Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/03/02 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Packet “We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.” City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928 PHONE: (707) 588-2227 FAX: (707) 792-1876 WEB: www.rpcity.org PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 2, 2026; 5:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Hall – Council Chambers 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Rohnert Park welcomes your attendance, interest, and participation in its meetings regularly scheduled the first Monday of each month (unless noticed otherwise) at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Members of the public are encouraged to observe the meeting on Cable Channel 26, by visiting meeting central on our website https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/city_council/meeting_central. Agendas and minutes may be viewed at the City's website: www.rpcity.org. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to comment at the scheduled time (limited to three minutes per appearance and a 30 minute total time limit, or allocation of time determined by Presiding Officer based on number of speaker cards submitted). Speakers are encouraged to complete a Public Comment card and submit it to the Clerk at the time of the meeting. This helps ensure an orderly and efficient meeting, but it is not required. ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices upon entering the Council Chamber because of electrical interference with the sound recording and TV projection systems. AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATION: Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email the ADA Coordinator at adacoordinator@rpcity.org or by calling 707- 588-2221. Notification at least 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the ADA Coordinator to use her best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is available on the City website at https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/human_resources/a_d_a_and_accessibility_resources “We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.” AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: A paper copy of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection at Rohnert Park Community Center, 5401 Snyder Ln, Rohnert Park, California 94928. Electronic copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection on https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/city_council/meeting_central. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at 5401 Snyder Ln, Rohnert Park, California 94928 and on our website at the same time. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to the City Council during the meeting will be made available for public inspection during meeting and on our website following the meeting. City of Rohnert Park March 2, 2026 Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 1. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION – CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL (Barrios_____ Bunker_____ Clark____Gazlay_____Tibbetts_____) 2. READING OF THE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The City of Rohnert Park acknowledges Indigenous Peoples as the traditional stewards of the land. Let it be acknowledged that the City of Rohnert Park is located within the traditional homelands of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, comprised of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo peoples. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons wishing to address the Commission on any Commission Agenda item or on City business not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Commission on any report item listed on the Agenda should submit a "Speaker Card" to the Recording Secretary before announcement of that agenda item. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Approval of minutes for the Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting of December 1, 2025 (This is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)). 6. COMMUNITY EVENTS UPDATE 7. RECREATION CONTRACT INSTRUCTOR PROGRAM EVALUATION (THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301) a. Staff Presentation i. Staff Report, Attachment b. Discussion 8. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY POLICY DEVELOPMENT UPDATE: IN-HOUSE RECREATION PROGRAM COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS AND SUBSIDY ALIGNMENT UPDATE (THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301) a. Staff Presentation i. Staff Report, Attachment b. Discussion 9. UPDATE ON ALICIA PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION PROJECT FUNDED BY MEASURE M - PARKS FOR ALL (THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301) a. Staff Presentation i. Attachment b. Discussion 10. LIAISON REPORTS “We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.” a. Golf Course Oversight Committee b. Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory c. Senior Citizen Advisory Commission 11. MATTERS TO AND FROM COMMISSIONERS Prior to agenda publication, any Commissioner may place an item on this portion of the agenda. Upon the concurrence of two Commissioners, the item may be added to a subsequent agenda for deliberation and action. In accordance with the Brown Act, at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, Commissioners may not add items hereunder, except for brief reports of his or her own activities or brief announcements regarding an event of community interest. 12. COMMUNICATIONS Copies of communications have been provided to the Commission for review prior to this meeting. Commissioners desiring to read or discuss any communication may do so at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Commission consideration. 13. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Silvia D. Carreno, Recording Secretary for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda for the March 2, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was posted and available for review on February 27, 2026 at Rohnert Park City Hall, Community and Senior Centers, Public Safety Main Building, and the Public Library. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org. Executed this 27th day of February at Rohnert Park, California. SilviaDCarreno Silvia D. Carreno, Recording Secretary ITEM NO. _7____________ 1 Meeting Date: March 2, 2026 Department: Community Services Prepared By: Ari Neuenkirk, Community Services Coordinator Agenda Title: Recreation Contract Instructor Program Evaluation RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive an informational update from staff regarding the Recreation Contract Instructor Program evaluation results for the Fall 2025 session. BACKGROUND The Recreation Department utilizes contract instructors to deliver specialized recreational programming serving residents ages 1 to 99. Through this model, the Department provides diverse wellness, enrichment, and skill-building opportunities to approximately 1,800 participants annually. A recreational contract instructor is an independent contractor who delivers instruction or program facilitation on behalf of the City under a formal agreement. While not City employees, contract instructors are selected for their subject-matter expertise and are responsible for curriculum delivery, participant engagement, and safe program operation. The Department provides administrative oversight, facility access, marketing, registration management, and quality assurance. The contract model allows the City to expand program offerings in a fiscally responsible manner while maintaining standards for safety, professionalism, and participant experience. The Department currently partners with 29 contract instructors: •21 year-round in-person instructors •3 seasonal instructors (summer camps) •3 virtual instructors •2 volunteer instructors To ensure program quality and responsible stewardship of public resources, the Department conducted an evaluation of contract-led classes using a standardized observation tool. During the Fall 2025 session, 19 classes taught by 13 contract instructors were evaluated through in-person observations conducted by Recreation staff. Programs evaluated during Fall 2025 reflected the Department’s diverse offerings, including fitness and wellness, dance, sports instruction, early childhood enrichment, arts and creative classes, academic support, and virtual specialty programs. Evaluation findings support continuous improvement, inform contract Mission Statement “We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.” CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Parks and Recreation Commission Report ITEM NO. _7____________ 2 renewal decisions, and reinforce the Department’s commitment to high-quality, inclusive programming. ANALYSIS Overall, the Fall 2025 contract instructor evaluations indicate a strong and well-managed program that aligns with the City’s goals for delivering accessible, high-quality recreational services. Across all evaluated classes, the department-wide average score was 4.65 out of 5, reflecting consistently high performance. More than 90 percent of all ratings across evaluation categories received scores of 4 or higher, demonstrating a high level of instructional effectiveness and participant satisfaction. Evaluation Criteria Each class was evaluated using the following criteria: •Overall Class Environment •Instructor Effectiveness •Class Flow and Content •Participant Engagement and Energy •Overall Impression Ratings were based on a 1–5 scale, with 5 representing excellent performance. Key Strengths Identified Evaluations highlighted several notable strengths across the program: •Instructors were consistently prepared, knowledgeable, and engaging •High levels of participant