The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PR - 2005.06.07Long -Term Plan for the 9l1RLINGAME Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Departments Committee Meeting Agenda June 7, 2005 — 4:OOpm Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame 1. Approval of Minutes from the March 23, 2005 Committee Meeting 2. Summary of April/May Commission and Staff Meetings 3. List of Agreement Points 4. Discussions of Committee Process a. Gathering input from staff, commissions and communities b. Data requests 5. Public Comments 6. Next Steps & Timeline NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Department at (650) 558-7300 at least 24 hours before the meeting. AGREEMENT POINTS for Shared Recreation Services between the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae May 24, 2005 Draft Time Frame 1. Three year agreement, with additional three years extensions. 2. Written notice to amend or terminate Agreement to be given by Dec 31 ' and effective July 0 of any year. City Responsibilities 3. Each City to provide and maintain existing facilities for recreational programs. 4. Each City to provide and maintain existing working offices. 5. Each City to maintain existing Agreements with school districts for recreational opportunities. 6. Each City will retain ownership of property and facilities. 7. Provisions to be developed for future joint ownership of property and/or facilities. 8. Joint hold harmless/indemnification clauses and insurance policies for personnel, facilities, vehicles, etc. 9. Cities will contribute by predetermined percentage to risk management fund. Recreation Budgets 10. Cities will establish a ratio to be used to share expenses and revenues. Potential factors to determine ratio are historical percentage of expenditures, historical percentage of net cost to General Fund or other. 11. Prepare annual report and budget for review by both City Managers. 12. City Managers will consider adjustments to funding formula annually as part of budget process. 13. Special funds (donation accounts, special revenue accounts, trust funds, etc) to be continued independently of jointly funded recreation budget. Scholarship accounts to be shared. 14. Staff will work with City Managers to ensure that an inability on the part of either City to fully fund the Recreation programs will not affect the services provided to the other City. Recreation Programs 15. Programs will be open to residents of both Cities at the established resident rate. 16. Programs designated by Director as impacted (examples: preschool or senior special events) will be initially open only to residents of host City. Residents of other City will have next priority for registration before program is opened to residents of other cities. 17. 50% of any expense savings or excess revenues to be placed in a trust fund for capital outlay for the Recreation programs. 18. New non -self supporting programs, or existing programs that need additional General Fund support, will be offered to both Cities. If only one City approves program, that City will need to fund program and will retain control. 19. Director, staff representatives, City Managers and other personnel from each City will form transition team to address questions on finances, personnel, computer equipment, program details and other items. Personnel 20. Regular staff to remain employees of existing City and will retain union or bargaining group affiliation for at least first three years. Existing mployees who wish to remain employees of their existing agency throughout their tenure will be allowed to do so. 21. Integrate regular staffs, with no lay-offs due to merger. 22. Commitment to bring compensation (salaries & benefits) in line with each other of comparable positions. 23. Areas of responsibility & site location for recreation staff to be determined by Director. 24. Director selected by City Managers will serve as the Department Head for both cities. 25. Millbrae to add extra funds to bring the Building Attendant position in line with Burlingame position prior to merger. 26. Vacancies that occur within the first three years will be filled by City where vacancy occurs and the new employee will become an employee of that City. Adjunct Services 27. The parties agree that an administration fee will be paid to the city providing administrative services (legal, financial, HR, etc). Commissions / Council 28. Establish ad hoc committee comprised of two Parks & Recreation Commissioners from each City to meet quarterly during initial year of recreation operation to assist with merger of policies. Unanimous votes of the ad hoc committee may be presented to both City Councils as recommendations of each Commission. Split votes need to be returned to each Commission for separate votes and recommendations to Councils. 29. Cities will consider the reorganization of the Commission after the first year of the merger. 