Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PR - 2006.05.18BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION �.. 7:00pm, Thursday, May 18, 2006 Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame 1. Roll Call Dittman, Heathcote, Hesselgren, Larios, Muller, Schreurs, Shanus 2. Approval of Minutes Approve the minutes of the April 20, 2006 regular meeting 3. Public Comments This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission regarding items not otherwise on the agenda.. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. The Chairperson may limit speakers to three minutes each. 4. Old Business A. Capital Improvement Projects B. BHS Backfield C. Parks for the Future D. Senior Resource Handbook New Business A. Benefits of Parks & Recreation B. Burlingame Dog Park — Altered Dog Proposal 6. Reports / Hand -Outs A. Parks & Recreation Department Reports 1. Monthly Report 2. 2004-05 fy Revenue Report B. Commissioners 7. Adjournment Next Regular Meetings: Thursday, June 15, 2006 — 7:00 pm, City Hall NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available `.• for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www. burlin am�e. org C. m G C 0 L Ci ad .0 L. In OR 0 Q N O L a 1 cc a /a_L V C .O L d Y L a 0 co U')' O a0 ) C m O' m ., m coo E o 0 ram: 0. rn '- o ° .� a)N CD o O E coI O O m m m ,R E Co Oo d o O,f m O a0 L m: E L m O.. O 0 O 00.. C0` n c N MN tII cy °- `a CO [ U p E Q , m C Co" m N M m JID N '0 V N =�E m Ecc CC: i>> 9 U- f- i- l I O O O O O O O O O O C O O coo oV Z W tL O O O 00 O O za0o 0 00 0 0 � to V) LO Tonto 0 0 O o 0 0 oa o0 0 I OCo to to N CO IT �t N O a uL V 00 ' ti tp N do-1 to to s to co r =a`o LL 4)dI—M r n 0 Oco to t t[) NOONrf` M 1-- N .co co OO M, 03-O,to 00 00 [Q-00MI.O OO 'o a0 L (O7)McoLON N Coto tn.MM to N ma. , . aJ N m ca mLa Y C �. cm J m m caE L m O C m U) m m o .O Q c c (aE a) O O' d t0 co Co m m0j o �toEaapECc �Ol co>'2 Co C13 Cmj � a � m'o o�1= 0 >fta� -�� cuQJ 0 C Co (a Co M m O 75 U) �>- m:cc moma`�i�a cc�c°�cmicmiai m W G ,_ H•oF- c m U) m c Y `m a m m �� ��a m- a`C' Co cv io y Y v�--dlo o m a a m o m m m ����� w yw o ca a C cc a a c a-w m w m m aCi - m c as to '' cr c O Y L am m 3 m in m u� 'in to c a cmi wa�cCL aoi m 51 nm�ma0m�>-j-j>m�mmmm a� V d da 0 to01-m01-(ol1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0O0 0 0 M M N M '-T M 0 0 0 0 0 to IL Z mrr��.-�-.- M tiF*- 0 0 MOaoMMM - 1 101 o 00 �V l•J V YJ %tJ 1— W VJ I-j r lV vi Q KJ W 1— W VJ U 111.1 11.1 Parks & Recreation's Capital Improvement Items MaV 14 InnA MAJOR PARKS Washington Park Ballfield Lights (25) Fencing (15) Basketball Courts (35) Resurfacing (7) Grandstands (40) Repainting (5) Irrigation (40) Path Lights (30) Play Structure (15) Fencing (20) Resilient Surface (10) Restrooms (25) Tennis Courts (25) Fencing (15) Resurfacing (5) Tennis Lights (30) MINOR PARKS Cuernavaca Park Basketball Courts (35) Resurfacing (20) Bleachers (20) Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Ballfield Fencing (15) Restrooms (25) Laguna Park Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Fencing (20) Tennis Courts (25) Resurfacing (5) Fencing (15) TOT LOTS Alpine Playground Play Structure (15) Fencing (20) J Lot Playground Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Fencing (20) Lower Bayside Park Field #1 Lights (25) Fencing (15) Bleachers (40) Field #2 Lights (25) Fencing (15) Bleachers (30) Field #3 Lights (25) Fencing (15) Bleachers (30) Field #4 Fencing (15) Synthetic Turf (10) Drainage (40) Scorer's Booth (40) Path Lights (30) Restroom/Snack Shack (25) Pershing Park Basketball Courts (40) Fencing (15) Resurfacing (10) Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Ray Park Basketball Courts (35) Resurfacing (10) Fencing (15) Bleachers (20) Fencing (15) Path Lights (30) Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Restrooms (25) Tennis Courts (25) Resurfacing (5) Paloma Playground Play Structure (15) Fencing (20) Trenton Playground Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Fencing (20) Murray Field Ballfield Lights (25) Fencing (15) Bleachers (20) Path Lights (30) Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Golf Center Ballfield Lights (25) Path Lights (30) Teaching Station (40) Dog Park Path Lights (30) Fencing (15) Victoria Park Basketball Courts (35) Resurfacing (10) Fencing (15) Path Lights (30) Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Village Park Basketball Courts (35) Resurfacing (7) Fencing (15) Cottage (Building) (50) Path Lights (30) Play Structure (15) Resilient Surface (10) Restrooms (25) OTHER CIP NEEDS Community Center Aquatic Center Golf Center Depot Eucalyptus Management (1) Special Landscape (1) Tree Replacement Fund (1) Mills Canyon S w g$: m A m A s I a A e m 2 9 A R A 'w 9 '- $ Survey of Indoor Recreation Facilities - January 2005 City Age of Newest Teens Seniors City Gym I School Other Community Ctr I I I L Facilities Cities with all three special components Berkelev newest -1976 yes yes - 3 yes - 2 yes Cupertino late 60's yes yes yes yes Jr College - YMCA Foster Ci ear .es: Gilroy early 1940's yes yes yes yes Jr College Livermore New -February yes yes yes, double yes 2005 Milpitas 20 years yes yes yes yes Mountain View 1964 yes yes yes - 2 yes Newark 5 years es yes yes yes RedWosd; ,ss:. Sarr Cattos03t} e Sunnyvale 35 years, new yes yes yes yes Senior Center Cities with two of the threespecial com onents Alameda 1970's yes yes no yes Albany 11 - 12 years yes and childcare yes - 2 no yes center Belmont 1;96& it Campbell 1928 no, skate park yes yes - 2 no tea 2t)03 n Ci 196Cs. ;tea, a es,. Eakr, Pala kite Cafe 60's, no es es es, Hayward 1989 6 total no es - 2 es yes Los Altos 50 years yes yes no yes [Uterilo Park �45 .ears. Fio es n es - es Palo Alto 46 years yes yes no no Pittsburg? no yes yes yes Pleasant Hill 1973 yes yes no yes Pleasanton 6 different sites no yes yes - 3 yes Sa `Bruno no es.Yesncx San liafieo S yearsyes San Ramon 1989 yes yes no es Santa Clara 30 years, teen yes yes no yes center - 2 years Saratoga late 60's yes yes no yes Community Colle e South Say "[ 998 no yet yss _ Francisco Walnut Creek 27 ears old no yes ves - 2 I ves City Age of Newest Teens 7 Seniors City Gym School Other Communil 1 1 Facilities tames witn one or the tnree special components -Brisbane es:' na no Concord newest -10 years no yes no yes Dublin 1989 no yes no yes Half 11 Sior Ba f9 :ears rro es z es Martinez no community no yes no yes center Millbrae 41x earn no es rto. es Orinda 1972, renovated no no yes yes Pacifica 20� earn no' es na~Yes San Pablo no community no yes - 2 no yes center tomes witn none or the tnree s eciai components Favill�orx72 ry, no n4 no 'nta Mora a 1930's no no no yes Piedmont 60 years old no no no yes San Leandro 10 years old no, shared no, but no yes approved plans City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. AfflEk 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 euRUNGnME recreation(cr�,burlin ame.org S MEMORANDUM To: City Council Parks & Recreation Commissioners From: Randy Schwartz 62-1cd Date: May 14, 2006 Re: FACILITY MASTERPLAN ANALYSIS OF RECREATION CENTER In 2004, the City hired a consultant to complete a Facilities Masterplan to identify opportunities and solutions related to facilities. The results are being used to guide the City's use and development of its facilities. Three Parks & Recreation Department facilities were listed in the report: Aquatic Center, Parks Yard and Recreation Center. An essential improvement listed in the report is the need to expand the shower facilities at the Aquatic Center. The Parks Yard has no essential improvements listed, but improved access, building locker facilities for women employees, ADA restrooms and HVAC upgrades are all listed as required items. The report states that the Recreation Center is "a hodgepodge of materials, systems, and uses as a result of numerous renovations and additions over the last 55 years. It is not up to building code standards." Seismic issues associated with the facility that also serves as an emergency shelter are described as: • Substantial structural damage, partial collapse likely in the auditorium • Extensive non-structural damage • Repair may not be cost effective • Risk to Life: Substantial Less drastic points listed in the report are the Recreation Center lacks adequate program facilities, i.e. gymnasium, dedicated senior facilities and teen space; the number of bathroom fixtures needs to be more than doubled; the Center is not fully ADA accessible; there is not general public parking; office space is very cramped; the kitchen is not functional; and the Center does not have adequate storage space. As an example, Occupant Density is used to measure appropriate office space for staff. The Recreation Center has the lowest space to staff ratio in the City; less than 50% of the benchmark used by the consultants. The report lists two scenarios: one a "Pragmatic Scenario" and the second a "Visionary Scenario". Both scenarios call for a new Community Center on a newly acquired site. At the March 2002 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting, staff was asked to compile information regarding a potential location for a new Community Center facility. Our committee identified nearly 20 locations and examined several criteria, including size, other on -site potential activities, parking, impact on the neighborhood, access, desirability and other users. Of those 20 locations, only the site at 270 East Lane received consensus ~" approval. BOND MEASURES PACKAGE OPTIONS (capital improvement projects for two bond measures in 2006 and 2011) City of Burlingame Draft of May 9, 2006 OPTION ONE Bond measure one 1) Flood control City Hall safety/ADA Police and Fire safety/ADA Total Bond measure two 2) Rec Center Flood control Police and Fire efficiency City Hall efficiency Total (cost in 2006 dollars) $38.9 million 3.2 million 1.0 million $43.1 million ($162/year tax for median AV house) (cost in 2011 dollars) $31.6 million Advantages • Popular with voters - all flood control • Includes safety improvements • Can be done by Nov, 2006 election OPTION TWO 10.0 million (back log for five years) 4.6 million 5.3 million $51.5 million ($169/year tax for median AV house) Disadvantages • Delay of Rec Center improvements • Costs for flood control increase • Harder to sell higher costs in 2nd bond Bond measure one (cost in 2006 dollars) 1) Flood control $16.2 million Rec Center at existing site 26.0 million Police and Fire safety/ADA 1.0 million Total $43.2 million ($162/year tax on median AV home) Bond measure two (cost in 2011 dollars) 2) Flood control $37.6 million ($27.6 + $10.0 million back log for 5 yrs) City Hall efficiency 9.2 million Police. and Fire efficiency 4.6 million Total $51.4 million ($169/year tax on median home) Advantages Disadvantages • Rec Center improvements in 1 st bond • Harder to sell 1 st bond with less flood control • Easier to sell 2nd bond with flood control • No City Hall improvements in 1" bond • Some flood control in each bond 0 Delay of Police/Fire expansion Cost of All Projects in 2006 Dollars (* = subset of or alternative to larger project) Flood control (total of all projects) $38.9 million Rec Center at new site 41.1 million Rec Center at existing site 26.0 million* City Hall efficiency/safety 7.6 million City Hall, safety only 3.2 million* Police efficiency/safety 1.6 million Police safety/ADA .5 million * Fire efficiency/safety 2.9 million Fire safety/ADA .5 million * Parks Dept. new yard 3.4 million Parks yard, existing site .1 million Assuming voter tolerance of $160 annual cost for an infrastructure improvement bond Median home assessment of $160 would yield $43 million in 2006 dollars. Assuming voter tolerance of $150 annual cost for infrastructure improvement bond Median home assessment of $150 would yield $40 million in 2006 dollars. AV = Assessed Value of home S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80760 FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS\CITY WIDE FACILITIES IMPROVE\PHASE ONE - PUBLIC OPINION POLLING\Poll or questionnaire\Bond Packages options 5-8-06.doc Report of Findings Attitudes toward city issues and services Burlingame residents believe things in their community are going in the right direction by a margin of four -to -one. (Question 1) Responses to this question are a useful predictor of attitudes toward specific issues in the area. Attitudes toward Burlingame Not sure 17% was=� Wrong track 16% Right direction 67% Two thirds of the survey respondents said things in Burlingame were going in the right direction and only 16 percent said they were off on the wrong track. A recent statewide survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute reported voters felt things in California were off in the wrong direction by a margin of nearly two -to -one. However, other recent surveys conducted at the local level are consistent with the findings in Burlingame where respondents have a much more optimistic view. Those who were most likely to believe things are moving in the right direction included those: • aged 18-to-44 • who think the city is doing job providing city services • who supported all three of the bond issue alternatives • who have lived in the city for five years or less • with children 0... • who vote with moderate frequency -1- Those who were most likely to believe things are off on the wrong track were included those: • who think the city is doing only a fair or poor job • who supported only the $100 bond alternative and opposed the $200 alternative • aged 55 or older • who have lived in the city for 20 years or more Respondents were then read a list of five issues in Burlingame and asked to rate the importance of each one. (Questions 2 through 6) Those who had no opinion were not included in the following chart. Preventing y flooding Reducing crime & drugs Better parks & recreation Parking & traffic 1° congestion Limits on responding to °1Q emergencies 60% 0% 20% 40% 80% 100% ® Very Impt 0 Somewhat Impt : ' Not too Impt Limitations on the city's ability to respond to emergencies and preventing flooding during major storms elicited the strongest responses, with 74 percent and 60 percent respectively, saying they were very important. Reducing crime and parking and traffic congestion followed at 56 and 47 percent, respectively. The need for better parks and recreation facilities followed with 26 percent rating this very important and another 45 percent saying it is somewhat