engagement and positive energy, particularly in fitness, dance, and youth-focused programs •Welcoming, inclusive class environments that support participant retention and repeat enrollment These strengths contribute directly to program quality, participant satisfaction, and continued community participation. Opportunities for Continuous Improvement While overall performance was very strong, evaluations identified minor opportunities for program refinement. These items are considered enhancements rather than performance concerns and include: •Adjusting class pacing or structure in programs with smaller or mixed-skill enrollments •Providing additional instructional tools or resources for instructors working with diverse participant groups •Reviewing class pricing structures to support equitable access while maintaining cost recovery goals •Exploring scholarship opportunities to reduce financial barriers to participation •Strengthening marketing and outreach efforts, including social media, email campaigns, and event-based promotion, to increase program awareness and enrollment ITEM NO. _7____________ 3 Department Actions and Next Steps Based on the evaluation results, the Recreation Department will: •Share individualized, confidential feedback summaries with contract instructors •Expand professional development opportunities, including optional peer collaboration and best practice sharing sessions •Periodically distribute contract instructor guidance and best practice updates to reinforce program standards and expectations •Continue annual evaluation cycles to monitor performance trends and maintain high- quality programming •Integrate participant survey data, where available, to further inform program assessment •Review pricing structures and explore scholarship options to balance accessibility and sustainability •Enhance targeted marketing efforts to increase program visibility and participation CONCLUSION The Fall 2025 evaluation results demonstrate that the City’s contract instructor programs are operating at a high level and providing meaningful value to the community. Ongoing evaluation, professional development, and program refinement will support continued excellence, accountability, and alignment with community needs. PROGRAM EVALUATION SUMMARY Recreation Contract Instructor Rohnert Park Community Services Session: Fall 2025 Presenter: Arianna Neuenkirk Community Services Program Coordinator OVERVIEW The Recreation Department utilizes contract instructors to deliver specialized recreational programming serving residents ages 1 to 99+. The Department provides diverse wellness, enrichment, and skill-building opportunities to approximately 1,800 participants annually. 29 Total Contract Instructors 19 classes evaluated - 13 instructors observed (Fall 2025) In-Person Observations using a standardized rating tool OVERVIEW Evaluated Programs Include: Adult Fitness & Wellness (Yoga, Dancercise, Zumba) Dance Programs (Line Dancing, Belly Dance, Ballet) Youth/Adult Sports & Skill Development (Soccer, Tennis, Pickleball) Arts & Creative Classes (Drawing, Acrylic Painting, Fused Glass) Department-wide average score: 4.65 out of 5 Instructor effectiveness and participant engagement rated highest Over 90% of all evaluation scores were 4 or higher Programs align with City goals for high-quality services KEY FINDINGS CATEGORIES ASSESSED Class Environment Instructor Effectiveness Class Flow and Content Participant Engagement and Energy Overall Impression Evaluation Prepared, knowledgeable, and engaging instructors Strong participant engagement (fitness, dance, youth programs) Positive and inclusive class environments Supports participant retention and satisfaction NOTABLE STRENGTHS Refine class pacing and structure for small or mixed-skill enrollments Expand instructional support resources for diverse participant needs Evaluate pricing models to promote equitable access Explore scholarship opportunities Balance cost recovery goals with community access priorities Strengthen marketing and outreach (social media, email, event tabling) CONTINUED IMPROVEMENTOpportunitiesfor Provide individualized feedback to contract instructors Expand peer collaboration opportunities Share periodic guidance and best practice updates with instructors Continue annual evaluations to track trends and maintain quality Incorporate participant survey data to strengthen analysis Evaluate pricing to support equitable access and cost recovery balance Explore scholarship options Enhance targeted marketing to increase visibility and enrollment ACTIONS & NEXT STEPSDepartment Fall 2025 results demonstrate high program quality Programs deliver meaningful value to residents Ongoing evaluation ensures continued excellence and accountability CONCLUSION THANKYou! Arianna Neuenkirk Community Services Program Coordinator ITEM NO. 8 1 Meeting Date: March 2, 2025 Department: Community Services Prepared By: Cindy