this recreational partnership agreement that memorializes the longstanding relationship between the City and the YMCA. Public Comment Monica Grant, Chief Executive Officer of the SLO County YMCA, thanked the Commission and Parks and Recreation staff for their support in seeking creative partnership opportunities with the City to continue to offer affordable recreational opportunities for the community. Commission Comments followed. The Commission thanked Parks and Recreation staff and the YCMA for their joint efforts in providing affordable and accessible recreational opportunities. Commissioner Thurman asked for background information about the Ken Hampian hockey rink. Commissioner Avakian asked about the fiscal impact of the agreement, how the fees were calculated and how they will be collected. Staff Mudgett explained the methodology and the tiered-payment recommendation for the 4-year term of the Agreement. ACTION: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLSON. 1-5 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 6 CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to recommend Council Adoption. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE, COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS 5. Director’s Report Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City updates: Community Forum on January 10th at 6:30pm at the Ludwick Community Center. She added that Advisory Body goals have been forwarded to the City Council and encouraged Commissioners to attend the Forum. City Council Goal Setting will be held on January 28th at the Library Community Room. Sinsheimer Playground project will begin construction after Jan uary 23, 2017 and completion is anticipated by Summer 2017. LIAISON REPORTS 6. Subcommittee Liaison Reports Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single was absent. No report. Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson said there was no meeting. No report. City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Avakian reported the planting of nine trees at the Course and field closures due to rain. Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said there was no meeting. No report. Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove was absent. No report. Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab was absent. No report. Commission Communications ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for 01, February, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 02/01/2017 1-6 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION FEE STUDY SESSION Prepared by: Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the costs of Parks and Recreation user fees that is based on the draft citywide user fee analysis by consulting firm NBS. 2. Provide feedback on proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees to be considered by Council for the 2017-2019 Financial Plan. 3. Identify any areas of further study and discussion. DISCUSSION Background Best practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every five years. Further, the ongoing review and updates to City service charges is completed on a regular basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in service delivery. State law provides that fees for services need to be roughly proportional to the actual costs for providing said services. Due to the Great Recession and other internal operational factors the City’s most recent comprehensive cost of services study was performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008. NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) has been retained by the City to conduct a cost of services study. Parks and Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs, and market comparisons. The City’s adopted Budget and Fiscal Policies (Section H of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Attachment 1) provide specific policies about cost recovery goals. Recreation Programs are specifically discussed in subsection G. Subsection I is also applicable to Parks and Recreation services as it discusses comparability with other communities. Highlights of the City’s Adopted Parks and Recreation Service Cost Recovery Goals 1.Adults. Cost recovery should be relatively high. Meeting Date: February 1, 2017 Item Number:_________ 2-1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 2 2.Youth and Seniors. Cost recovery should be relatively low. 3.Specific Activities have articulated cost recovery goals. Low Range 0 to 30% Mid-Range 30-60% High-Range 60-100% Aquatics Community Gardens Junior Ranger Camp Minor Film Permits Skate Park Special Events Youth Sports STAR Teens Senior/Boomer Services Contract Classes Major Film Permits Adult Sports Banners Child Care Facility Rentals Triathlon Golf NBS Draft Cost of Services Study User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the request or voluntary action of an individual/entity. Common types of fees charged by municipalities include development review; inspection, and approval (planning, engineering, and building); recreational classes and community sports programs; and public safety services. User fees may not exceed the estimated and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged. NBS, and Parks and Recreation have worked together to determine the costs of