30. Staff to attend Council, Commission and Committee meetings, as required by agenda items or minimum of quarterly. Notes from Burlingame Recreation Staff Meeting Shared Services w/ Millbrae - - May 18, 2005 Additional Concerns ♦ Mechanism for reviewing "impacted" status of programs — Deal Breaker ♦ Logistics of three registration periods for impacted programs ♦ Which agency would hire new employees during first three years? ♦ Workload issues — Are there going to be a sufficient number of efficiencies found to help ease load? Or are we just "robbing Peter to pay Paul"? ♦ Can we combine items such as staff trainings to be more efficient, or are the logistics of working w/ the larger numbers of people going to make the scheduling too difficult? ♦ Are we spreading ourselves too thin? ♦ Are we able to continue the current level of quality programming? ♦ Can we handle the increased capacity at registration? ♦ Can we meet the needs of Burlingame residents (continue at the same level of service, maintain the same quaintness of small town, etc)? ♦ Would like to see long term personnel issues detailed more fully ♦ The human element of changes in job duties or locations ♦ Program staff may not be available to office staff due to other commitments ♦ Will we lose customers if the merger does not work out? ♦ People come to City because of small town feel — ability to meet with staff ♦ We have a great staff and specialize very well — fear that we will lose staff who enjoys working in that environment ♦ Get the issue to Council and let's see where it goes ♦ With a six-month buyout in place, there is no huge commitment Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Comments/Concerns: • Senior fundraising efforts are for many senior activities — not just for senior van • Location of staff work sites • What are the P & R Director's responsibilities • Need for additional staff • What is the future status of the existing Commissions • Timeline is too aggressive • Need for more public outreach • Staff costs vs program costs • What is the per capita spending for each city • Concern about priority registration for impacted programs (ex. Village Park Pre -School) • Abuse of #16 — who decides about money spent on capital outlay projects • Need more specifics — report on efficiencies • Burlingame has more to offer than Millbrae • Move forward with the timeline • Process is moving too fast • Place merge on the ballot • Not enough information to make a decision • Need budget, handbook, and bylaws indicating specifics on how the merge would work • Concern about # 12 — groups fundraising for their own programs • Staff programming efforts inhibited — unsure of the future • Some residents are under the impression that departments have already merged • Recreation needs a director 100% of the time • Millbrae and Burlingame have different circumstances • Problems with logistics for the proposed merge • Apprehensive about the director being a Burlingame employee and where loyalties lie • Extra costs to hire a Recreation Superintendent • Try an in-house solution by using existing staff in Millbrae • Affect of processing fee funding Burlingame Teen Coordinator • Benefit of the Burlingame Driving Range • Benefit of the Burlingame Aquatics Center Notes from Millbrae Staff Meeting May 12, 2005 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Special fundraisers for senior programs should be placed in a senior citizens donation account Allowing for "Impacted Programs" keeps cities separate. Citizens from each City need to have a fair shot at registration. This should be dropped or possibly phased out of the Agreement points. Include along w/ #17, existing programs that need extra funding, such as the senior van in Millbrae Administrative fee needs to be clarified and 15% needs to be reconsidered Which Commission would approve or recommend items to the City Council, such as reconciling registration fees, refund fees, senior discounts, etc. Pay equity needs to include benefit value, such as medical or dental coverages How will we communicate with the Parks Divisions Need to add a Building Attendant position for the Millbrae Community Center ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS Establish a "Recreation Commission" that oversees the joint operation and make the existing P&R Commissions "Parks Commissions". Develop a transitional team now to work on #18's Would like to keep union affiliation and membership Need to keep morale high — skeptical of being relocated Millbrae needs more than 1.5 positions in the Front Office Commission Notes MILLBRAE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (April 19) Potential Merge of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Departments R. Jaeck gave an overview of the current situation regarding shared services in the Parks and Recreation Department. The City is currently investigating the possibility of merging the Recreation Division with the