Bagley, Director of Community Services Agenda Title: Financial Sustainability Policy Development Update: In-House Recreation Program Cost Recovery Analysis and Subsidy Alignment Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a report from staff regarding the evaluation of in-house program cost recovery and subsidy alignment. BACKGROUND: In June 2025, staff presented the City Council with the framework for a multi-phase Financial Sustainability Policy designed to create consistent, transparent, and financially responsible cost recovery and subsidy practices across the Community Services Department. Currently, the Recreation and Performing Arts Center (PAC) Divisions track program-level costs to meet the cost recovery goals set by the City Council through the Community Services Program Cost Recovery Policy. However, facility operating costs, currently held within Public Works, are not integrated into program pricing or subsidy evaluations. The goal of the new Financial Sustainability Policy is to create a unified model that incorporates both program costs and facility costs, and that evaluates subsidy levels based on broader service categories rather than individual program types. At the June 2025 meeting, the City Council approved staff’s recommendation to establish the following Service Categories and associated target cost recovery/subsidy levels: Service Category Target Cost Recovery Recommended City Subsidy Community Benefit Programs 0% 100% subsidy Transportation & Accessibility 0–25% 75–100% subsidy Animal Welfare & Safety 25–50% 50–75% subsidy Lifelong Learning & Enrichment 40–70% 30–60% subsidy Youth Development 50–75% 25–50% subsidy Recreation & Drop-In Access 60–80% 20–40% subsidy Health, Fitness & Wellness 60–90% 10–40% subsidy Cultural & Performing Arts 60–100% 0–40% subsidy Instructional Programs 70–100% 0–30% subsidy Mission Statement “We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.” CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Parks and Recreation Commission ITEM NO. 8 2 Service Category Target Cost Recovery Recommended City Subsidy Facility Rentals & Access 80–125%+ 0% subsidy or revenue-generating In December, 2025 staff presented a report to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council informing each the costs association with maintaining recreation facilities. These costs represented Public Works costs only. The results at that time are listed below: • Sports Center: $363,922 • Spreckels Performing Arts Center: $293,922 • Community Center: $171,844 • Senior Center: $123,835 • Gold Ridge Recreation Center: $65,760 • Burton Recreation Center: $57,568 • Ladybug Building: $9,838 • Benicia Recreation Building: $5,139 • Scout Hut: $2,257 These reflect the total expenses required to operate, maintain, and support each facility. As stated earlier in this report, these costs do not include any Community Services costs, only Public Works costs. With the data available on the cost of maintenance for each facility, staff was able to begin to calculate the true cost of the programs and services of the City’s Community Services Department. This report will reveal the fully burdened cost of in-house programs which includes the city-operated youth camps (preschool, school-aged, and teen), and the city’s aquatics programming (recreation swim, lap swim, group and private swim lessons). ANALYSIS: To determine the fully burdened cost of each program, staff included the following costs: A. Direct Costs Direct costs include all expenses that occur specifically because the program exists. These include: • Materials • Part-time staff B. Indirect Costs These are costs that would likely exists whether the program existed or not. These costs include: • Indirect materials – these are things such as the Recreation Guide, Lifeguard certifications, pool equipment not specifically connected to a particular program, registration software, etc. • Indirect staffing – this is full-time supervisory and administrative staff • Other indirect costs – these include costs for internal services such as Fleet, IT, Humand Resource, Finance, and City Administration. C. Facilities Costs ITEM NO. 8 3 Using the methodology presented to the Commission December, 2025, staff were able to determine how much each room in a facility costs per hour. Staff calculated the number of hours each program used to determine how much facility to attribute to each. Table A below shows the programs that were evaluated, the subsidy target set by the City Council and how the program is currently performing in comparison to that target. Table A: Fully Burdened Subsidy Analysis Program Total # of Participants City Subsidy ($) Per participant City Subsidy ($) Total City Subsidy (%) Target Subsidy (%) Status Camp Burton 335 $348 $116,497 70% 25–50% Misses Target Preschool Camp 33 $238 $7,843 67% 25–50% Misses Target Teen Camp 77 $344 $26,462 58% 25-50% Narrowly Misses Target Group