parks and recreation services that are eligible to be user fees. NBS, using time and workload information has provided the department with costs for service associated with staffing, operational and maintenance costs, and administrative and overhead costs. Parks and Recreation fees may be more discretionary in nature (since users are choosing to participate in these activities) than other City fees. NBS in evaluating the costs of services for the City’s Parks and Recreation activities has not delved in the detailed costs associated with each departmental fee. In order to arrive at those conclusions, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, has lead a further analytic exercise in using NBS’s costs for Parks and Recreation activities along with the number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive more specific costs associated with Parks and Recreation Activities. Parks and Recreation Cost of Services Analysis In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees most were found to be in or near their adopted policy range. Staff discusses several fees more specifically following this table. Overall many of the proposed adjustments reflect a multitude of inputs including anticipated operational cost increases along with State of California increases to minimum wage as many employees in this department work at our near this rate. On January 1, 2017 minimum wage was increased to $10.50 per hour. On January 1, 2018, it will go to $11.00 and it will continue to increase in the future until it reaches $15.00 in 2022. 2-2 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 3 2-3 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 4 Youth Services – High Range Cost Recovery Range for Child Care Youth services provides after school enrichment at five school sites as well as all day activities during teacher work days, spring break, and summer. Cost recovery for youth services should be high which it currently is at the 90% range. Staff suggests considering increasing this fee to directly correlate to minimum wage increases that have been approved during the next two year financial plan given that most employees in this division work at our near that rate. The hourly base has been applied to fees for teacher workdays, spring break and summer camps. Those activities costs significantly more than after school activities due to the length of time, number of attendees, number of staff required. However, significant increases to these activities are anticipated to not be sustainable by the customers. Teens – Low Range Cost Recovery. At this time Teen is at extremely low (1%) cost recovery for after school enrichment and noon activities offered at Laguna Middle School which is consistent with policy. This is a challenging group to create interest with and the activities that are provided reach youth who benefit the most and are often diverted from activities that are not positive in nature. Consistent with the adopted Strategic Plan for the Department which suggests exploring the recasting of the Ludwick Community Center staff recommends further study of the teen program to determine its long-term sustainability and possible repurposing toward the LCC. At this time, a fee increase to $15 in 2017 and $20 in 2018 is proposed. Aquatics - Low Range Cost Recovery for All Ages 2-4 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 5 By policy, Aquatics is low cost recovery for all ages. The primary activities at the SLO Swim Center include lap swimming, recreational swimming, lessons (group and private) and aqua aerobics and warm water exercise. 1.Lap Swim. At this time, no change is recommended for lap swim because the cost recovery is currently in the medium range, which is greater than the adopted policy level. However, during the two year financial plan if it stays the same it will quickly return to the low cost recovery range due to anticipated increased costs in minimum wage, utilities, and other operational costs. 2.Rec Swim. Recreational swim is a very specialized program during the summer time and the costs are significantly higher than lap swim (many more lifeguards must be on deck). A slight increase to this fee is suggested to keep pace with the known minimum wage increases and continue this as a low cost recovery activity. 3.Lessons, Group and Private. Group swim lessons currently are at an extremely low cost recovery amount of about 10%. They are recommended to increase each year to increase cost recovery to 13% and 18% to reflect a higher rate of cost recovery and to be more competitive with other jurisdictions. Private lessons are at a higher rate to reflect the increased costs of one on one lessons and are low cost recovery even with the proposed increase. 4.Exercise Class. Warm water exercise is extremely low cost recovery. The increase proposed takes it from a rate of 5% cost recovery to 7% cost recovery. This was selected for a modest increase to keep this activity affordable for the predominately-senior based attendees. 