City of Burlingame. A merge of this nature would make it possible to enhance programs by operating on a larger scale than the two cities can afford by operating alone. The Commission/community members expressed concern regarding oversight, logistics, efficiencies, budget and timeline. Ralph suggested that staff come back to the Commission with specifics. The merge was compared to larger cities that provide different programs at more than one community center within their boundaries. After much discussion, the consensus was that the Commission would like more information. The City Manager suggested that the timeline set is a general guideline and will return with a more specific plan. Ralph also addressed many questions from the Commission/community regarding the proposal from the Sheriffs Department to operate police services in Millbrae. BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION (April 21) Shared Parks & Recreation Services with Millbrae Manager Nantell gave an overview of the proposal to share Recreation services with the City of Millbrae. The two cities have shared a Parks & Recreation Director for the past two years and should move forward with a long-term decision. Although finances are a key, this is not only driven by financial issues and should not be considered as a short term money issue. Nantell cited several examples of issues in the County, such as the "woefully inadequate infrastructure" and $30 million a year that is spent on salaries for City Managers and Department Heads. The impact on citizens and employees of shared services for the short-term is not worth the struggle. Nantell discussed the benefits of Recreation programming specialists, rather than generalists. Similar to doctors, the recreation now has more professionals specializing in one area of recreation programming to improve the quality of the services provided. Department heads need to be up to date on the rules and regulations of their professional areas and cannot also be expected to be experts in HR regulations. Such specialization can exist with larger program staffs. Nantell spoke of the efficiencies that could be gained through a merger, citing brochure productions and budget preparation as two examples. He noted the amount of time spent by the Director in meetings each month that could be reduced. Becoming more efficient will allow the staff to be more creative in their programming for the community, but also stated that staff needs to balance control with the quality of services. Schwartz pointed out several examples where a larger staff serving the two cities could be more efficient. Having two staff members attend league meetings representing two middle schools in Burlingame and Millbrae is not as efficient as having one staff member attend the same staff meeting representing three middle schools in South San Francisco. Nantell discussed the reasons such mergers do not happen, such as loss of control, residents wanting their own identity or the loss of contact with staff if the community is expanded. He stated that there are always trade-offs; that things are not necessarily better or worse, just different. Commissioner Lawson asked for a more specific definition of what we are now considering. Schwartz replied that the current proposal only includes merging the Recreation Divisions of the two cities. Because of the difference in operations and types of special projects between the two Parks Divisions, they are not being considered at this time, but nothing in the current proposal would preclude a future Parks merger. Commissioner Heathcote stated that he has attended all of the meetings on this topic so far and has many concerns including loss of personnel, which City Council would oversee the merged operation, would commissions be merged, are the benefits the same for each city and does a larger staff mean better programs. He also said that he does not think the salary for the Director of the merged Department should be reduced from the current level. Heathcote asked if the pay scales of the two cities are the same and stated that any merger should not focus upon potential savings, but on the quality of the programs. Commissioner Muller asked if this merger may result in a loss of front office personnel. Schwartz stated that both departments have already lost staff to budget reductions and no further positions will be lost because of this merger. However, both cities still have difficult budget situations in the future and may face further reductions. Staff will need to ensure that any budget reductions in one city do not affect the services provided to the other city. Muller asked how policies between the two divisions would be set, such as equating the prices of classes and senior citizens discounts. Schwartz replied that these decisions would be made by staff recommendations to whichever commission oversees the merged division. Muller asked how this