Swim Lessons 1,205 $151 $182,041 72% 25–50% Misses Target Private Swim Lessons 115 $140 $16,201 54% 0–30% Misses Target Recreation Swim Uknown Unknown $116,772* 71% 20–40% Misses Target Lap Swim Unknown Unknown $217,120* 92% 10–40% Extreme Gap Pool Concessions Unknown Unknown $2,630 22% 0% Misses Target *The number of participants for rec swim and lap swim is unknown because registration is not required for these programs. The subsidy percentage was calculated based on revenue and expenses. For comparison, Table B below shows how in-house programs performed in 2024 based on the City’s current Recreation Program Cost Recovery Policy. For the purposes of this report staff converted the cost recovery to subsidy in order to provide a direct comparison to Table A: Table B: Subsidy Analysis 2024 Based on Cost Recovery Policy Program City Subsidy in $ City Subsidy in % Target Subsidy Status Camp Burton $23,697 29% 1-20% Narrowly Misses Target ITEM NO. 8 4 Program City Subsidy in $ City Subsidy in % Target Subsidy Status Preschool Camp $1,486 28% 1-20% Narrowly Misses Target Teen Camp $4,382 19% 1-20% Narrowly in Target Group Swim $0 0% 21-50% Exceeds Target Private Swim -$3,637 -36% 0–30% Far Exceeds Target Recreation Swim $2,976 6% 86-100% Far Exceeds Target Lap Swim $62,075 72% 21-50% Misses Target The data in Table B shows that in-house programs appear to be meeting or doing better than the required cost recovery targets. This is because the current policy calculates program costs as direct expenses plus an added 35% to cover indirect costs. The 35% overhead is only applied to the camp programs and is not applied to swim lessons or recreation swim. When the policy was first adopted, the indirect costs that were considered mainly included full-time staff who supervise part-time staff. The 35% was meant to estimate those support costs. Table A uses a different method. It includes all costs related to running a program, not just direct expenses. This includes indirect staff, shared materials, and facility costs such as utilities, maintenance, and building operations. These costs are assigned based on how much time and space each program actually uses, instead of applying a flat percentage. In addition some of the programs like recreation swim were identified to have a high community benefit under the current cost recovery policy allowing for 100% subsidy. Under the new service categories and subsidy requirements, recreation swim was put into the Recreation and Drop-In Access with a 20-40% subsidy, which drastically changes how fees would need to be assessed. When staff reviewed costs outside the Community Services Department budget and include the full cost to the City to run these programs, it becomes clear that the City is covering a much larger share of the cost than what was shown under the 35% overhead model. What Next? The next step is to evaluate both the current cost structure of in-house programs and the target subsidy levels identified in June 2025 for each service category. In order to meet subsidy requirements in Table A, the following increases would need to occur across each program area to meet the highest subsidy allowable by policy: Program Participants Current Subsidy % Target Subsidy Used Added Revenue Needed Added $ per Participant/Visit Total Cost per session*/visit** with added $ Camp Burton* 335 70% 50% $33,285 $99 $274 Preschool Camp* 33 67% 50% $1,990 $60 $175 ITEM NO. 8 5 Program Participants Current Subsidy % Target Subsidy Used Added Revenue Needed Added $ per Participant/Visit Total Cost per session*/visit** with added $ Teen Camp* 77 58% 50% $3,650 $47 $292 Group Swim Lessons* 1,205 72% 50% $55,624 $46 $106 Private Swim Lessons* 115 54% 30% $7,200 $63 $183 Recreation Swim** 71% 40% $50,985 $5.88 $10.88 Lap Swim** 92% 40% $122,720 $35.75 $41.73 When the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council initially recommended and approved the service categories and subsidy levels, they did so with the knowledge that staff would be evaluating the effect on current program and service fees. This report is the first to identify those impacts. Some of the recommended fee increases may not affect participation and are in line with the market rate for similar services across the North Bay. However, other increases would not be realistic. For example, charging more than $40 per visit for lap swim in order to meet subsidy targets is not practical. This shows that not every program can reach its target subsidy level through fee increases alone. If staff adjust fees only for the five highest-enrollment programs (Camp Burton, Preschool Camp, Teen Camp, Group Swim Lessons, and Private Swim Lessons) the City would collect about $101,000 more in revenue each year. This amount shows how much subsidy decisions affect the City’s overall financial picture. Looking at the full cost of programs helps the City make informed decisions to remain financially