important. -2- When asked how well the city does at providing services (Question 7), a solid 70 percent rate the city as either excellent or good at providing services. Providing City Services Not sure Poor 4% Excellent 3% 15% Only fair 22% �q''Pa- 4t"' Good 56% Fifteen percent think the City of Burlingame does an excellent job providing city services while 56 percent rated it good. By contrast, 22 rated it fair and only three percent poor. Those who were most likely to think the city does an excellent or good job included: `-- • those who think things are moving in the right direction • supporters of a $200 and a $330 bond issue, hills residents • those aged 35-to-44 • those who vote less often Those who were most likely to think the city does only fair or poor include: • those who think things are off on the wrong track • opponents of a $100 and a $200 bond issue • those voters who have not cast ballots recently • those voters who have voted absentee more often than others 51! When asked if they thought the city would do a better job of serving the public if it had more modern, updated facilities (Question 8), voters were somewhat evenly split. City would do a Better Job with More Modern Facilities Not sure 22% r_ Yes 41% Ei No 37% Forty-one percent thought the city would do a better job with more modern, updated facilities. Thirty-seven percent disagreed and the remaining 22 percent were not sure. Those most likely to think more modern facilities would enable the city to do a better job included: • city residents of one -to -five years • those aged 18-to-44 • supporters of a $330 bond issue • those who have voted less often Those least likely to think that more modern facilities would help included: • opponents of any bond • those who believe the city is doing only a fair or poor job • residents of 20 years or more • more frequent voters Attitudes toward Infrastructure Improvements Survey respondents then were read a list seven possible city infrastructure improvements and asked whether each was a very good, somewhat good, somewhat bad or a very bad idea. (Questions 9 through 15) The responses are shown in the following table with the strongest ones first along with a mean score for each. The mean is a scale designed to aid in comparing the relative level of support for each of the improvements. It is calculated on a five -point scale with very good equal to five, somewhat good equal to four, don't know three, somewhat bad two and very bad equal to one. The mean has no additional significance. -4- Infrastructure Improvements Very Somewhat Don't Somewhat Very Good Good Know Bad Bad Mean Complete storm drains 58% 33% 3% 4% 2% 4.40 Enhance disaster preparedness 48 32 9 8 3 4.16 New rec center, existing site 34 37 8 11 10 3.73 New rec center, new site 30 33 6 17 13 3.49 Improve city buildings 26 37 11 17 9 3.47 Make city hall more efficient 17 33 13 20 18 3.10 Move maintenance building out of Washington Park 17 27 16 24 17 3.05 Here is the same data displayed graphically. Attitudes toward Infrastructure Improvements Move maint. City Hall efficiency City bldgs Rec ctr new Rec ctr existing Disaster preparedness Storm drains ® Very good Somewhat bad 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Somewhat good `-J Not sure M Very bad The improvements with the most public support involve completing the storm drain capacity expansion and enhancing disaster preparedness by consolidating the Emergency Operations Center and installing an emergency power generator. Ninety-one percent and 80 percent respectively stated these were good ideas. Building a new recreation center and making improvements to the police station, fire stations, City Hall and the parks department building also received support with 60 percent or more considering these good ideas. Expanding city \.. hall to make it more efficient and moving the parks department maintenance building to -5- another site outside Washington Park received less enthusiastic responses, in the range of 44 to 50 percent: Those most likely to support the storm drain project included those: • aged 18-to-34 • who believed updated facilities would help the city • most likely to vote absentee Those most likely to support enhancing disaster preparedness included those: • aged 18ito-34 • who believed updated facilities would help the city • who thought the flood, traffic and crime issues were important • who were both supporters of and undecided about the bond issues Those most likely to support a new recreation center at the existing site included: • supporters of a $200 and a $100 bond • those who think updated facilities would help • registered voters who have not voted or who voted seldom • those aged 18-to-34 Those most likely to support a new recreation center at a new site included • supporters of updated facilities • those aged 18-to-34 • those who support better park and recreation facilities • supporters of a $330 and a $200 bond • non -voters • renters • city residents for five years or less Those most likely to support improving existing city buildings included • those who believe updated facilities would help • those aged 18-to-34 • non -voters • supporters of the $330 and $200 bonds • those who support better park and recreation facilities • renters Those most likely to support making city hall more efficient included: • non voters • those aged 18-to-34 • those who think updated facilities would help • supporters of a $330 bond • city residents of five years or less In 0R Those most likely to support moving the parks maintenance building out of Washington Park included: • those who think updated facilities would help • those aged 18-to-34 • city residents of five years or less • supporters of a $330 and a $200 bond • those who think better park and rec facilities are important • those most likely to vote absentee There is broad consensus that drainage and flooding are citywide issues. (Question 16) Flood and Drainage a Citywide Issue Lower lying Not sure only 6% 14%; Citywide 80% While 82 percent of city residents who live in the flatlands agreed that the drainage and flooding problem is citywide, 73 percent of those who live in the hills of Burlingame also agreed with this statement. Statements about Drainage and Flood Control Survey respondents were read a series of statements both in support of and in opposition to the various infrastructure improvements under consideration. The crosstabulations contain data on how subgroups within the city responded to these questions. The statements about flood control and drainage, including mean scores, are as follows: (Questions 17-19 and 31) Agree Agree Don't know Disagree Disagree Strouly Somewhat Not sure Somewhat Strongly Mean The city should ensure drainage problems are permanently resolved 56 29 6 9 4 4.27 -7- Agree Agree Don't know Disagree Disagree Strongly Somewhat Not sure Somewhat Strongly Mean Investments in drainage won't benefit the city unless additional funds can finish the job 24 34 27 9 7 3.58 Without new storm drains, $2 million per year is needed just for maintenance 16 23 38 12 11 3.20 There has been no flooding during this very wet winter. The problem is solved; no need to spend more money 11 22 12 26 30 2.59 There is strong agreement with the need to complete the city's drainage and flood control projects. Voters want permanent solutions, want the job that has begun to be completed and agree that patching up the old pipes on a yearly basis is not a good idea. They also reject the notion that the lack of flooding this year is a reason to end the work. Statements about the Recreation Center The statements about the recreation center are as follows: (Questions 22-25 and 29) Agree Agree Don't know Disagree Disagree Strongly Somewhat Not sure Somewhat Strongly Mean Building a new rec center at the existing site would save some $20 million A new rec center at either new or existing site would double the space for teens, adults and seniors 45% 25% 10% 28 34 15 8% 10 11% 3.84 13 3.55 -8- L. Agree Agree Don't know Disagree Disagree Strongly Somewhat Not sure Somewhat Stron 1 Mean Building a rec center at a new site would enable use of present center during construction 15 26 14 17 28 2.83 Move city buildings out of the park to create more open space 7 21 11 30 24 2.43 All taxpayers should not have to pay, only those who use the rec center should pay 13 10 7 19 52 2.13 Arguments for a new recreation center are strong but somewhat stronger for one at the existing site rather than at a new one. Seventy percent agree with the statement that using the existing site saves $20 million; 62 percent agree that at either site a new center would double the space available; 41 percent agree that a new recreation enter at a new.site would enable use of the present center during construction and then enable the old site to become parkland. There is more disagreement than agreement with moving buildings out of the park to create open space. Interestingly, there is little support for user fees to pay for the recreation center; there is agreement that this should be a general taxpayer expense. Statements about City Hall and City Services Several statements about remodeling City Hall and providing more flexible space also were tested: (Questions 20-21, 26-28 and 30) Agree Agree Don't know Disagree Disagree Strongly Somewhat Not sure Somewhat Strongly Mean Provide accessible rest - rooms for people with disabilities 53 29 3 10 5 4.17 Aside from minor updates, remodeling City Hall is unnecessary. No need for additional space 36 28 16 12 8 3.72 u Agree Agree Don't know Disagree Disagree Strongly Somewhat Not sure Somewhat Strongly Mean Keep the number of city employees and city offices from expanding 28 30 14 17 11 3.46 Keep taxes low even if city services are not as good as they could be 23 33 8 22 14 3.30 City Hall would be more efficient with a 2-story structure replacing the present council chambers 9 24 17 20 30 2.62 The city should provide more efficient space for city offices 5 27 9 34 24 2.56 Aside from providing accessible restrooms for people with disabilities, there is relatively little support for improvements to the city's offices. Two statements about more efficient workspace received more negative than positive responses. One additional statement was presented: Because of Proposition 13, longtime homeowners will pay less than owners of homes that have been purchased recently and therefore have higher assessed values. Respondents were then asked if this would make them more likely to support or oppose a city improvement project. (Question 32) Impact of Prop 13 on Decision on City Improvements Not sure 30% $$= Support 42% Oppose 28% -10- With Burlingame's older, stable population, Prop 13 influences people to support projects more than oppose them. Not surprisingly, those more likely to support measures with this information included: • those aged 65 or more • those voting absentee more • those supporting a $330 bond • residents of 20 years or more • those who have voted in all six of six recent elections • Republicans Those most likely to oppose a project based on Prop 13's effect included: • residents of six-to-10 years • those aged 35-to-44 • those with children • less frequent voters Attitudes toward Bond Issues Respondents were told that if all the projects discussed in this survey were to be built, the cost would be $110 million and the cost for a home with an assessed value of $390,000 (which is the median assessed value in the city) would be $330 a year for 30 years. Respondents were told that this would represent a seven percent increase in property taxes. (Question 33) Attitudes toward a $110 Million Bond Costing Homeowner $330/year Not sure 13% j For 38% Against 49% When asked if they would vote for or against this measure, 38 percent were for it and 49 percent were against it with 13 percent unsure. Those most likely to support a $330 per year bond included: -11- • those who also supported $200 and $100 bonds • registered voters who are least likely to vote • those aged 35-to-44 • renters Those most likely to oppose a $330 per year bond included: • those who also opposed $200 and $100 bonds • those who thought things were off on the wrong track • city residents of 20 years or longer • homeowners • absentee voters • those aged 45-to-64 Those most likely to be undecided included: • those undecided about the lower bond amounts • those supporting a $200 bond • those aged 18-to-34 • renters For and Against a $330/year Bond in a Simulated Election 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ! For 0 Against When those who are undecided on the question of a $330/year bond are removed and the percentages are recalculated to simulate an actual election, the results are 44 percent in favor and 56 percent opposed. Those who were opposed to or undecided about a $330 per year bond were then asked if they would support a $200/year bond for a 30 year period. They were told this measure would raise $62 million and represent a five percent increase in property taxes. (Question 34) In calculating the results for this question, the responses were combined with those from the previous question, assuming that those who supported a $330 tax also would support a $200 tax. This assumption is validated by the crosstabulations noted above. -12- I'll Attitudes toward a $200/year and a $330/year Bond $200/yr Bond $330/yrBond 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% M For • Against With the amount of the bond and the annual tax reduced, the support increases from 44 percent to 61 percent. However, state law requires a two-thirds majority or 66.7 percent for passage of a local government bond issue. Among those who opposed a $330/year bond or were undecided the results of the $200/year bond were 25, percent for, 55 percent against and 20 percent undecided. Those who were opposed to or undecided about a $200 per year bond were then asked if they would support a $100/year bond for a 25 year period. They were told this measure would raise $31 million and represent a two percent increase in property taxes. (Question 35) In calculating the results for this question, the responses were combined with those from the previous two question, assuming that those who supported a $330/year bond and a $200/year bond also would support a $100/year bond. Again, this assumption is validated by the data. Attitudes toward a $100/year Bond, a $200/year Bond and a $330/year Bond $100/yrBond $200/yrBond $330/yrBond 