arrangement could be undone by either party, if need be. Nantell stated that this is fully described in fire merger where it would be more difficult because of the capital items shared between the cities. Schwartz stated that this would be more difficult for the parks division because of the equipment that would be purchased for the cities to share. Also, if the two cities were ever to jointly construct a facility— such as a gymnasium and/or teen center — provisions for use and terms of use would need to be spelled out in the agreement. Muller also asked about resident/non-resident fees and the number of people that would sign up for classes. Schwartz replied that these would be other items that staff and the commission would have to discuss in more detail. Commissioner Erickson illustrated the need to look down the road 30 years and plan for the future. Chairman Larios is not keen on the idea of a merger. Larios asked if Burlingame would be supplementing Millbrae and stated that this merger would mean our top Parks and Recreation administrator would not always be available because of commitments to Millbrae. He asked how the benefits of such a merger compare for each city and said that Burlingame is doing things so well, others are attaching themselves to us. He shared a concern of our staff resources being taken away. Nantell agreed that we need to maintain the quality of the programs, but pointed out that Millbrae's recreation operation is slightly more efficient than Burlingame's. He stated that we are all good people doing good things, but Larios' concern of subsidizing an under -funded community is one shared by some council members. Larios also expressed concern over separating the Parks and Recreation divisions. Schwartz agreed with the cooperation between the two divisions, cited the improved coordination since the Burlingame Parks Department was relocated to the Recreation Center several years ago and pointed out that Burlingame's Parks and Recreation divisions would 2 remain in the same department. In response to Larios' question about how much control would a consortium have over each city, Nantell explained that each city would have control over their assets, but would contribute to a joint budget. Commissioner Heathcote commented that the Millbrae Parks & Recreation Commission requested that the City Managers and Director draft a proposal and bring it back to the Commissions. Nantell pointed out the "Catch-22" that, if such a proposal had been drafted and presented, some would complain that it was done without public input. He also relayed the frustration of staff, citing one Supervisor who exclaimed "just make a decision". Heathcote said the proposal should have a two to five year test cycle and that he has more confidence of Millbrae's ability to recover after seeing City Manager Ralph Jaeck's 5-year plan. Schwartz discussed the process to date and planned. A process planning meeting was held in March with Burlingame Council members Galligan and O'Mahony, Millbrae Council members Hershman and Quigg, City Managers Jaeck and Nantell, Director Schwartz and approximately 20 members of the public. The Council members asked staff to meet with staff, commissions and the public and develop a timeline for the process. Last week, the Managers and Director held meetings with staff from each Recreation Division. The Millbrae Parks & Recreation Commission meeting earlier this week discussed the potential merger, as will the Millbrae Senior Advisory Committee meeting on April 27t'. The schedule after that was left open to take into account the progress at the Commission meetings. Schwartz suggested that staff draft a proposal and bring it to each Commission for their May meetings. Larios suggested that the May meeting be a joint meeting of the Commission. Heathcote expressed concern for a joint meeting, stating that the Millbrae Commission did not get far into the discussion because of -the lack of details and the feeling of being betrayed by the Millbrae Council in the past. He wondered if the Millbrae Commission needed more time before having a joint meeting. After discussion, it was agreed that Schwartz will work with the Commission Chairmen to arrange a joint meeting at a time/place/location that is acceptable to both. Chairman Larios then opened the discussion to members of the public. Marge Colapietre stated that she has been a Millbrae resident for 35 years and owns a small business in Millbrae. She spoke of the huge volunteer effort in Millbrae and agreed with Heathcote that Millbrae's Commission did not get far in the discussion; that Burlingame's meeting was much more efficient. Millbrae is a tiny community that has accomplished a lot because of their volunteers and asked the Burlingame Commissioners not to discount the fact that Millbrae residents are personally invested in their community. She pointed out that things in Millbrae got bad because of the