stable in the future. Staff recommend keeping the youth development service category and subsequent subsidy level and adjust fees beginning in Summer 2027 to meet that goal for the following programs: 1. Camp Burton 2. Preschool Camp 3. Teen Camp 4. Group Swim Lessons 5. Private Swim Lessons Staff also recognize that some families may not be able to afford higher fees. To help maintain access, staff recommend creating a financial assistance or scholarship program for families with demonstrated ITEM NO. 8 6 need. This approach would allow the City to move closer to its subsidy targets while still supporting equitable access to programs. Lap Swim and Recreation Swim are different from camps and lessons. They are open-access programs that support health, fitness, and family recreation. Because of the high cost to operate the pool, these programs show large subsidy gaps under the fully burdened cost model. However, raising fees enough to meet current subsidy targets would not be realistic. Subsidy Alignment Recommendations Based on the current cost recovery policy Camp Burton and Preschool Camp do not meet their target subsidy requirements per policy, which means that fees will need to be adjusted for Summer 2026. Teen Camp is narrowly within the policy and should be adjusted as well. Staff will increase Camp Burton and Preschool Camp by 20% and Teen Camp by 10%. This will bring those programs into their current policy target and allows the City to move toward the future subsidy targets gradually instead of making large changes all at once. The 2026 fees for in-house camps this summer will be: • Camp Burton – $210 = 15% Subsidy • Preschool Camp – $138 = 14% Subsidy • Teen Camp – $269 = 11% Subsidy For Lap Swim, staff do not recommend large fee increases. Charging $30 or $40 per visit is not practical and would likely reduce participation. Instead, staff recommend a more holistic approach by considering a small fee increase by adding less than $5 to the cost per visit, reviewing discount passes, evaluating the schedule to reduce low-attendance time blocks, and evaluating whether lap swim shou allowed a higher subsidy level. In addition, members at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center only pay an additional $7 per month to add unlimited lap swim. While that $7 is applied to the aquatics revenue, it does not come close to recovering the use of pool patrons that use the pool more than two times a month. The current $7 per month unlimited access does not reflect the true cost of providing pool access, especially for members who swim frequently. Staff recommend evaluating the unlimited option and consider alternative approaches such as: • Creating a separate lap swim membership with pricing that better reflects actual usage • Limiting the number of lap swim visits included in the fitness package, or • Removing bundled access entirely and requiring payment per visit. For Recreation Swim, a moderate fee increase may be reasonable for 2027 if it remains within the Recreation and Drop-In Access category. Moving from approximately $6 per visit to $8 or $9 may reduce subsidy while remaining within the local market range. In both cases, staff recommend balancing financial sustainability with community access. Large price increases alone will not solve the subsidy gap. A combination of modest fee adjustments, operational review, and policy alignment is a more realistic approach. Service Category Considerations Staff continue to review the service categories and how programs are placed within them. Right now, the “Animal Welfare & Safety” category only includes animal services. However, staff believe that programs that protect the health and safety of the community should also be included in this category. ITEM NO. 8 7 For that reason, staff recommend changing the name of the category to “Community Welfare & Safety.” This change would not remove animal shelter services from the category. Instead, it would make it clear that other safety-focused programs, such as beginning swim lessons, could also be included. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the City’s action would cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. STRATEGIC PLAN AND COUNCIL GOALS/PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT: This item is in line with the City Council priority of Financial Sustainability and Community Quality of Life. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: Staff Recommended Option – Discuss the findings presented in this report and provide staff a recommendation regarding the proposed options as follows: 1. Keep the Youth Services category and the subsidy level associated with it 2. Increase fees to meet the subsidy category in 2027 for the following in-house programs:  Camp Burton  Preschool Camp  Teen Camp  Group Swim Lessons  Private Swim Lessons 3. Evaluate the unlimited lap swim option in the sports center membership category 4. Evaluate subsidy category for recreation swim and lap swim 5. Change Animal Welfare & Safety to Community Welfare & Safety Other Options: 1. This is an interactive process, so the Parks and Recreation Commission can make alternative suggestions to anything presented in this report. 