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% M. For 0 Against -13- When the amount of the bond issue and the corresponding tax rate is further reduced to $100, the margin of support increases from 61 percent to 79 percent, well above the two-thirds minimum required for passage. This survey was conducted among all registered voters, those that vote in every election and those who are registered but cast ballots infrequently. As noted in this report, voter turnout is a major concern. Those who are most likely to support a bond issue are among those less likely to cast ballots and those who are most likely to cast ballots are less likely to support a bond issue The survey addresses this question by examining responses on the bond issue questions by respondents with various propensities to vote. The responses of the most frequent voters based on their past performance are shown in the following chart. Attitudes of Frequest Voters toward the Bond Issue $100/yr Bond $200/yrBond $330/yr Bond 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% O For M Against Comparing the two charts, voters who voted in five or six of the last six elections are less supportive of the bond issue at all three levels than the full sample of all voters. However, even among the more frequent voters, at 74 percent support for a $100/year bond issue is significantly more than the 67 percent required by law. Community Influentials Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the opinion of various entities in the community as they make up their own minds about the bond issue. (Questions 36 through 44) Very Somewhat Don't know Not too Not at all Important Important Not sure Important Important Mean Fire and police officials 43% 36% 2% 11% 8% 3.95 Staff engineering reports 31 45 4 10 10 3.78 Citizens organizations 30 40 5 15 10 3.64 -14- Very Somewhat Don't know Not too Not at all Important Important Not sure Important Important Mean Rec Center users 27 44 4 16 9 3.64 Business leaders 24 42 4 17 13 3.46 City Council members 24 41 4 16 15 3.41 Taxpayer advocates 23 38 6 17 15 3.37 League of Women Voters 23 37 6 17 17 3.32 Newspaper articles/eds 12 35 4 26 23 2.88 Of the entities tested, fire and police officials and city staff engineering reports will be most important to voters as they make up their minds on these issues. Burlingame citizens organizations, recreation center users, business community leaders and city council members rank next in importance. Other Issues Two additional questions were included in the survey. Respondents were asked whether sidewalk repairs should revert to being paid from the city's general fund or whether a practice instituted during a financial crisis of assessing property owners should continue. (Question 45) Who should pay for sidewalk repairs? Not sure Property 10% owners a,3 19% City 71% -15- By a margin of nearly four -to -one, respondents would like the city to resume paying for "1 sidewalk repairs. Burlingame voters also were asked whether or not the city should purchase a strip of open space land that runs between California Drive and the railroad tracks. Respondents were told the City of San Francisco owns the property and there are no current plans to develop it and that the cost would be between $4 million and $10 million. (Question 46) Should the city buy the land? Not sure 20% Buy 28% Don't buy 52% .-, By nearly a two -to -one margin, respondents opposed the purchase of this strip of land by the city. The remaining questions (47 through 50) were demographic, designed to help identify the attitudes of the various demographic subgroups within the city. The demographics of the random sample reflect the demographics of the total population of registered voters in Burlingame. -16- Conclusions and Recommendations • Respondents have very positive attitudes toward things in their community. • Improving the city's ability to respond to emergencies, preventing floods and reducing crime drugs are the top three of the five issues tested. • Respondents believe the city does a good job of providing city services. • Respondents are split on the question of whether or not the city would do abetter job with more modern, updated facilities. • Storm drains, disaster preparedness and a new recreation center top the list of projects tested. • Improving the efficiency of city buildings and moving structures out of Washington Park were less important. • A $110 million bond issue costing atypical homeowner $330 a year does not receive majority approval. • A $62 million bond issue costing $200 a year received a simple majority but not a two-thirds majority. • A $31 million bond issue costing $100 a year received nearly 80 percent support, well over the 67 percent required by state law. • Those voters most likely to actually cast ballots also support these alternatives but with somewhat reduced margins. The $100 a year alternative receives 74 percent of this group's vote. • A high turnout election is desirable and placing a measure on this fall's ballot therefore appears to be a prudent step. • A measure costing a typical homeowner $150 to $175 appears to be achievable. Since a $200 measure does not pass but a $100 measure achieves significantly more than a two-thirds majority. • A second measure for a later election should be considered since a single measure large enough to achieve all the city's programs would fail. • With drainage and flood control the issues most important to voters, perhaps putting some flood control projects in each measure would be prudent since the work is easily subdivided. -17- • We recommend that the city adopt a capital improvement plan that incorporates all the city's needs and that it be approached in increments with the first increment this November and other(s) in later elections based on the support achieved for the first increment and the city's track record in implementing that program. -18- Final, 3/30/06 Burlingame Baseline Survey 190-004 Weighted Topline 1�--, : 600 March 2006 Hello, I'm of SA Opinion Research, a public opinion research company. May I please speak with ? (Reintroduce as appropriate.) We're conducting a public opinion survey for the City of Burlingame (Bur -Ling -Game). I am not selling anything. We are interested in your views on important city issues. May I speak with you for a few minutes? All your answers will be kept confidential. 1. Generally speaking, would you say that things in the City of Burlingame (Bur -Ling -Game) are going in the right direction or are things off on the wrong track? % n Rightdirection..........................................................................................66.71 ..............400 Wrongtrack.............................................................................................16.48................99 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................16.80 ..............101 I am going to read you a list of issues in the community. For each one, please tell me whether you think it is very important, somewhat important or not too important. (ROTATE.) Very Important Somewhat Important Not too Important Don't Know 2. Limits on the city's ability to respond to emergencies......................................................... 68.77 .....................18.07 ....................... 6.46 ....................... 6.70 413 ........................108 .......................... 39 .......................... 40 3. Parking and traffic congestion ................................. 46.96 ..................... 38.74 .....................13.64 ....................... 0.67 282 ........................ 232 .......................... 82 ............................ 4 Need for better parks and recreation facilities......... 25.67..................... 43.37 ..................... 28.17 ....................... 2.80 1.1.— 154 ........................ 260 ........................169 ..........................17 5. Reducing crime and drugs ..................................... 53.13 ..................... 24.07 ..................... 18.70 ....................... 4.10 319 ........................144 ........................112 .......................... 25 6. Preventing flooding during major storms ................. 58.65 ..................... 28.36 ..................... 11.35 ....................... 1.64 352 ........................170 .......................... 68 ..........................10 7. What do you think of how Burlingame is doing in providing city services? Is it doing an excellent, good, only fair or a poorjob? % n Excellent..................................................................................................15.36 ................ 92 Good.: ...................................................................................................... 55.01 .............. 330 Onlyfair................................................................................................... 22.40 ..............134 Poor...........................................................................................................3.01 ................18 Don't know/not sure...................................................................................4.22 ................25 8. Would the city do a better job of serving the public if it had more modern, updated facilities? % n Yes..........................................................................................................40.55 ..............243 No............................................................................................................ 37.32 .............. 224 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................22.13 ..............133 Page 2 Now 1 am going to read a list of some improvements that the city is considering. For each one, please tell me if spending city funds to make these improvements is a good idea or a bad idea. (PRESS FOR VERY OR SOMEWHAT. ROTATE.) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Good Good Bad Bad Don't Know 9. Complete work to expand storm drain capacity and install additional pumps and pipe lines to relieve flooding during heavy rains.............................................................................. 57.93 .......... 32.64 ...............3.77 .............2.20 ........... 3.47 348.............196..................23.................13 .............. 21 10. Enhance the city's disaster preparedness by consolidating the Emergency Operations Center and by installing an emergency powergenerator........................................................ 48.24 .......... 32.23 ............... 7.74 ............. 2.52 ........... 9.27 289.............193..................46.................15 .............. 56 11. Make improvements to the city's police station and three fire stations and remove potentially harmful conditions in City Hall, the Parks Department building and the Recreation Center......................................................... 26.48 .......... 36.72 .............16.70 .............8.81 ......... 11.29 159 ............. 220................100................. 53 .............. 68 12. Move the Park Department maintenance building out of Washington Park to reduce noise in the residential neighborhood near the Park and increase the size of the park .................. 16.52 .......... 27.36 ............. 23.89 ...........16.05 ......... 16.18 99.............164................143.................96 .............. 97 13. Build a new city recreation center at a new site which would provide more space for programs for teens, seniors and adult classes. The existing 60 year -old building, which would not withstand an earthquake, would be torn down and the site would become part of Washington Park ................................. 30.01 .......... 33.18 .............17.36 . 180.............199 ................104.. 14. Instead of building a rec center at a new site, build a new rec center on the site of the existing building. This would reduce the cost of the project by one third but the rec center would be closed during construction............ 15. Make City Hall more efficient by providing additional office space for city departments, more flexible meeting space for community groups and additional public parking . ....................... ........13.48 ........... 5.96 .............81 .............. 36 ..33.67 .......... 36.65 .............11.47 ............. 9.80 ........... 8.41 202 ............. 220..................69................. 59 .............. 50 16.50 .......... 33.18 .............19.81 ...........17.91 ......... 12.60 99.............199................119...............107 .............. 76 Page 3 People in Burlingame have different points of view about city improvements. We'd like your thoughts on some of these issues. 16. Some people say that drainage and flooding problems are citywide issues. The water flows down from the hills and creates potential flooding in the lower areas near the Bay so the whole city should pay for the drainage improvements. Others say that flooding only affects people in the lower lying areas and only they should pay for drainage and flood control improvements. Which do you agree with more, the citywide point of view or the lower area only point of view? % n Citywide......................................................... Areaonly.................................................................................................14.00 ................ 84 Don't know/not sure...................................................................................6.28 ................ 38 Now I'm going to read you statements some people have made when talking about the proposed city projects. For each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with it. (PRESS FOR STRONGLY OR ONLY SOMEWHAT.) Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Sure Don't Know 17. The city has invested some money installing new drainage pipes and pumps to stop flooding but the city won't benefit from these improvements unless additional funds are available. to finish the job .................. 23.77 .......... 33.59 ............. 8.89 ............. 7.11 ..... 16.10 ......... 10.55 143 ............. 202 ................ 53 ................ 43 .......... 97 .............. 63 18. This has been a very wet winter and there has been no flooding. The problem is solved. No need to spend more money on drainage...........................................................11.38..........21.64 ........... 25.60 ........... 29.78 ....... 7.79 ........... 