City's management; that past Councils micro -managed the community and City staff. She stated that before a joint meeting is attempted, the Millbrae Commission needs to be brought up to par, but the meeting should be held sooner rather than later. Nantell spoke about the differences in the City Administrator and City Manager forms of government — pointing out that Millbrae's current City Council made a switch to the Manager style only a few months ago. John Root said that he has lived in Burlingame for 28 years. He complimented the Millbrae City Manager's presentation of the five year plan and stated that the Director appears to be held in high esteem in Millbrae. He likes the idea of the merger on the face of it, but said that proposed savings would be important to many Burlingame residents. He suggested a series ofFAQ's would be helpful to the Commissioners and the public; that people need to see something in writing. 3 Larios stated that a merger needs to have benefit for Millbrae as well as Burlingame. He asked staff to arrange for the next meeting and pointed out that the joint meeting would save time, avoid a duplication of questions and would stimulate the discussion. Colapietre said Millbrae has been told that this merger is because ofthe money situation and thought the first meeting would be to learn how to cut costs. Millbrae does not want the topic to drag on, but, at the Millbrae Commission meeting, Jaeck suggested that time is not a factor. 4 Notes from the Joint Staff Meetings of the Millbrae and Burlingame Recreation Divisions Support Staff (April 12, 2005) Concerns -one or two finance departments -classes: more, same?? -where will work stations be -who will we be employed by -What if Millbrae goes to 2.7% at 55 -Will there be pay equity -Can people register for classes in both communities -Will there still be non-res fees for those in the other city or will we switch to single fees? -How will we set up a system of communications -Who gets registration priorities -Are there union concerns -The rules & policies need to be combined -How will we handle communication between front office staff and the supervisors -Right now we are comfortable where we are — why do we have to change -There may be a need for more staff Program Staff (April 13, 2005) H We have been sharing (Softball/Golf Tourney/Golf classes/Legos)-this is a win for community MB Had fear 2 years ago, now ready to go w/ merger - We are not working in our areas of expertise - This would benefit both communities - disheartened by Millbrae meeting and the expressed fear of loss of control, changes, and being eaten up — we have had time to work together — this is a winning opportunity LM 2 years ago had fear — we are never going back to our little Rec. department w/ Randy — We need to use our expertise/specialties — in favor of a merger also GM What will happen 6 months from now? Who will handle softball? Recreation and the community is 99% same in Millbrae- Who will handle teens? Camps? Trips? Where and when will these programs be held? AC Which programs will be held where — has worked well w/ shared transportation — Howard, Mike W & Charlene have been great — working w/ van LC City of 50,000 is small — has worked in San Jose — for shared services — could use Mills' pool for Summer programs TB Share Softball for the past 1.5 years — People have fear, will need to learn new quirks, programs, etc.- There is a huge benefit for sharing. TP There is more apprehension than is being stated here — Burlingame has a strong program - Millbrae can benefit more by working with us — We have been working more together - seniors do not accept change easily — The Burlingame brochure is complete - our residents will not see a benefit to a merger — Has apprehension of how it will play out — We could be more efficient. MW Millbrae is small, but we know how to do things - Millbrae residents are territorial & afraid of losing their identity - w/o Randy there will be a need to backfill from underneath — that will be less efficient — we need to focus on programs KH The financial benefits not worth hassle - Haven't seen benefits for Burlingame — The benefits all seem to be for Millbrae because Millbrae is short staffed - Small may not be efficient, but big is not better — Explained a snafu on a preschool field trip to the Fire Station - preschool parents would go wild if Village program was open to Millbrae residents at the same time as Burlingame residents -Services will get watered down - Change is not easy - whatever happens, happens, but is sick of sharing - Wants to be done with the discussions — Is least in support of merger and sees no benefit for Burlingame — there is negligible duplication TP We should continue to share with each other after separating the two cities LM Sharing often creates more work — advocates for merging to become more efficient KH Expressed frustration at the loss of Randy's time — Randy is