3/5/2026 1 In-House Recreation Program Fully Burdened Subsidy Analysis Presented By Cindy Bagley Director of Community Services Why This Matters? In June, 2025 Council approved service categories and subsidy targets. In June, 2025 Council approved service categories and subsidy targets. At that time staff were directed to evaluate program fees under that frameworkAt that time staff were directed to evaluate program fees under that framework Today we will look at what happens when we apply the full costs to the program Today we will look at what happens when we apply the full costs to the program 1 2 3/5/2026 2 Service Category and Subsidy Refresher RECOMMENDED CITY SUBSIDYTARGET COST RECOVERYSERVICE CATEGORY 100% subsidy0%Community Benefit Programs 75–100% subsidy0–25%Transportation & Accessibility 50–75% subsidy25–50%Animal Welfare & Safety 30–60% subsidy40–70%Lifelong Learning & Enrichment 25–50% subsidy50–75%Youth Development 20–40% subsidy60–80%Recreation & Drop-In Access 10–40% subsidy60–90%Health, Fitness & Wellness 0–40% subsidy60–100%Cultural & Performing Arts 0–30% subsidy70–100%Instructional Programs 0% subsidy or revenue- generating80–125%+Facility Rentals & Access What is Different Community Investment Type of Cost Target Minimum Cost Recovery by Level Levels 86-100%Direct Cost0-14%Level 1 – Mostly Community Benefit 51-85%Direct Cost15-49%Level 2 – Considerable Community Benefit 21-50%Direct Cost50-79%Level 3 – Individual and Community Benefit 1-20%Direct + Indirect Cost 80-99%Level 4 – Considerable Individual Benefit 0%Direct + Indirect Cost 100%Level 5 – Mostly Individual Benefit 3 4 3/5/2026 3 What is different (continued) •Direct Costs • Direct Costs + 35% Overhead Current Policy •Direct Costs • Internal Indirect Costs • External Indirect Costs • Facility Operating Costs New Model Facility Costs Sports Center: $363,922 Spreckels Performing Arts Center: $293,922 Community Center: $171,844 Senior Center:$123,835 Gold Ridge Recreation Center: $65,760 Burton Recreation Center:$57,568 Ladybug Building:$9,838 Benicia Recreation Building:$5,139 Scout Hut: $2,257 5 6 3/5/2026 4 Fully Burdened Subsidy Results Status Target Subsidy (%) City Subsidy (%) City Subsidy ($) Total City Subsidy ($) Per participant Total # of ParticipantsProgram Misses Target25–50%70%$116,497$348335Camp Burton Misses Target25–50%67%$7,843$238 33Preschool Camp Narrowly Misses Target 25-50%58% $26,462$34477 Teen Camp Misses Target25–50%72%$182,041$1511,205Group Swim Lessons Misses Target0–30%54%$16,201$140115Private Swim Lessons Misses Target20–40%71%$116,772*UnknownUknownRecreation Swim Extreme Gap10–40%92%$217,120*UnknownUnknownLap Swim Misses Target0%22%$2,630UnknownUnknownPool Concessions Subsidy Results Under Current Policy StatusTarget SubsidyCity Subsidy in %City Subsidy in $Program Narrowly Misses Target1-20%29%$23,697Camp Burton Narrowly Misses Target1-20%28%$1,486Preschool Camp Narrowly in Target1-20%19%$4,382Teen Camp Exceeds Target21-50%0%$0Group Swim Far Exceeds Target0–30%-36%-$3,637Private Swim Far Exceeds Target86-100%6%$2,976Recreation Swim Misses Target21-50%72%$62,075Lap Swim 7 8 3/5/2026 5 What Would it Take to Meet Targets? Total Cost per session*/visit** with added $ Added $ per Participant/Visit Added Revenue Needed Target Subsidy Used Current Subsidy %ParticipantsProgram $274$99$33,28550%70%335Camp Burton* $175$60$1,99050%67%33Preschool Camp* $292$47$3,65050%58%77Teen Camp* $106$46$55,62450%72%1,205Group Swim Lessons* $183$63$7,20030%54%115Private Swim Lessons* $10.88$5.88$50,98540%71%Recreation Swim** $41.73$35.75$122,72040%92%Lap Swim** Potential Financial Impact •If only adjusted Camp Burton, Preschool Camp, Teen Camp, Group Swim Lessons, and Private Swim Lessons, that would increase revenue by $101,000 •Adjusting fees to the rates suggested in the previous slide are not likely to impact registration •Maintain a subsidy program for those that can’t afford programs 9 10 3/5/2026 6 2026 Adjustments •Camp Burton +20% → $210 •Preschool +20% → $138 •Teen +10% → $269 •Moves toward target without major shock. Lap Swim Structure Current Issue Sports Center Fitness Package - $7 added for unlimited lap swim Frequent users do not add revenue after two visits if they also use the gym Staff recommend evaluating other options: Remove unlimited option Create separate lap swim membership Limit included visits Or move to pay-per-visit only 11 12 3/5/2026 7 Recreation Swim Adjustment for 2027 Moderate increase recommended: $6 → $8 or $9 Remain within local market range. Large increases not realistic. Service Category Adjustment Rename: Animal Welfare & Safety → Community Welfare & Safety Clarifies inclusion of safety-based programs. 