3.80 68 .............130 ..............154 ..............179 ..........47 .............. 23 19. Without the new storm drains, the city would have to spend $2 million a year just to maintain the old; deteriorating drainage pipes.................................................................15.76 .......... 22.91 ...........11.56 ...........11.45 .....18.86 ......... 19.46 95 .............137 ................ 69 ................ 69 ........113 ............ 117 20. The nearly 40 year -old City Hall could be made more efficient by replacing the council chamber with a two-story structure for offices and a meeting room that can be used for council and community meetings and other functions ..... ..................................... 9.18 .......... 24.01 ..... 55.............144 ..... ..19.78 ........... 29.93 ....... 8.30 ........... 8.80 .....119 ..............180..........50 .............. 53 21. Aside from minor updates, remodeling City Hall is not necessary. There is no need for additional space and the city functions well enough with its present offices ......................... 36.00 .......... 28.04 ...........11.89 ............. 8.11 ....... 8.13 ........... 7.83 216.............168................71................49..........49..............47 22. Building a new rec center at another site will enable people to use the present building until the new one is completed. Then the present building could be torn down and the land would be made part of Washington Park............................................................... 15.20 .......... 25.58 ...........16.96 ........... 28.13 ....... 7.34 ........... 6.79 91.............153 ..............102 ..............169 ..........44 .............. 41 Page 4 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not Strong Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Sure Don't Know '1 23. Building a new rec center at the existing site instead of buying a new site is a better idea because it would save some $20 million............................................................... 45.11 .......... 25.28 ............. 8.29 ...........10.98.......4.59 ........... 5.75 271.............152 ................ 50 ................ 66 .......... 28 .............. 35 24. A new rec center, either at a new site or the existing one, would double the amount of space available for a teen center and classes for children, adults and seniors........... 28.31.. 170.. ....33.60...........10.08...........12.86.......8.99 ........... 6.16 ....... 202 ................ 60 ................ 77 .......... 54 .............. 37 25. All taxpayers should not have to pay for a new rec center. Only those who actually use it should pay..............................................12.51..........10.03 ...........18.63 ........... 51.51 ....... 4.82 ........... 2.50 75...............60 ..............112 .............. 309..........29 ..............15 Now, here are some brief phrases on the issues we've been talking about. For each one, please tell me whether you think it is very important, somewhat important, not too important or not at all important. (ROTATE.) Very Somewhat Not too Not at all Not Important Important Important Important Sure Don't Know 26. Provide more efficient space for city offices ...... 5.21 .......... 27.20 ........... 34.45........... 23.70 ....... 5.49 ........... 3.96 31 .............163 .............. 207 ..............142 .......... 33 .............. 24 27. Keep taxes low, even if city services are not as good as they could be ................................. 23.49 .......... 33.04 ........... 21.60 ...........14.22 .......3.99 ........... 3.66 141 .............198 ..............130 ................ 85..........24 .............. 22 28. Provide accessible restrooms for people with disabilities ................................................. 53.15 .......... 29.14 ............. 9.54 ............. 4.70 ....... 1.34 ........... 2.15 319 .............175 ................57 ................ 28............8 .............. 13 29. Move city buildings out of Washington Park to create more open space ................................ 6.61 .......... 21.38 ........... 29.77 ........... 31.24 .......6.19 ........... 4.80 40 .............128 ..............179 ..............187 .......... 37 .............. 29 30. Keep the number of city employees and city offices from expanding ..................................... 27.81 .......... 29.68 ...........16.77...........11.21.......8.88 ........... 5.65 167 .............178..............101 ................67..........53..............34 31. Ensure that the drainage problems are permanently resolved ....................................... 55.63 .......... 28.80 .............5.70............. 3.98 ....... 3.52 ........... 2.38 334 .............173................34................24..........21 .............. 14 32. Because of Proposition 13, longtime homeowners will pay less than owners of homes that have been purchased recently and therefore have higher assessed values. Does this make you more likely to support this measure or more likely to oppose it? n Morelikely to support ..............................................................................41.94 ..............252 More likely to oppose...............................................................................27.73 ..............166 Don't know/not sure................................................................................. 30.33 ..............182 "IN Page 5 The work to complete all of the projects we've been discussing would be done over a 10-year period. The city would sell bonds to finance the improvements. The bonds would be repaid over time with the cost borne by all property owners based on the assessed value of their property. The cost of completing all of these projects, including citywide drainage and flood control improvements, other public safety improvements at the police and fire stations and City Hall, a new rec center at a new site, increasing efficiency with additional space at City Hall and a new parks maintenance facility, would be approximately $110 million, based on actual costs at the time the work is done. The amount property owners pay would be based on the assessed value or their property. Assessed value, the value on the property tax bill, is less than market value. For example, a home with an assessed value of $390,000 would pay $330 a year for 30 years. This is equal to a seven point seven percent increase in their property taxes. If an election were held today, would you vote for or against this measure? % n For.. ...... ................ 37.93 .............. 228 Against ................................................... 49.01 .............. 294 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................13.05 ................ 78 IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 3. IS "FOR", SKIP TO QUESTION 36. 34. The city could reduce the scope of these improvements by making only some of them and by improving the existing rec center or building a new one on the existing site instead of purchasing land for a new one. Instead of $110 million, a $62 million bond issue would cost a home with an assessed value of $390,000 an additional $200 per year for 30 years and would be a five percent increase in property taxes. If an election were held today, would you vote for or against this measure? (n=372) n For........................................................................................................... 25.03 ................ 93 Against..................................................................................................... 55.39 .............. 206 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................19.59 ................ 73 IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 34 IS "FOR", SKIP TO QUESTION 36. 35. Another alternative would be to further reduce the scope of the improvements and make only those deemed absolutely essential. A $31 million bond issue would cost a home with an assessed value of $390,000 an additional $100 per year for 25 years and would be a two percent increase in property taxes. If an election were held today, would you vote for or against this measure? (n=279) % n For........................................................................................................... 34.29 ................ 96 Against.....................................................................................................40.18 ..............112 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................25.52 ................ 71 Page 6 RESUME ASKING EVERYONE If the City Council puts a bond issue on the ballot, voters will have to decide how to vote. I am going to read you a list of the kinds of people and organizations that may take a position on it. For each one, please tell me how important their position on this issue would be to you. Is it very important, somewhat important, not too important or not at all important? (ROTATE.) Very Somewhat Not too Not at all Don't Important Important Important Important Know 36. Members of the City Council ............................... 23.70 ............ 40.76 .........16.26...............15.25 .............4.03 142...............245............... 98 .................... 92 ................ 24 37. Engineering reports prepared by city staff ......... 31.02 ............ 45.28 ........... 9.55.................9.94 .............4.21 186...............272............... 57 ....................60 ................ 25 38. Organizations of Burlingame citizens .................. 29.63 ............ 40.08 .........15.08...............10.26 .............4.96 178 ............... 240 ............... 90 .................... 62 ................ 30 39. Leaders of the city's business community .......... 23.65 ............ 42.12 .........16.59...............13.16 .............4.49 142...............253.............100 ....................79 ................ 27 40. People who use the city's rec center ................... 27.25 ............ 43.74 .........15.64.................9.46 .............3.91 164...............262............... 94 .................... 57 ................ 23 41. Fire and police officials ....................................... 43.05 ............ 35.79 ......... 10.68 ................. 8.29 .............2.20 258...............215............... 64....................50 ................13 42. Articles and editorials in the newspapers............ 12.23 ............ 34.80 ......... 26.06...............22.75 .............4.17 73...............209.............156 ..................136 ................ 25 43. Taxpayer advocates ............................................ 23.30 ............ 38.14 .........17.43...............14.92 .............6.21 140...............229.............105 .................... 90 ................ 37 44. The League of Women Voters ............................ 22.78 ............ 36.84 .........17.22...............16.73 .............6.42 137...............221.............103..................100 ................39 Now, here are a couple of unrelated questions. 45. On the subject of sidewalk repairs, the city used to pay for repairs to sidewalks out of its general fund. When the city faced a financial crisis three years ago, it began assessing property owners for repairs to the sidewalks in front of their property. Do you think property owners should continue to pay for repairs to their sidewalks or should this expense be paid by the city, which means all taxpayers pay? n Property owners should pay....................................................................19.30 ..............116 Cityshould pay........................................................................................ 70.64 .............. 424 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................10.06 ................60 46. The city is considering the purchase of the 50-foot wide, mile -long strip of property that runs between California Drive and the railroad tracks. This land is open space and there are no current plans to develop it; but the city would like to control the land. It would cost between $4 million and $10 million to purchase this land from the City of San Francisco that currently owns it. Do you think the City of Burlingame should buy this property? n Yes, buy it................................................................................................27.76 ..............167 No, don't buy it.........................................................................................52.20 ..............313 Don't know/not sure.................................................................................20.03 ..............120 Page 7 We are about finished. I have just a few questions for statistical purposes. *"v'P. Do you own or rent your home? % n Own......................................................................................................... 72.17 .............. 433 Rent......................................................................................................... 26.30 ..............158 Refused.....................................................................................................1.53 .................. 9 48. How long have you lived in Burlingame? % n Lessthan a year........................................................................................1.87 ................11 Oneto five years.....................................................................................19.30 ..............116 Sixto 10 years.........................................................................................19.79..............119 11 to 20 years..........................................................................................18.14 ..............109 Morethan 20 years..................................................................................33.25 ..............200 Allmy life................................................................................................... 6.33 ................ 38 Refused.....................................................................................................1.32 .................. 8 49. Are there any children under the age of 18 living at home with you? % n Yes..........................................................................................................34.54 .............. 207 No............................................................................................................ 64.23 .............. 