an outstanding leader and supervisor, but has watched Randy age & get wom down Group discussions about productivity, revenue growth w/ increased visibility, lack of Randy's time, Loss of connection with community KH Devastation — the Devil takes us from excellence to very good, makes our standards slip just slightly Long -Term Plan for the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Departments Committee Meeting Minutes — March 23, 2005 — 5:00 pm Millbrae Community Center, 477 Lincoln Circle, Millbrae Introductions/Attendance Committee: Galligan (Burl), Hershman (Mill), O'Mahony (Burl), Quiqq (Mill) Staff: Jaeck, Nantell, Schwartz Guests: All in attendance introduced themselves Current Status of Parks & Recreation Departments Hershman asked Director Schwartz to give an overview of the current status of the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Departments and the efforts to work together. Schwartz stated that sharing of the Parks & Recreation Director, originally a six-month experiment, has now extended over two years. In that time, there have been questionnaires of staff and commissions; joint meetings of commissions, program staff, parks administrators, front office staff, combined recreation programs; a combined effort to fund a teen center; shared transportation programs; etc. Discussions of Committee Process Nantell stated (1) that it would be easier to combine the Recreation Divisions of the two cities than the Parks Divisions because of the scope of services they provide and (2) there is only a $300,000 maximum savings in a potential merger of recreation administrative services. Galligan said shared services could result in a better product at a cheaper price. Jaeck added this may be an opportunity to restore programs that were cut due to budget reductions. Galligan noted his concern that asking the Director to operate each Department independently would lead to burn out and suggested we should decide on a long term course of action quickly. He stated there are a couple of major hurdles in the future and used union representation and differences in employee compensation as examples that occurred in the Burlingame-Hillborough Fire merger. Nantell and Jaeck both stated the need to establish a timeline of meetings and goals necessary in the process of these discussions. This would include the process for gathering input from staff, commissions and community members. Nantell stated the Managers would meet with the Commissioners to explore why the Managers see positives in going forward with a joint operation. Quigg said that together the cities are still smaller in population (50,000) than many other cities in the County. Galligan noted that San Mateo has a population of 90,000 with one Fire Chief, that efficiencies can be achieved by combining and that no positions were lost in the Burlingame - Hillsborough Fire merger. Hershman stated that Schwartz has been in place for the past two years and has the skills and knowledge to operate a joint department. He then agreed that Nantell, Jaeck and Schwartz should create a timeline for the decision making process. O'Mahony noted the fire merger was successful because of the many years put into the process, but shared Galligan's concern that a lengthy process will bum out Schwartz. Jaeck noted the inefficiencies of operating two separate departments. Public Comments GEORGE LYNCH: Schwartz is doing great job, but we need to take care of Millbrae first and Burlingame second. Don't jump into something — Commission wanted to be met with Council first. Recreation is not a business; that Councils should look to other areas to make money. The Burlingame Recreation Center is too far from other end of Millbrae. Why do we need to merge? If we don't merge can't the two staffs still talk and work together? Council has already made up their minds. We should not do this just to make it easier for Schwartz. HARRIETT LARSON: The Millbrae Sr. Coordinator is like a mom and seniors need a mom here at home. Seniors come here because of Charlene's warmth and caring. Harriett has directed a Senior Center & understands those come to be loved & nurtured. Schwartz stated that the senior citizens coordinators would continue to work with their current programs under any administrative models. MARGE COLAPIETRO: Is glad to hear both the coordinators and programs would not change and that seniors are a special group. Are we doing this for short time savings? Reinforced Lynch's comments that we need to consider more than the effect this is having on one individual. MARILYN COONEY — Millbrae has worked hard to preserve parklands and those decisions should in no way be handed over to another group of people. It would be great if a merger could take care of Millbrae's maintenance issues that have not been addressed. Hershman pointed to the Pewaukee, Wisconsin case study where two Parks agencies merged, but continued to have local