5.Lifeguard Training. Lastly, the lifeguard certification program is low cost recovery. It is at market rate and recommended to stay there so that the City’ workforce can continue be developed. Recreational Sports - High Range Cost Recovery Softball is a three season five day a week program, that sees 215 teams play. This is a high cost recovery program. The current cost of $465 per team per season represents 53% cost recovery just shy of the minimum policy level of 60% cost recovery for this program. Over the two-year period, cost increases are proposed to increase the cost recovery to 60%. Those rates per season would be $500 in 2017 at a 55% cost recovery and $550 in 2017 at a 60% cost recovery. Special Events – Cost Recovery Varied by Event Type 1. SLO Triathlon - High Range Cost Recovery is an adult activity with a policy cost recovery level of high. At this time the current cost recovery level is 32% and is therefore in the lower end of the mid cost recovery range. Staff recommends changing the policy for this cost recovery because it is a family oriented beginner triathlon, which 2-5 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 6 competes with many other events. The proposed increase in fee represents continued mid-range cost recovery. 2. Special Events Produced by the Department – Low Range Cost Recovery. These include events such as the Gobble Wobble fun run at the golf course, which are geared toward intergenerational participation. It is recommended that these events be at the mid level of cost recovery. This would be an addition to this category of cost recovery and staff will calculate fees for these events based on the costs that now know from the NBS and fee study. 3. Banners - High Range Cost Recovery. Banners are currently at mid-range cost recovery. An increase is recommended to put it in high cost recovery. 4. Minor Commercial Film Permits - Low Range Cost Recovery. Presently very few occur. They are currently in the low range cost recovery. A 5% increase in 2017 and again in 2018 is recommended to keep them low range cost recovery. Indoor Facility Rentals - High Range Cost Recovery At this time, excluding the costs of city uses, the cost recovery is in the High Range at 62%. Aside from City programs, the primary users of these facilities are for profit businesses, individuals, and non-profits. The City’s indoor facilities offer an affordable solution for family events and for businesses who require a regular meeting space. To cover projected increases to staffing and operational costs and increase to these fees approximately 5% in 2017 and 2018 to retain the rate of high range cost recovery. Outdoor Facility Rentals Should Be High Range Cost Recovery By policy, outdoor facility rentals should be high range cost recovery. Unfortunately, at this time, in the totality they are at low range of cost recovery of 21%. However, this number is lowered because 59% of outdoor facility rentals (predominately diamond fields and Damon-Garcia) do not have high range cost recovery because they are either youth based or have longstanding past practices of not charging because of “old agreements”. Case in point diamond fields in recognition of the groups’ former contributions to the City (building the SLO Stadium) or their status as a nonprofit youth organization. AYSO and Club Soccer are similarly situated. Staff is seeking guidance from the PRC regarding how it would like this past practice to be further analyzed and potentially revised. More specifically, it is recommended that the field and Damon Garcia fee be further analyzed following PRC direction. SLO Stadium is cost recovering at 83% for the majority of the users since they are adult oriented. No change is recommended at this time as the aging facility presents unique rental by tolerant users (the Blues often do repair works themselves). With the exception of the Jack House and Mission Plaza, for all other outdoor facilities staff recommends an approximately 5% increase in 2017 and again in 2018 to reflect increased costs in staffing, operations, and maintenance. 2-6 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 7 1. Jack House is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range. The Jack House rental fee will be considered by the Jack House Committee at its February 8th meeting. The Committee has been desirous of setting the rental fee to be at the market rate and directly competitive with the Dallidet Adobe. The Jack House Committee is trying to balance the use with the historic nature and fragility of the house and gardens. The fee for 2017 and 2018 is proposed to be $3,400 for a full day wedding. For an event of less than 50 people at $50 an hour; for 50-100 people at $200 per hour; and for an event of up to 200 people at $300 per hour. This is an unprecedented increase and the public may be stunned. Staff is suggesting these changes in anticipation of direction from the Jack House Committee based on prior discussions. 