385 Don't know/not sure...................................................................................1.23 .................. 7 50. Finally, what is your age please? (READ CATEGORIES IF HESITATES.) % n 18-24.........................................................................................................2.73 ................16 25-34......................................................................................................... 7.07 ................ 42 35-44....................................................................................................... 21.75 ..............130 45-54....................................................................................................... 24.42 ..............147 55-64.......................................................................................................21.11 ..............127 65........................................................................................................... 20.97 ..............126 Refused.....................................................................................................1.95 ................12 That completes our interview. May I have your first name or initial in case my supervisor needs to verify that this interview actually took place? Phone: Thank you very much for talking with us today. 51. POSTCODE: Sex (BY OBSERVATION) % n Male......................................................................................................... 50.00 .............. 300 Female....................................................................................................50.00 .............. 300 52. POSTCOIDE: Party Affiliation % n Republican............................................................................................... 28.56 ..............171 Democrat................................................................................................. 49.64 .............. 298 Decline-to-State/other party .....................................................................21.80 ..............131 Page 8 53. POSTCODE: Precinct Number % n Flats......................................................................................................... 70.83 .............. 425 Hills.......................................................................................................... 29.17 ..............175 54. POSTCODE: Flag 46 Voting History % n Votedonce..............................................................................................13.20 ................ 79 Votedtwice..............................................................................................10.70 ................ 64 Votedthree times...................................................................................... 9.69 ................ 58 Votedfour times......................................................................................15.25 ................ 92 Votedfive times.......................................................................................15.27................92 Votedsix times........................................................................................ 32.67 ..............196 Blank.......................................................................................................... 3.22 ................19 55. POSTCODE: Flag 47 Voting History % n Votedonce..............................................................................................22.54 ..............135 Votedtwice..............................................................................................15.52 ................ 93 Votedthree times....................................................................................19.35 ..............116 Votedfour times......................................................................................34.97 .............. 210 Blank.......................................................................................................... 7.62 ................ 46 56, POSTCODE: Flag 48 Voted Absentee % n Votedonce..............................................................................................12.97 ................ 78 Votedtwice................................................................................................ 7.12 ................ 43 Votedthree times......................................................................................6.00 ................ 36 Votedfour times......................................................................................10.48 ................ 63 Blank........................................................................................................ 63.43 .............. 381 Interviewer Certification I have reread this completed questionnaire and certify that all questions requiring answers have been appropriately filled in and that this interview has been obtained from the individual designated. Interviewer: Date: f MEMO To: Julia Bott — San Mateo County Parks & Recreation Foundation ' From: Tom Patras — Evans/McDonough Company Date: May 2, 2006 Re: Telephone Survey The Evans/McDonough Company recently completed a telephone survey of likely voters in San Mateo County. Some of the key findings are highlighted below. San Mateo County voters are satisfied with the guality of local city and county parks: • 74% rate the overall quality of local ci parks as "Excellent" or "Good." • 71% rate the overall quality of San Mateo C911ply parks as "Excellent" or "Good." San Mateo County voters are satisfied with the management of local city and county parks: • 74% rate the overall job performance of city parks and recreation departments as "Excellent" or "Good." • 66% rate the overall job performance of the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Department as "Excellent" or "Good." Strong support exists for the proposed one -eighth cent sales tax measure for parks and recreation, as worded in the survey: "Shall San Mateo County enact a one -eighth cent sales tax, with annual audits and reports to the community, to support parks and recreation services provided by cities, the county and special districts, including: • maintaining and improving park bathrooms, picnic areas, and athletic facilities; • repairing and upgrading playgrounds and play structures; • improving access to parks and playgrounds for the disabled; • preserving natural open spaces; and, • maintaining hiking, walking, and biking trails." • 71 % vote "Yes" to support the measure the first time they are asked; another 4% "Lean Yes," for total support of 75%. 315 First Avenue South, Suite 400, Seattle, Washington 98104 • Voice: 206-652-2454 • Fax: 206-652-5022 43614th Street, Suite 820, Oakland, California 94612 • Voice: 510-844-0680 • Fax: 510-844-0690 6931 Arlington Road, Suite 308, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 • Voice: 301-654-1669 • Fax: 240-465-1163 www.EvansMcDonough.com `. • After hearing information about potential projects, and arguments in support of the measure, support increases to 77% "Yes" and 3% "Lean Yes", for total support of 80%. o Support decreases to 67% "Yes"; 3% "Lean Yes" (70% total support) after voters hear an argument in opposition to the measure. Certain projects resonate strongly with San Mateo County voters: 63% rate preserving natural open spaces as a "6" or "7" on a 7-point priority scale, where 7 means "Highest Priority." 57% rate repairing bathrooms and drinking fountains as a "6" or "7." 56% rate expanding and improving after -school, summer, and holidav programs for youth as a "6" or "7." Several arguments in favor of the measure are effective with voters: • 85% are more likely to support the measure after hearing that qualily recreation programs help keep kids out of trouble. • 85% are more likely to support the measure after hearing that funding for parks has been cut drastically in recent years and the measure would mean parks open on time, bathrooms would be cleaned more frequently, and trash would be picked up more often. • 80% are more likely to support the measure after hearing it would only cost the average resident of San Mateo Countygpproximately $19/year. San Mateo County's parks are great, let's keep them that way! The data suggests that the overall theme to communicate with voters is that this measure is needed to help keep local parks in good condition. Voters are very happy with the current quality of local parks and it will be difficult to convince them that there is a crisis or huge problem that needs to be solved. A positive approach that utilizes the voters' already favorable image of the parks would likely be effective. Also, to the extent possible, changing the language of the ballot measure should be avoided. The current wording was carefully crafted and appears to be very effective. The telephone survey was conducted April 17-20, 2006, with a random selection of 600 likely voters from San Mateo County. The poll has a margin of error of + 4.0%. Park. for the !suture Focus Groups Comments page 1 2 groups March 27, 2006 and 2 groups April 6, 2006 52 people total �.- Participant demographics • Cities — Various (no MP, Atherton, Hillsborough, Woodside or Portola Valley) & unincorporated • Ages 21-35 11, 36-45 11, 46-55 11, 56-65 13, 66-75 6 • Occupation -- numerous • Race Asian 9, Hispanic 7, American Indian 1, African American 2, Caucasian 30, Filipino 2, mixed 1 `.. Summarized comments grouped by topic What parks do you visit? How often? Why? People listed a variety of parks that they use, depending on activities. Participants listed numerous city and county parks by name. No specific MROSD preserves listed but references to open space areas on Skyline. Fort Funston was listed for dog walking. The coastal and bay trails were also mentioned. Some mentioned using school fields for organized sports. Participants used parks at various frequencies. Each groups had 1-3 people who very rarely or never used parks and 1-5 who used parks more than once a week. The remainder considered themselves park users but used parks only a few times a year. Those who rarely or never used parks commented that they used to use parks when they had kids and/or that they were aware of the parks in their neighborhood. Those who use parks often had small children and use playgrounds, had kids in organized sports, had dogs, or walked daily or multiple times weekly. People also used parks for swimming, tennis and to "chill out." Weather and play or dog facilities were often a draw, mostly bringing folks from the north to other city's parks. Those who used periodically usually did so when they were visiting with family or friends (again referencing young children such as grand or god children, nieces or nephews), or because they were at group picnics. There were a couple of mentions about fairs or music events in the parks as a draw. A couple of people mentioned senior exercise programs, with one person noting his parents used them. Classes people mentioned included art, karate, exercise, yoga, dance, sewing, and swimming. There was very limited experience with or expectation of interpretative activities in the parks. Campfire programs when camping were generally what people thought of when asked about their experience learning about the outdoors. One person suggested more interpretive signs to answer questions when rangers weren't present. It was interesting to hear how people in one group identified recreation. Recreation, to them, is not organized sports and to some degree classes. Anything that requires Pork's for the Future Focus Croups Comments 11%.. meeting a schedule, competition or stress is not recreation. Just hanging out, informal play, exercising at your own time and pace were examples to them of recreation. They believed that sports and classes are important but they didn't consider them recreation. What did they see as the difference between city parks and county parks? City Parks have . bathrooms • organized activities and facilities • drinking fountains • parks and recreation • lawns departments • flower beds • dog parks . tennis • barbeques • playgrounds • benches County Parks are • open space • less cultivated • bigger • more rural • have large picnic facilities; some have structures • May not have playgrounds or bathrooms • No buildings • Places for church barbeques • Have trails • Wildlife • Rangers • There are no dogs in County Parks. • County parks are where you get poison oak • Scouts use for nature One group notes that they considered open space as an area that they can use. They didn't consider viewsheds open space from a park perspective. Statements made about the benefit or value of parks • Parks give you an opportunity to hold events. • You get a sense of community at parks. • Strengthens community • Brings people together. • A nice park makes you feel comfortable. If they are poorly maintained, it's not a nice feeling. • Gives the kids something to do instead of trashing the neighborhoods or local businesses. (Mostly a skate park reference) • Nice parks are good for a neighborhood. • Improving parks raises property values. • They give you sense of the outdoors -- trees, nature, grass. • Reduces youth violence. • Commune with nature. • Places to spend time with family and friends. • Fun • Exercise Parks for the Future Focus Groups Comments page 3 • Play • Gives perception there is a place to take your family. • Camaraderie • Quality of parks is an expression of our community. • Organized sports are the gang I'm choosing that my son joins. What needs improvement? Generally, peoples first reactions and closing thoughts were that the parks are fairly well maintained, however many were able to offer specific examples of deficiencies. Many could identify these within a specific park. We didn't track the park names. Bathrooms and drinking fountains were often mentioned as needing attention. Concerns included old bathrooms, dirty bathrooms and lack of soap. It is interesting to note that in virtually every case if someone said bathroom, they said "bathrooms and drinking fountains." They also mentioned that the conditions of women's restrooms were more important than men's. They further noted that if a place is clean, people are more likely to keep it clean. Fresh paint was noted as improving the conditions of parks. Conditions of play fields were also often mentioned. These comments included turf conditions and maintenance, gopher holes and drainage. Some play structures were identified as needing improvements. Conditions