control of their natural assets and facilities. Gallligan agreed by stating the need for community ownership and the importance of preserving open space. JOHN COONEY: Need to maintain local control over parks. Galligan stated there are not enough fields now in the two cities; a shared administration would not reduce the amount of open space or parkland. KIRK HEATHCOTE: Are we talking about answering to one Council or having a cooperative arrangement? He would advocate for a cooperative arrangement. Hershman noted that is the process that we need to address. MIKE SULLIVAN: Echoes the statement made by all. Recreation functions can be combined easily; it would be more difficult with parks structure because of physical aspects. GALE GRINSELL: Working together should be a way to emphasize programs for both should benefit all of us; enhance all of our lives. It would be helpful if we can have these preliminary meetings in each City. LOU SANDRINI: This could be positive process for all. Run Parks & Recreation programs for all without Schwartz. Seniors are a special program. Need to look at costs for participants (travel, time, etc). We have discussed higher service levels; where do we need higher service levels? The criteria for a solution can be quantifiable or non - quantifiable. The coordination between Parks and Recreation divisions is important for scheduling of maintenance of physical assets. Not sure why would Burlingame want to take on financial burden of Millbrae Parks. STEPHEN HAMILTON: Commended group for having meeting and looking at ways to operate more efficiently; to deliver greater service. Change is difficult and communication is the key. He hopes to have another meeting in Burlingame. GARY NORTH — Echoes Hamilton's comments; need for program & parklands meeting for each city. Council needs to show courage and keep land management autonomous. TERRY BAUER: Discussion of need for closeness to participants in senior citizens programs, which portions of recreation programs don't need that closeness? Why are seniors different than other programs? Because of other issues from the past, he is afraid of back room politics. It's almost as if you are ready to go ahead. Schwartz explained the shared services discussions in recreation only relate to recreation programming. Seniors are different because the coordinator is part of the administrative staff, unlike other programs where a contractor or part-time staff member works directly with the participants. Next Steps Hershman asked for committee agreement that we ask staff to take a look at the time sequence, talk to staff and commissions and then set a future committee meeting. The other committee members agreed. Collapietro asked for diversity in scheduling of future meeting times. Lynch would like to know earlier of the next meeting date and time. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 recreationnburlingatne. org Date: June 12, 2005 To: Parks & Recreation Commissioners City Council From: Randy Schwartz Re: Monthly Report Dept. a�'�Yan w L�s4 Parks Division 1. Crews responded to wind damaged trees — included damage to large Elm in Washington Park 2. Prepared Washington Park for Art in the Park Festival 3. Continuing management of Pershing Park playground rehabilitation — anticipated opening mid -July. Slight delay due to inaccuracy of elevations on parks' original plans. Recreation Division �. 1. 35 teens in Driver's Education class 2. 6 teams in high school summer basketball league — girls basketball 3. 28 registered for teen Disneyland trip 4. Summer camp starts in June 5. 26 preschoolers graduated on June 10'i' 6. 12 senior citizens attended trip to Giants game 7. 16 senior citizens attended movie festival (2 movies and lunch) 8. 300 tickets sold to Community Giants night 9. 17 teens to Giants game 10. Art in the Park Festival, June 11 & 12 Upcoming Events vents 1. Music in the Park Concerts — Sundays in July 2. Movies in the Park of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 9 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation@burling_ame max w LM1' Date: May 15, 2005 To: Parks & Recreation Commissioners City Council From: Randy Schwartz 02j-- Re: Monthly Report Parks Division 1. Completed hiring for Tree Maintenance Worker position 2. Pershing Park playground construction is on schedule to be completed by mid -June 3. Received assistance from Rotary Club volunteers in planting of 10 trees at Bayside Park and repainting of benches along the Bay front. Tree planting is in anticipation of loss of trees due to roadway expansion in 15 to 20 years. 