2.Mission Plaza is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range. Mission Plaza is costing more and more to maintain due to its extensive use for community events and aging nature of its infrastructure. A $100 increase to its use is recommended to account for the wide range of unexpected maintenance costs (which often run in the thousands of dollars – i.e. replacing electrical outlets after an event that damages them) arising from its use that are not accounted for in the operational costs study. Community Gardens are Low Range Cost Recovery. The current cost recovery is in the low range at 5% cost recovery. Staff proposes keeping this a low range cost recovery because of the community building and food orientation of this activity. It is recommended that the base rate be increased by about 5% in each of the next two years which will result in closer to 10% cost recovery in the end. Laguna Lake Golf Course - High Range Cost Recovery The Golf Course is currently recovering at the mid range cost recovery, below policy level. It is an activity that is subject to market influences and multiple competitors. The change in cost recovery reflects a full understanding of all costs associated with this activity combined with the change in supervisorial structure and the now known added costs associated with overhead and management shown in the NBS study. Notably, the users are predominately youth and seniors; two groups that traditionally are in the low cost recovery range. Price sensitivity by users has been a concern in the past. The following fees are proposed as this time to keep these activities within the mid cost recovery range and staff recommends considering a policy change to this cost recovery range. Special Event Permits. This is a fee for service. It should recover 100%. Those events with encroachments onto streets, sidewalks and right of ways are more costly than those for parks only. So a fee of $100 for park only special event permits is recommended and one of $160 for events which also have encroachments. Separate charges will be applied for the actual park use and/or encroachment related activities. Study Session Discussion At the February 1, 2017 PRC meeting, staff suggests a review of the current user fee costs associated with parks and recreation activities followed by feedback on this Agenda Report and 2-7 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 8 Presentation. Staff has provided notification of this meeting to all users identified as having a potential impact as a result in a change in fees. Following staff’s power point presentation, will be public input on this information. Discussion and consensus feedback by the Commission will conclude the study session. Next Steps Following the PRC meeting of February 1, 2017, the Jack House Committee will discuss the Jack House Use fees at its meeting of February 8th. Council will hold a Study Session on all City User Fees at its Meeting of February 21st. The PRC meeting of March 1, 2017 will include consideration of the proposed Parks and Recreation Fees for recommendation to Council for adoption in April. The March meeting will also address items identified by the PRC at the February 1, 2017 meeting for further review and discussion. ATTACHMENTS 1. BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES – SECTION H USER COST RECOVERY GOALS 2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES SECTION H 2-8 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES G. Recreation Programs The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs: 1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high. 2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all par ticipants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high- levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status. 3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows: High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%) a.Adult athletics b.Banner permit applications c.Child care services (except Youth STAR) d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses) e.Triathlon f.Golf Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%) g.Classes h.Holiday in the Plaza i.Major commercial film permit applications Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%) j.Aquatics k.Batting cages l.Community gardens m.Junior Ranger camp n.Minor commercial film permit applications o.Skate park p.Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza) q.Youth sports r.Youth STAR s.Teen services t.Senior/boomer services 4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that: Attachment 1 2-9 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES a.The fee is reducing attendance. b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance. 5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special -use areas, and recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. 6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations using City facilities for moneymaking activities. 7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation programs or resurrect existing ones. 8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager determines in writing that an undue hardship exists. 2-10 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES Proposed Policy Amendments, February 1, 2017 G. Recreation Programs The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs: 1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high. 2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relative ly low. In those circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high- levels of participation in youth and senior recreation act ivities regardless of financial status. 