of trash enclosures and frequency of trash pick up were also mentioned. Again, it was noted that if trash is emptied and litter picked up, people are less likely to make or leave messes. One group noted that more basketball courts were needed and that nets were essential. One group, led by one person, advocated for more lighted tennis courts. Some mention of rough payment was made and one person asked that the center striping be replaced on the Coast Trail. Someone said that more transportation for seniors is needed. Park safety People felt very safe in the urban parks. Some noted that specific play structures or areas were to close to traffic. All agreed that it is their responsibility to look out for their own safety and that of their children. Many noted that more parents needed to be involved in organized sports to help with this. People did not seem to think that park staff should be present to provide safety. They did feel it was the role of staff to make sure sites were well maintained, conditions were safe and that sites were clean. "It's my responsibility to care for my kids but I want someone to take care of the park." One person did note that it would be nice to have the police cruise parks periodically. People seem to differentiate between city parks and County Parks with respect to rangers. They noted that they see rangers in the County Parks, especially those with lots of picnic facilities. They thought this added to the safety of those parks, especially when you have lots of large groups. One person noted that "paying" for those parks kept out the riffraff. They did feel that rangers have law enforcement Forks for the Future Focus Groups Comments page 4 and safety training. They do more than maintenance folks just open the bathrooms. Someone else notes that rangers do a lot of maintenance. Though people were less familiar with open space than parks, people felt safe in open space areas also, even though there may not be rangers present. They did talk about whether there were adequate personnel in case of emergences. Most adopted an attitude of "Why would you expect to have a lot of staff in open space area? People did note that they see lots of rangers on Sawyer Camp Trail and the response rate was quick. Information People generally knew that their city put out a recreation guide listing classes. Those who used their guides were generally pleased with it. However, they suggested that guides be distributed more widely, that email be used, and that updates or events be publicized throughout the season. Some noted that brochure racks are often empty. One person asked for more interpretive signs in parks to answer questions when rangers were not present. Concessions Most thought that concessions were appropriate in some places. For instance, appropriate near organized sports areas (the hot dog stand or snack shop) but not in the rural parks or parks where you picnicked (you expected to bring your own food). A couple of folks identified concessions or revenue producing centers as a way to generate funds for the parks. One person suggested vending machines but most in that group didn't think that was such a hot idea -- too much trash. Most people seemed to link concessions with food. For instance, people liked the train in San Mateo's Central Park but didn't think about that when discussing concessions. Dogs There were no specific questions asked about dogs. However, there were no negative comments about the lack of dog facilities and many mentioned specific dog parks they liked. There was only one comment about dogs in County Parks and it more of a statement of fact, than a criticism. Bikes Biking was not mentioned as a park related activity by participants in 3 of the groups. One person in one group did mention that he biked. When asked, he said he would like more mountain bikes trails in the parks; however the trails he referenced as liking to ride were Sawyer Camp Trail and the Bay Trail -- both improved trails in park settings. Forks ter the Future Focus Groups Comments page 5 People's willingness to pay No one indicated that fees for services or facilities were too high. One group noted that the fees for reservation picnic sites were worth it since it removed the hassle of getting there early, they generate lots of trash and used electricity. Those sites are easier and probably cheaper in the long run for having parties, plus you can have jumpers for the kids. They did expect the facilites to be in clean and good condition when they showed up. They liked having a phone number to call if that wasn't the case and generally felt that staff responded quickly if something was a mess. They answered "No" to charging for parks. "It's counter to the purpose of parks." "People will then want to stop paying their taxes." They did think it was ok to charge for some services or facilities. People were asked it they thought that the parks needed more money. Most said yes and that theyt weren't adequately funded due to tight budgets. Most indicated they had no idea what the budgets for cities are and how much goes for parks. Some questioned how governments managed their money and whether they could get more for their money. Generally people didn't see this as a problem but noted they didn't get enough information from local government to know if taxes are spent correctly. One person noted salary and retirement package as a problem for local budgets. When asked if they would be willing to pay $50 per year for parks, most responded without much thought or hesitation, yes. That was immediately followed by a qualifier that they would want to see that it was being spent well. One group was asked the question differently, which made them think of a bond measure and or parcel taxes. There were various responses to that but the most interesting was the person who said, "We should do it through a sales tax." Comments made about additional funding included: • Why are budgets being cut? • What are the budgets? • Show us how the money is being spent. • Want to see results in the parks -- well kept, fresh paint, new or repaired playgrounds, trashed picked, clean bathrooms, working drinking fountains, working lights, railing and fences repaired, good trails, no weeds. • We don't want to see it one time. It should be on -going. • Don't need a lot of new buildings. Take care of the parks. • Fix what's broken. Don't build new superstructures. • Maintain fields. No gopher holes. • Fix bleachers. • Hold off getting more open space. Take care of what they have. • People will say they don't want their money going for parks. They don't use them. You'd have to address that. • Start maintaining what we have so others will take care of it or make it better. Parks for the Future Focus Groups Comments page 6 • Need information campaigns about parks. • Can we use volunteers or corporate donations instead? 0 Should use more service from those convicted of crimes. • Good parks add values to our homes. 1� RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAME ENDORSING THE PARKS FOR THE FUTURE CONCEPT AND THE PLACING OF THE MEASURE ON A FUTURE BALLOT. WHEREAS, Parks for the Future is an effort to secure dedicated tax -based revenues to support the parks and recreation related activities of San Mateo County, the cities located within the County, the Ladera and Highlands recreation districts, and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District through a future ballot measure to increase sales tax by 1/8`h cent; and, WHEREAS, The Parks for the Future team has worked diligently to achieve consensus among the 20 cities, specials districts, and San Mateo County on a distribution system that is fair and equitable; and, WHEREAS, The sales tax revenue will provide a stable source of funding to maintain NAME parks in a clean and safe condition, to complete deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects, and to acquire new lands for parks; and, WHEREAS, The NAME Park and Recreation Commission supports the concept of Parks for the Future and recommends that the NAME City Council also formally endorse Parks for the Future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of NAME endorses the Parks for the Future concept and placing the measure on a future ballot. Page 1 of 2 4 PARKS/REC-Butler, Joleen From: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy L nt: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:44 PM To: Carol Muller (E-mail); Cynthia Schreurs; Ed Larios (E-mail); Karen Dittman (E-mail); Kirk Heathcote (E-mail); Laura Hesselgren (Laura@deerfieldrealty.net); Michael Shanus Cc: PARKS/REC-Butler, Joleen Subject: FW: Parks for the Future Update to Park Directors Attachments: executive summary.pdf; Focus Groups Comments.doc; Parks for the Future Resolution GENERIC.doc Attached is some information from Julia Bott regarding the Parks for the Future proposal. This is on our agenda for Thursday's meeting. At that time, the Commission can choose to recommend support for the proposal to Council, recommend opposition of the proposal or take no action. If you have any questions regarding this information, please let me know. Randy From: Julia Bott [mailto:Julia@SupportParks.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:15 PM To: Skeels, Jim; PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy; canzian@ci.sanmateo.ca.us; karlm@ci.belmont.ca.us; kmiller@fostercity.org; Imazzuca@ci.sanbruno.ca.us; Yomi Agunbiade; Bang Weiss; Brian Dossey; Corine Centeno; David Holland; Margaret Glomstad; Mari Brumm-Merrill; Meda Okelo; Mike Blondino; Mike Bridges; Mike Pera; Mike Stallings; Mike Wride; Rich Quadri; Sally Thielfoldt; Sharon Ranals Subject: Parks for the Future Update to Park Directors Parks for the Future Update May 10, 2006 Note a similar email is being sent to the City Managers. T ig of Measure '>.M-Qs are on track for the measure to be placed on the November 2006 ballot. Polling & Focus Groups The second poll was conducted in Mid April. Results show that support for the sales tax is remains at approximately the 2/3rds approval level required for the measure. An Executive Summary of the poll is attached and results will be discussed at the steering committee meeting May 15. Focus groups were conducted at the end of March and early April. The write up is attached but was not sent to the City Managers. Perspectives on quality of parks, their importance to our community and willingness to pay correlate with results of poll. Sunset Date for Measure Polling results were inconclusive regarding the length of the measure. Discussions will continue to determine the length of the measure. The enabling legislation required there be a date but did not specify a length. Status of Language and Presentations to Commissions and Councils The language is 95% complete and is currently under review by the Board of Equalization. Items still to be addressed in the measure include the length, expenditure plans and MOE can be expressed more clearly. The draft has been sent to City Managers. As the language is reasonably complete and presentation to Commissions (if appropriate) and Councils should be scheduled. A sample resolution is attached. Effective Date of Measure Though the ballot language says the tax takes effect at the close of the polls, the earliest first date that the increase in sales tax will be collected is April 1, 2007. CCAG anticipates providing revenue to cities [to be completed when Rich gets back to me]. Administration Costs C' ' G -- The working proposal was to pay CCAG an administration fee of 1 % of the gross tax proceeds (on top of the up to 5% tl._,does to the State). Based on the working estimate of $16,000,000, this would amount to a fee of $160,000 in the first year. Rich Napier proposed that CCAG charge the parks sales tax fund only for the work actually done, based on a time and materials basis. In the event that there is a portion of the 1 % fee remaining, that amount would be rolled into the pot for distribution to the participating agencies the next year. The amount rolled over to the next year would not be considered in the calculation for the 5/16/2006 Page 2 of 2 next year to determine if sales tax proceeds had increased 4% or more, however, since the rollover funds were actually received for the prior year. The one issue that Rich is concerned about is if the cost to C/CAG exceeds the 1 %. This may not be likely, given the amounts involved, but this probably needs a bit more discussion. One possibility would be to take the additional amounts out of the next year's tax receipts. 6The yearly administrative fee is capped at 5% per section 7273(e)(3), but the actual fee will be actual costs to the State. 1s hopefully will be considerably less than the 5%. There is a one-time start-up charge that cannot exceed $175,000 per section 7272. The law says that has to be paid up front, but the staff person thinks the practice of the State has been to allow that cost to be "financed" through the tax receipts. Audits & Compliance Rich Napier anticipates a financial audit covering all participating agencies each year, with performance audits (i.e., to determine whether the funds are actually being used for the purposes provided for in the measure) performed less frequently. We discussed the approach of a yearly self certification from the cities, with a CCAG performance audit done every 3 to 5 years to determine compliance. The one thing we briefly discussed is what the sanction will be in the event an audit uncovers a problem. A process will be needed, which would provide the offending entity the opportunity to respond and to determine what the sanction will be (e.g., forfeiture of future funding in an amount equivalent to the amount wrongfully used). Hopefully, because the uses are broad, this won't be a problem, but some process, even if it is fairly general, will need to be included. Further Rich would like the process spelled out in some detail in the long version of the measure. Please contact me if you have any questions. Julia Bott Executive Director San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Foundation 215 Bay Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-321-5812 voice 650-321-5813 fax Julia SupportParks.org www.SurmortParks.ora 5/16/2006 From: Julia Bott [mailto:Julia@SupportParks.