4. Hosting Jr. Fire Marshal picnic in Washington Park on May 18"' 5. Franklin Field will be closed for gopher control on Memorial Day weekend 6. Hosted BHS Senior Breakfast in Washington Park on May 13'" 7. Contract tree pruning is completing work on Skyline Blvd 8. Completing relandscaping at City Hall Recreation Division 1. Registration for summer programs is strong to date - internet registration going smoothly 2. Senior Citizens bridge tournament in April had 38 participants 3. Senior Citizens visited River Rock Casino (54 participants) and toured SBC Park (15) 4. Emeritus Forum featured a speech on Healthy Backs for 25 seniors 5. Interviews are currently being conducted for summer camp and aquatics staffs 6. YAC Dance had nearly 350 7t' & 8 h graders and raised $1,400 profit for youth activities 7. YAC is preparing drug education events and will assist with Relay for Life 8. Upcoming teen trips to paintball, Giants game, Disneyland (20 participants) 9. BIS Athletic Director Dave Barry will be retiring in May — luncheon on May 27t' 10. Received grant for $3,500 from Shinnyo-en to conduct drug education seminars in Fall 11. Fundraiser to enhance preschool programs is underway 12. Received donation of scoreboard from Electrical Union — working on installation 13. Hosted BHS Advanced Placement exams for four days in Recreation Center 14. Preschool held a lottery for 26 Fall openings — over 100 children were entered into lottery 15. Staff is working with Community Gatepath and BSD to develop a transitional preschool 16. Preschool fundraiser is underway — last year raised over $12,000 for music/arts programs Upcomin Events vents 1. Community Golf Tournament — May 23'd 2. Art in the Park — June 11 & 12 3. Art in the Park Rotary Dance — June 11 a' 4. Music in the Park Concerts — Sundays in July BURLINGAME PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Collection Report April 2005 Recreation Division 2004-2005 2003-2004 2nn2-2nns COLL. YTD COLL. YTD COLL. YTD ey Acc Program Gross Refunds Current Net 25 01 Misc. Admin. 69.57 - 69.57 3,013.33 3,596.36 3,552.53 1 10 Advertising 150.00 - 150.00 445.50 1,258.25 39.35 26 12 Tix/Bks/ArtSls 5,609.90 - 5,609.90 38,428.01 33,286.00 36.277.10 2 13 Bldg. Rental 4,668.00 - 4,668.00 53,095.50 59,184.00 42 591.50 27 Rental Deposits 1,925.00 - 1,925.00 1,362.50 1,202.50 1 116,00 3 16 Park Permit 975.00 - 975.00 4,644.00 4,500.00 4,175.00 28 1294 Pool Rental 50.00 1,237.50 (1,187.50) 14,015.66 7,397.75 5,135.00 4 20 Sr. Lunch - - - 478.00 - 2,326.45 29 21 Sr. Activities 1,043.00 - 1,043.00 17,452.00 19,161.00 16,505.50 5 22 Teens 11,974.00 264.00 11,710.00 33,305.00 18,05500 19,775.00 30 23 Jr. Teen Cams 12,513.00 - 12,513.00 26,742.25 23,733.00 24,566.65 8 1 24 JPFRN - 150.00 110.00 215.00 6 30 Pre-school 32,599.50 - 32,599.50 133,726.00 114,982.26 107.796.50 31 31 Pre-Sch. Class 20,285.45 48.00 20,237.45 127,686.19 93,965.37 96 927.50 32 41 Lang. Arts 535.00 265.00 270.00 9,567.00 12,227.50 9,640.50 9 44 Adult Art 12,674.10 95.00 12,579.10 89,272.60 76,641.50 . 69,06.05 34 45 Culinary 2,561.00 - 2,561.00 5,994.00 7,245.00 5,512.00 10 46 Youth Art 25,369.00 58.00 25,311.00 49,849.50 38,302.25 30,888.50 35 47 Misc. Art 35.00 - 35.00 442.75 413.00:. 2,816.00 12 48 Computers 278.00 - 278.00 2,053.00 2,086.53 2,996.50 7 49 Enrichment 8,118.001. 212.00 7,906.00 77,307.00 41,573.20 38,881.50 11 50 Art in Park - - - 2,165.00 19,805.00 31,252.00 7 60 Special Classes 2,962.00 40.00 2,922.00 14,992.00 15,426.70 18741.00 13 61 Fitness 6,078.90 - 6,078.90 56,170.40 61,034.26 60,015.46 38 62 Sport Classes 3,448.00 - 3,448.00 20,638.50 27,944.00 22,930.50 14 70 Youth Campsirrips 16,968.00 - 16,968.00 45,633.75 71,59500 54,778.00 15 72 Contract Spos 73,350.00 - 73,350.00 118,661.00 106,197.00 ft 61.10 40 80 Elem. Sports 10,482.00 103.00 10,379.00 41,093.50 45,461.00 51,121.00 16 81 BIS sports 500.00 - 500.00 75,451.25 80,513.00 66.594.75 41 82 Tennis Lessons 15,595.00 192.00 15,403.00 39,026.00 35,601.00 37,842.10 17 83 Tennis Courts 282.00 90.00 192.00 4,797.25 4,935.00 4,745.00 42 84 Golf Classes 3,494.00 - 3,494.00 10,683.00 9,383.76 23,966.00 18 85 Misc. Sports 216.00 - 216.00 18,401.00 19,609.22 14 959.25 43 86 Field Lgts/Rent 4,610.00 - 4,610.00 30,159.00 20,456.00 18,987.50 19 87 Softball - - - 48,476.85 44,925.50 38,380.00 44 88 Basketball 2,120.00 - 2,120.00 10,800.00 14,935.00 12 040.00 20 89 Volleyball 349.00 - 349.00 7,943.72 7,024.00 7,183.00 21 90 Yth Aqu.Class 53,132.00 107.00 53,025.00 73,779.19 55,023.50 45,278.00 45 91 AdItA u. Class 1,939.00 168.50 1,770.50 13,123.50 8,553.00 7,998.50 46 92 Swim Tickets 710.00 - 710.00 3,463.00 2,752.50 1,274.00 24 Yth Scholarship Fnd 50.00 - 1 50.00 661.00 Totals $ 337,718.42 337,718.42 7 1,325,148.70 $ 1,210,094.90 $ 1,125,826.29 Less Refunds $ 2,880.00 $ 2,880.00 Net $ 337,718.42 334,838.42 $ 1,325,148.70 $ 1,210,094.90 $ 1,125,826.29 47 Parks Revenue $ - $ - - 1,275.00 $ 3,070.00 48 Field Prep Fees $ - $ - - - $ 5,730.00 23 95 Golf Cards - $ 5,654 .00 $$ Cdle W ff011 Pcd,471.40 Rao Swim - - - 14 $ 18,646.00 $ 18.461.00 t Lg Swim 3,297.50 - 3,297.50 31,059.55 $ 24,437.00 $ 23,723.92 Day hto Misc. Aquatics - - - - $ . 3,000.00 $ 1,227.87 Totals $ 341,015.92 $ 2,880.001 338,135.92_1 $ 1,371,954.65 $ 1,264,977.90 $ 1,174,892.88