3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows: High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%) a.Adult athletics b.Banner permit applications c.Child care services (except Youth STAR) d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses) e.Triathlon f.Golf Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%) e.Triathlon f.Golf g.Summer and Spring Break Camps g.h. Classes h.Holiday in the Plaza i.Major commercial film permit applications Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%) j.Aquatics Batting cages k.Community gardens l.Junior Ranger camp m.Minor commercial film permit applications n.Skate park o.Parks and Recreation sponsored events Special events (except for Triathlon) and Holiday in the Plaza) p.Youth sports Youth STAR q.Teen services r.Senior/boomer services Attachment 2 2-11 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES Proposed Policy Amendments, February 1, 2017 4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that: a.The fee is reducing attendance. b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance. 5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Dire ctor of Parks and Recreation is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. 6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations using City facilities for moneymaking activities. 7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation programs or resurrect existing ones. 8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager determines in writing that an undue hardship exists. 2-12 TOGETHER WE CAN PLAN OUR FUTURE Visit slocity.org for more information (Government>Advisory Bodies: Agendas>Parks and Recreation Commission) Questions? Contact Melissa Mudgett at (805) 781-7296 WEDNESDAY February 1, 2017 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session: Review of Fees Join the Parks and Recreation Department at our next Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. The Commission will be reviewing the results of the cost of service fee study which includes recommendations on the amount charged for Parks and Recreation Programs. We are inviting you to provide input on the results of the study. 2-13 TOGETHER WE CAN PLAN OUR FUTURE Visite slocity.org para obtener más información (Government>Advisory Bodies: Agendas>Parks and Recreation Commission) ¿Preguntas? Contacte a Melissa Mudgett al (805) 781- 7296 Miércoles 1 de febrero de 2017 5:30 p.m. Palacio Municipal Cámara del Consejo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Sesión de estudio de la Comisión de Parques y Recreación: Revisión de las tarifas Únase al Departamento de Parques y Recreación, partícipe en nuestra próxima junta de la Comisión de Parques y Recreación. La Comisión examinará los resultados del estudio del costo de los precios de servicios, que incluye recomendaciones sobre la cantidad cobrada por los programas de Parques y Recreación. Le invitamos a dar su opinión sobre los resultados del estudio. 2-14 Annual Open Space Maintenance Report 2016 PROGRESS REPORT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN 3-1 1 2 1 1 6 Bell Box Bike Rack (4) Mutt Mitt Large Kiosk Panels 1 2 1 1 Bell Box Medium Kiosk Small Kiosk Panel 1 1 Mutt Mitt Medium Kiosk Stenner SpringsJohnson Ranch After After During Laguna Lake After After Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 1 NEW 2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES 3-2 Islay Hill 2 1 Mutt Mitt Small Kiosk AfterBefore;Huckleberry During After; SpanishAfter; Sweetbay 1 Mutt Mitt Reservoir Canyon 1 1 1 1 3 Bike Rack (4) Mutt Mitt Medium Kiosk Small Kiosk Panels South Hills After Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 2 NEW 2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES 3-3 3 2 1 1 1 Bike Racks (4) Mutt Mitt Large Kiosk Medium Kiosk Panel 1 2 1 1 1 Bell Box Bike Racks Mutt Mitt Large Kiosk Small Kiosk Bell Boxes Bike Racks Mutt Mitt Kiosk Medium Kiosk Small Panels 2 2 1 2 1 6 During After Cerro San Luis Irish Hills Bishop Peak Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 3 NEW 2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES After After 3-4 Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 4 Terrace Hill 1 1 Mutt Mitt Small Kiosk After; New fence Before After; New fence, gate & kiosk NEW 2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES 3-5 VOLUNTEER HOURSJAN 1, 2016 to NOV 16, 2016418 75.5 volunteers’ value Total Hours Worked total volunteer hours spent at The M trail Wednesday Work Days total volunteer hours spent at Saturday Work Days total volunteer hours spent at 807 total hours 39 days X 3 hrs 132by Dean arrighi Volunteer hours worked 447 total hours 15 days X 3 hrs Reservoir Canyontotal volunteer hours spent at Volunteer patrol hours by grace demsey $33,716.81 507 total hours 29 days X 3 hrs 300 total hours 10 days X 3 hrs Number of volunteers 1461.5 Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 5 3-6 supervising & working on the project per day 1-3 1,000 hours of labor 2-4 105 crews supervised by ranger staff 7 on the project 12 work days FIRE FUEL REDUCTION Cal Fire Captains supervising & working on the project per day Rangers Hours Total Days CDCR crew CDCR crew 2016 Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 6 3-7 $2,700 of crews Cost 15 of wood removed Truck bed loads of wood removed Trailer loads 1,300+ 21 25 of a chipper running reducing wood debris Hours were made with the public during wow week Contacts $1,200 for equiptment Rental fees Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 7 FIRE FUEL REDUCTION 2016 3-8