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:45 AM To: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy Subject: Commission meeting Hello Randy, Thank you for the consideration of Parks for the Future on Thursday night. I have a previous commitment and will not be there, though I suspect everyone already has adequate background and that intensive lobbying isn't really necessary. It appears the length will be 25 years and we will have the MOE language wordsmithed within a week/10 days so will be able to move to council, should that be the pleasure of the Commission. Let me now what I can do to help. RECREATIONAL BENEFITS 1. People who are more socially involved are two to five times less likely to suffer from heart disease. 2. Repeated surveys by both Canadian and American health agencies prove that regular exercise lessens the odds of becoming depressed or overwhelmed by stress. 3. A study of women in their 40s found that moderate weight training not only improved muscle strength, but boosted their body image and self esteem more than other types of activities. 4. A water aerobics program for two times a week for 16 weeks significantly reduced diastolic blood pressure, body fat, and body weight in elderly community residents. 5. After only 10 weeks of strength training, a group of men and women in their 80s and 90s increased their weight -lifting capacity by 118% and improved walking speed by 12 percent and stair climbing 28%. 6. Physically active older adults have lower blood pressure than do their less active counterparts. 7. The share of frequent fitness participants among American teens aged 12 to 17, dropped more than 10 percentage points between 1987 and 1994. This decline is attributed to distractions from television, video games, computers, as well as �- cutbacks in physical education and after school sports programs. 8. A digest of data from forty-three studies revealed that, compared to inactive adults, people who exercise vigorously suffer half as many heart attacks. 9. Women who engage in strength training after menopause experienced significant gains in the bone mass of the spine and in overall muscle strength, which leads to greater mobility and self-reliance. 10. A study of employees in one corporation found that those who exercised had 25% fewer hospital days than those who didn't. 11. For every child who participates in local dance arts programs, $500 is contributed to the economy for costumes, food, decorations, etc. 12. A sixteen -year study of 17,000 middle aged Harvard alumni found that those who exercised regularly were likely to live longer. 13. Steelcase Corporation showed that over a six -year period, medical insurance claims costs were 55% lower for fitness program participants when compared to non- participants. 14. Dupont reduced absenteeism by 47.5% over a six -year period for its corporate fitness program participants. 15. The Canadian Life Assurance Company found turnover among fitness program participants was 32.4% lower over a seven-year period compared to non- participants. 16. When studying the extracurricular activities of teen drug users verses non -users, it was found that non -users tend to be highly involved in family and supervised extracurricular activities such as teams, clubs and groups. 17. Negative behaviors like smoking, drinking, fighting and vandalism are decreased because of youth participation in arts, sports and outdoor recreation activities. 18. Cincinnati, Ohio initiated the bate Evening Recreation Programs in 1993. During the initial 13-week period, the number of juvenile criminal incidents dropped 24% from 645 to 491. Cost per person-$.56 19. Families that co -participate in leisure activities are more likely to report higher levels of family satisfaction, family interaction and family stability. 20. Recreation provides people of differing cultures with a sense of community and an opportunity for those from differing ethnic backgrounds to interact. 21. Upon opening a community center in a Cincinnati neighborhood, the overall crime rate dropped 40%. 22. Two Illinois neighborhoods experienced a drop in juvenile crime by 70% as a direct result of the Park District's L.A.T.E.R. Program, a joint effort between '1 Schaumburg Police and the Park District to serve at -risk youth. 23. Six in ten Americans participate in outdoor recreation at least monthly. The top motivations for participation are fun, relaxation, stress relief, experiencing nature and exercise. 24. Recreation brings meaning, purpose and pleasure to people's lives. It contributes to both the years in one's life as well as the life in those years. 25. Regular volunteer work more than any other activity increases life expectancy. 26. Socially involved people are 2 to 5 times less likely to suffer heart disease. 27. Girls who participate in sports help increase bone density to combat osteoporosis in later life. 28. Sports participants had significantly lower body mass index values, lower blood pressures, and lower resting pulse rates. 29. The physically fit person is less prone to injury, and is less likely to experience depression. 30. General Electric found that employees who exercised were absent from work 45% fewer days than those who didn't. 31. Union Pacific Railroad found that their exercise programs helped employees to be more productive at work and achieve higher levels of concentration. L 32. Physically active older people typically benefit from lower blood pressure, increased muscle strength, joint flexibility, and lower total cholesterol levels than do less active people. 33. A recent study of psychologists found that pleasant events such as dinner with friends or a weekend hike in the woods gave a boost to the immune system that lasted two to three days. 34. Recent studies show disturbing trends about children who regularly come home to an empty house: higher than average drop out rate, drug abuse, truancy and depression. 35. In Fort Myers, Florida, 80% of the adolescents who enrolled and participated in the STARS (Success Through Academics and Recreational Support) program improved their grades. 36. Across the U.S., access to parks and open spaces has become a measure of community wealth - a tool for attracting businesses and residents by guaranteeing quality of life and economic health. 37. It costs 100 times more to send a teen to jail than to provide preventative recreation programs. In Ohio, citizens paid approximately $40 per person for parks and recreation services as compared to almost $40,000 to jail one teenager. 38. Firms that provide for employee fitness and health programs experience decreased employee turnover. 39. Corporate CFOs say that employee quality of life is the third most important factor in locating a new business. Small company owners say recreation, parks, and open space are the highest priority in choosing a new location for their business. 40. Aquatics stimulates circulation, creates muscle tone and improves one's ability to control and maintain a healthy weight. 41. Swimming lessons teach safety awareness, which may prevent the loss of life. Supervision is still required, but being proficient in the water by teaching skills and safety is a primary benefit of quality swim lessons. 42. A study published in the journal Health Affairs found that people who are obese have 30 to 50 percent more chronic medical problems than smokers or drinkers. 43. Health complications linked to obesity such as heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, stroke and certain cancers raise an individual's healthcare costs by 36 percent and medication costs by 77 percent. 44. Less physical activity, more hours in front of the television, and a car -obsessed culture are all significant causes of America's growing obesity problem. 45. Eighty-eight percent of parents believe that participating in outdoor activities strengthens family relationships according to an REI national survey of parents with children ages four to 14. -� 46. Six in ten Americans participate in outdoor recreation at least monthly. The top objectives are fun, relaxation, stress relief, experiencing nature and exercise. 47. Americans who recreate frequently are notably happier with their lives than are other Americans. 48. A Brown University study reported that the United States could save $20 billion per year in healthcare costs if every American walked for an hour a day 49. The American Hotel & Lodging Association reported that Americans spent $150 billion on leisure related stays in 2000. That's 59% of the total American hotel/motel industry ($2.54 billion) for the year. "In my view wholesome pleasure, sport and recreation are as vital to this nation as productive work and should have a large share in the national budget." Walt Disney Advocacy Update: Top Ten Reasons Parks are Important ublic park and recreation facilities and programs offer countless values to our citi- zens and to our country. As advocates and supporters of parks and recreation who live these val- ues every day, we may sometimes take the uncounted benefits of parks and recreation for granted. So we don't lose sight of the forest for the trees, every once in awhile it is useful to remind ourselves of these basic values and reaffirm their essential worth. The following "top ten" list of park and recreation values are in no particular order, but this list of values encompass the range of why we collectively believe that public parks and recreation are an essential part of our national her- itage: 1. Public parks pro- vide millions of Amer- icans with the opportunity to be physi- cally active. Physical activity is an essen- tial part of an individual's efforts to stay healthy, fight obesity and prevent chronic conditions that lead to coro- nary disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. Having close -to -home access to places where one can recreate is one of the most important factors linking whether people will become active and stay that way. 2. Parks have true economic benefits. Proximity to a developed state, regional or community park improves property value. The economic benefits of park and recreation areas are manifold, but one of the most significant is the increase in value of private land adja- cent or near protected public land. The proximity of parks to residential areas leads to increased value of private land, a higher tax base and ultimately many economic benefits to a community including increased local and regional revenue from heritage tourism, steady jobs, and numerous small business benefits. Park and recreation areas are economic engines that improve the quality of life and make communities livable and desirable for businesses and homeowners. 3. Parks provide vital green space in a fast -developing American landscape, and provide vegetative buffers to con- struction and development, thus reduc- ing the effects of sprawl. More impor- tantly, parks and public lands also pro- vide groundwater recharge areas, flood - plain protection, natural sound barri- ers, stormwater protection from wet- lands, reductions in heat island effects, and carbon uptake from abundant trees and vegetation. Parks keep our living environment healthy. 4. Parks preserve critical wildlife habitat. As our nation develops and our rural, agricultural and forest landscape is being lost, open space and wildlife habitats are disappearing at an alarm- ing rate. The connected network of local, regional, state and national parks across our country provide perma- 14 P A R K S& R E C R E A T I O N 2 0 0 6 Ad1/•ocacy Update nently protected wildlife habitat corri- dors for thousands of indigenous and migratory wildlife species. In addition, stream valley parks and community parks allow natural wildlife to co -exist with people while providing enjoyment and educational opportunity for chil- dren and families. 5. Parks and recreation facilitate social interactions that are critical to maintaining community cohesion and pride. Parks provide a meeting place where community members can de- velop social ties, and where healthy behavior is modeled and admired. Peo- ple gather to share experiences, socialize and to build community bonds in com- mon green spaces. These public com- mons are often the glue that holds the community together and the means to maintaining and improving future pos- itive social interactions. 6. Leisure activities in parks improve moods, reduces stress and enhances a sense of wellness. In an increasingly complex world, more and more people are placing a high value on achieving the feelings of relaxation and peaceful- ness that contact with nature, recre- ation and exposure to natural open spaces bring. People go to the park to get in a better mood, to reinvigorate themselves and to decrease the anxieties of daily life. 7. Recreational programs provide organized, structured, enjoyable activi- ties for all ages. The diverse range of recreational programs offered by public park and recreation agencies offer all Americans the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to successfully and confidently engage in sports, dance, crafts and other social activities. Public recreation leagues and classes offer sen- iors, adults and children alike the op- portunity to interact with coaches and teachers who often turn into mentors and role models. Quality recreational programs facilitate safety, good sports- manship and community participation. 8. Community recreation services provide a refuge of safety for at -risk youth. Many parents are rightfully con- cerned with the dangers of unstruc- tured `hanging -out' or unsupervised after -school activities. Community rec- reation programs at public park and recreation facilities provide children with a safe refuge and a place to play, which are important in reducing at -risk behavior such as drug use and gang involvement. Recreational programs led by trained leaders offer children healthy role models and give valuable life les- TRIMS Grounds Management Software Call for a FREE DEMO (800) 608-7467 or (623) 266-1943 Email: info@trims.com or visit us at www.trims.com CIRCLE READER SERVICE CARD No. 24 sons to help steer youth to a future of promise and opportunity for success. 9. Therapeutic recreation is an outlet that individuals with disabilities have to be physically active, socially engaged and cognitively stimulated. A goal of all public recreation agencies is to provide access to all people. Public park and recreation agencies are the largest pro- viders in America of high -quality, life - enhancing, therapeutic recreation pro- grams and interventions. Such pro- grams prevent the on -set of secondary conditions due to inactivity, improve physical, social, emotional and cogni- tive functioning, and slow the onset regressive conditions. 10. Public parks embody the Ameri- can tradition of preserving public lands for the benefit and use of all. Since the creation of the first national park in the early 1900s and the subsequent devel- opment and growth of state, regional and local park systems in virtually every part of our nation, Americans have had a special relationship with their parks and public lands. A love of parks is one of the defining characteristics of our national identity. Americans love their parks, historic sites, national monu- ments, recreation areas and public open spaces because they bring such joy and pleasure to all people. In addition, the American public has shown time after time that they are willing to care for their parks, protect them, and pay for them. This "top ten" list is a resource for advocates to use in multiple ways —as background information to educate elected officials and members of Con- gress on the values of park and recre- ation; as key points when preparing tes- timony or letters; and as inspiration and positive reinforcement when the going gets tough. This list offers positive messages for why funding for park acquisition and development should be a priority as well as justification for why 16 PAR KS&RF CR EATIO N JANUARY 2006 recreation programming is essential in every community that cares about its youth, its families and its seniors. Citizens can and should carry these messages and not be shy about posing —and answering —this question to elected officials: "Why are parks and recreation resources important to our community?" These points can be help- ful to local advocates who campaign for bond initiatives to support open space conservation and park acquisition, and they will assist those who lobby their local, state or national legislators to support funds for recreational pro- gramming. Agencies can publish this list in their program guides and post it on their community and virtual bulletin boards. Policy and budgetary decision -makers at all levels, from city councils to eco- nomic development authorities to zon- ing boards to state legislatures need to be educated and informed about the true values of parks and recreation. Richard J. Dolesh is acting director of NRPAs Public Policy Division. Monica Hobbs Vinluan is the senior policy assoc- iate for health and wellness issues. Michael Phillips is policy anti advocacy specialist for the division. ut your advocacy in action, and bring your own list of why you value parks and recreation to the 2006 National Legislative Forum on Parks and Recreation, Feb.15-17, in Washington DC. Register now. Can't make it to the Legislative Forum? Send a fax or an e-mail to your United States Senators or Representative supporting NRPA's national legislative priorities and federal funding for parks and rec- reation during the National Legislative Forum Feb.15-17. For more informa- tion, see www.nrpa.org/ forum. CLEAN UP RECYCLE BEAUTIFY Do it all with trash and recycling receptacle holders. 20 to 55 gallon capacities. Flat or domed lids for trash or recycling. Round and square shapes. Slats of wood or recycled plastic in 9 colors. Vinyl coated steel designs in 5 colors. Powder coated steel designs in 3 colors. Disguise and protect your liner inside. Surface install or elevated post mounts. R. J. Thomas Mfg. Co., Inc. • P. O. Box 946 • Cherokee, IA 51012-0946 Ph: 712-225-5115 • 800-762-5002 • Fax: 712-225-5796 E-mail: pilotrock@r ffiomas.com • Web Site: www.pilotrock.com PLEASE CIRCLE READER SERVICE CARD No. 11 "The Clean S Most Economical Solution to Dog Pollution" r PLEASE CIRCLE READER SERVICE CARD No. 10 PARKS&RECREATION J A N U A R Y 2006 17 PARKS/REC-Butler, Joleen From: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy ant: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:28 PM Patti Wright Cc: cathy@baylock.com; terry@terrynagel.com; COUNCIL-O'Mahony Rosalie; COUNCIL - Keighran, Ann; COUNCIL -Cohen, Russ; PARKS/REC-Butler, Joleen Subject: RE: Burlingame Dog Park/Unruly Owner & Altered Dog Proposal Patti, Thank you for the email. I was contacted by the owner of the other dog in this "incident" and was asked to ban pit bulls, as you describe below. I explained to the owner (after verification from the City Attorney) that we cannot ban a breed of dog, solely based upon their breed. We can however ban an individual dog or owner because of their behavior at the Park. We do keep a Dog Bite Log of bites at the Dog Park and the signage at the Park asks owners to contact our Dept if any bite occurs. In the past three years, we have had three reported bites. The confrontation that involved your dog will not be entered into the log, as there was no bite, but the emails from both of you will be kept on file. I will pass along your email to the Parks & Recreation Commission for discussion about your suggestion for the spay neuter program. If they wish to pursue the item they can make a recommendation to the City Council for such an Ordinance. You are welcome to attend the Commission meeting and discuss this item. The Commission's next meeting will be at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, on Thursday, May 18th at 7:00pm. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this item further before going to Commission or ouncil. Randy Schwartz Parks & Recreation Director, City of Burlingame 860 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7307 Making Burlingame a Better Place to Live, Work and Play -----Original Message ----- From: Patti Wright [mailto:patti@sfsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:08 PM To: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy Cc: cathy@baylock.com; ter y@terrynagel.com; COUNCIL-O'Mahony Rosalie; COUNCIL -Keighran, Ann; COUNCIL -Cohen, Russ Subject: Burlingame Dog Park/Unruly Owner & Altered Dog Proposal Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to report an unruly dog owner who accosted and harassed me on Monday, May 1st at about 3 - 4 pm and to make a request that you consider a new regulation requiring that dogs be altered before entering the Burlingame Dog Park. own a mixed breed adopted dog. He is about 3 years old, neutered and well trained. I have taken several training classes through the SPCA and have worked diligently with private trainers. He has been in doggie daycare for nearly a year at Planet Pooch in Redwood City. We are currently working in a training class and with a private *rainer towards his Good Canine Citizenship Award through the SF SPCA. ""'Iy dog is not tolerant of puppies and will give a quick warning growl or down which is normal dog behavior. This is what happened on Monday, May 1st with the a German Shepherd and a Golden Retriever puppy. I immediately corrected my dog and began to leave the park as to not cause problems. The owner of the Shepherd puppy, who was not watching his dog, came and asked me what happened. When I informed him, he went on a tirade about Pit Bulls, called me names, etc. Honestly, 1 don't know if my dog is part Pit Bull and either does my vet. Regardless, the owner of the Shepherd puppy stated that he was writing to the council members to ban Pit Bulls from dog parks. Sadly, most people don't understand 'normal' dog behavior and what is know in the animal world as a correction of 'doggie manners' is seen by ill-informed as a full fledged attack. The owner needs to watch his/her dog and understand dog behavior. As you may or may not be aware the majority of dogs in shelters are mixed breed with some Pit Bull or pure? (whatever that is) Pit Bull. To ban a breed of dog based on a few horrific well publicized 'Pit Bull attacks' is over reactive. I understand the concern and I'm sensitive to others reactions. May owners of purebred dogs such as Akitas, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, were at one time considered by the public as vicious breeds. What I have witnessed as the major problems at dog parks are due to unaltered dogs, regardless of breed. The dogs my dog growled at were unaltered puppies that are still learning doggie manners. I am requesting that the Burlingame Dog Park require that dogs must be altered to enter the dog park. This would decrease at least 90% of the serious dog fights at all dog parks. Here are some links that support the facts of neutering/spay and aggression: http://www.northbay-canine.org/spaynouter-tKt.htm Kt.htm http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cis=2&cat=1626&articleid=911 http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.pix?P=A&A=1670 Also,1 respectfully request that the council review and consider adopting a mandatory spay neuter program fashioned after the Santa Cruz County Ordnance (link posted below): http://ordlink.comicodes/santacruzco/ DATAITITLE06/Chapter 6_10_REGULATION_OF ANIMAL/6_10_030 Mandatory_spaying ne.html Thank you for your time in this matter and your consideration of my proposal. Sincerely, Patti Wright City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation De t. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 �� 61JR1.ItCj,AME phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 recreationgburling_ame. org 4 'm *� Date: May 6, 2006 To: Parks & Recreation Commissioners City Council From: Randy Schwartz Re: Monthly Report Parks Division 1. Balance of $220,000 Proposition 40 bond funding for Pershing Park playground rehabilitation received from State. 2. Spring tree planting completed. 3. New bleachers installed at Bayside field #4. 4. Annuals installed in planting beds at SP Circle, ECR/Burlingame Avenue, and City Hall. Recreation Division Preschool 1. The lottery for Fall 2006 at Villager Park Preschool had approximately 60 families attend and all classes are filled with waiting lists. 2. The 3rd preschool fundraiser, with a "Parent's Night Out" reception and children's art auction, had approximately 75 adults and 50 children attend and raised approximately $8,000 in pledges. Youth Programs 3. Spring Break Tennis Camp was able to meet for 3 of the 4 days despite the rain with 54 participants 4. 6 -8d' Grade Spring Sports has begun with Tennis (50 players), Track and Field (60), Girls Lacrosse (21), Golf (16), Badminton (30) 5. YAC will be participating in the October 2006 Burlingame Relay for Life Adult Programs 6. Softball season finally began. Some leagues had to have their schedules modified due to the rain. 7. FREE Owner / Builder Workshop sponsored by Joe Cyr and the Building Dept. had 23 participants 8. Italian I class began with 21 participants 9. Adult Watercolor classes had 30 students (2 full classes) Senior Citizens Programs 10. Senior Citizens Bridge Tournament had 40 people 11. Emeritus Lecture 15 people "Communicating With your Dr. about advance care directives" 12. Carmel trip 20 people 13. De young trip 20 people 14. Bingo and Bag lunch 24 people every Tuesday bridge drop in 12 each week Movies 25-30 each week Upcoming Events 1. Burlingame/Millbrae Golf Tournament: May 22 2. Art in the Park: June 10 & 11 3. Music in the Park Concerts: July 2, 9, 16, 23, 30 4. 1' time Co-ed 4's Volleyball tournament: August BURLINGAME PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Collection Report April 2006 recreation Division Current Month 2005-06 COLL. YTD 2004-05 COLL. YTD 2003-04 COLL. YTD Dept Program Gross Refunds Current Net 01 Misc. Admin. 25.99 - 25.99 7,299.05 3013.33 3,596.36 10 Advertising - - 2,505.00 445.50 1,258.25 12 TixBks/ArtSls 5,310.30 - 5,310.30 46,902.07 38,428.01 33,286.00 13 Bldg. Rental 6,931.00 160.00 6,771.00 55,079.50 53 095.50 59,184.00 Rental Deposits 1,100.00 1,375.00 (275.00) 1,645.00 1,362.50 1,202.50 16 Park Permit 1,075.04 - 1,075.04 5,100.04 4644.00 4,500.00 1294 Pool Rental 5,800.00 5,800.00 32,513.00 14 015.66 7,397.75 20 Sr. Lunch - - - - 478.00 21 Sr. Activities 1,999.00 82.00 1,917.00 18,941.00 17 452.00 19,161.00 22 Teens 5,543.50 150.00 5,393.50 23,436.62 33 305.00 18,055.00 23 Jr. Teen Cams 9,028.00 - 9,028.00 17,008.75 26,742.25 23,733.00 24 PFRN - - - - 150.00 110.00 30 Pre-school 14,957.00 364.00 14,593.00 152,025.32 133,726.00 114,982.25 31 Pre-Sch. Class 13,265.75 166.00 13,099.75 126,520.00 127,686.19 93 965.37 41 Lang. Arts 1,068.00 - 1,068.00 9,549.00 9,567.00 12,227.50 44 Adult Art 9,682.50 211.00 9,471.50 85,469.50 89 72.60 76,641.50 45 Culina 2,192.00 2,192.00 6,246.50 5,994.00 7,245.00 46 Youth Art 27,120.25 41.00 27,079.25 77,603.50 49 849.50 38 302.25 47 Misc. Art - - - 42.00 442.75 413.00 48 Computers 326.00 - 326.00 1,242.00 2,053.00 2,086.53 49 Enrichment 8,475.00 107.00 8,368.00 116,026.58 77 307.00 4157320 50 Art in Park 15,600.00 - 15,600.00 17,380.00 2,165.00 19,805.00 60 Special Classes 2,539.96 181.00 2,358.96 20,009.96 14 992.00 15 426.70 61 Fitness 3,643.00 132.00 3,511.00 51,708.65 56170.40 61,034.26 62 Sort Classes 2,767.20 - 2,767.20 22,783.20 20638.50 27,944.00 70 Youth Campsrrrips 21,814.00 1,201.00 20,613.00 38,037.60 45 633.75 71 95.00 72 Contract Spits 60,659.00 - 60,659.00 114,701.30 118,661.00 106,197.00 80 Elem. Sports 6,477.00 - 6,477.00 40,302.00 41 093.50 45,461.00 81 BIS Sports 794.00 - 794.00 71,581.00 75,451.25 80 513.00 82 Tennis Lessons 18,567.50 128.00 18,439.50 39,709.00 39.026.00 35 601.00 83 Tennis Courts 128.00 - 128.00 6,934.75 4,797.25 4,935.00 84 Golf Classes 2,579.00 - 2,579.00 13,056.50 1Q683.00 9,383.76 85 Misc. Sports 2,426.00 - 2,426.00 18,147.00 18 401.00 19 609.22 86 Field L Rent 8,040.00 - 8,040.00 30,960.50 30 159.00 20456.00 87 Softball 410.00 - 410.00 39,619.99 48 476.85 44,925.50 88 Basketball 1,470.00 - 1,470.00 6,487.00 10,800.00 14.935.00 89 Volleyball 1,548.00 - 1,548.00 12,503.00 7,943.72 7,024.00 90 Yth A u.Class 49,896.75 814.00 49,082.75 72,920.75 73,779.19 55223.50 91 Adtt A u. Class 2,957.00 278.00 2,679.00 13,312.00 13,123.50 8,553.00 92 Lap Swim ORec 887.00 - 887.00 17,764.35 3,463.00 2,752.50 93 ' Rec Swim - - - 23,611.55 661.00 Yth Schlor. Fund 310.00 - 310.00 1,520.00 Sub Is 1 317,412.74 1 5,390.00 312,022.74 1,458,204.53 1,325,148.70 1,210,094.90 3,280.00 1 - 1 3,280.00 NE111JEW 45,530.95 1 43,083.00 $ 320,692.74 1 $ 5,390.00 1 315,302.74 1 $ 1,458,204.53 1 $ 1,370,679.65 1 $ 1,253,177.90 Parks Revenue - - 150.00 IS 1.275.00 IS 3.070.00 Field Prep Fees is - I $ 5,730.00 95 Golf Cards is _ I $ _ Dept Totals 1 $ 320,692.74 1 $ 5,390.00 315,302.74 1 $ 1,458,354.53 1 $ 1,371,954.65 1 $ 1,261,977.90 Aquatics Totals 1 6,687.001 1 6,687.00 1 100,055.30 1 63,670.61 1 53,233.25