13 14 3/5/2026 8 Recommendations •Staff Recommended Option –Discuss the findings presented in this report and provide staff a recommendation regarding the proposed options as follows: •Keep the Youth Services category and the subsidy level associated with it •Increase fees to meet the subsidy category in 2027 for the following in-house programs: •Camp Burton •Preschool Camp •Teen Camp •Group Swim Lessons •Private Swim Lessons •Evaluate the unlimited lap swim option in the sports center membership category •Evaluate subsidy category for recreation swim and lap swim •Change Animal Welfare & Safety to Community Welfare & Safety Comments, Questions, Discussion 15 16 1" = 20'scale 20 0 20 feet 40 TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THIS MAP. CHANGES TO THIS MAP MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVED TOPOGRAPHIC SURFACE FEATURES AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THESE FACILITIES OR FOR THE INADVERTENT OMISSION OF RELATED INFORMATION. TREE DIAMETERS ARE MEASURED AT CHEST HEIGHT (48”). DRIPLINE DIAMETERS AND TREE SPECIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. MISCELLANEOUS BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM RECORD DRAWINGS. BASIS OF BEARINGS: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83)(2011) CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 2, EPOCH 2026.00. BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FIELD OBSERVED TIES TO THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK USING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS) METHODS. TEMPORARY BENCHMARK: MAG NAIL, LOCATION SHOWN HEREON, ELEVATION 99.87 (DATUM NAVD 88 BY GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK). EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS PROVIDED BY RALPH THOMAS, PLS 4760, FIELD SURVEY DATE: JANUARY 20, 2026 AND JANUARY 27, 2026. SYMBOLS & LEGEND EXISTING BENCHMARK SIGN LIGHT POLE GUY ANCHOR UTILITY POLE TREE TREE CLUSTER PROPERTY LINE FENCE STORM DRAIN OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE CONCRETE DETECTABLE WARNING AC ASPHALT CONCRETE APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BBQ BARBEQUE GRILL BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR BLDG BUILDING BM BENCHMARK CONC CONCRETE ELEV ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR GI GRATE INLET INV BOTTOM INSIDE OF PIPE OVH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE RWTR RECLAIMED WATER SD STORM DRAIN TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UB UTILITY BOX ABBREVIATIONS COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2026 2 AL I C I A P A R K P L A Y G R O U N D R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T AP N 1 4 3 - 0 6 1 - 0 1 6 30 0 A R L E N D R I V E , R O H N E R T P A R K C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 2 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 6 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 11 1 S A N T A R O S A A V E SU I T E 1 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 4 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 252153 SITE.dwgPlo t F e b 0 2 , 2 0 2 6 a t 7 : 4 6 a m 2 TO P O G R A P H I C M A P 51 MASTERPLAN OVERLAY 1" = 20'scale 20 0 20 feet 40 TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THIS MAP. CHANGES TO THIS MAP MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVED TOPOGRAPHIC SURFACE FEATURES AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THESE FACILITIES OR FOR THE INADVERTENT OMISSION OF RELATED INFORMATION. TREE DIAMETERS ARE MEASURED AT CHEST HEIGHT (48”). DRIPLINE DIAMETERS AND TREE SPECIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. MISCELLANEOUS BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM RECORD DRAWINGS. BASIS OF BEARINGS: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83)(2011) CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 2, EPOCH 2026.00. BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FIELD OBSERVED TIES TO THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK USING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS) METHODS. TEMPORARY BENCHMARK: MAG NAIL, LOCATION SHOWN HEREON, ELEVATION 99.87 (DATUM NAVD 88 BY GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK). EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS PROVIDED BY RALPH THOMAS, PLS 4760, FIELD SURVEY DATE: JANUARY 20, 2026 AND JANUARY 27, 2026. SYMBOLS & LEGEND EXISTING BENCHMARK SIGN LIGHT POLE GUY ANCHOR UTILITY POLE TREE TREE CLUSTER PROPERTY LINE FENCE STORM DRAIN OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE CONCRETE DETECTABLE WARNING AC ASPHALT CONCRETE APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BBQ BARBEQUE GRILL BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR BLDG BUILDING BM BENCHMARK CONC CONCRETE ELEV ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR GI GRATE INLET INV BOTTOM INSIDE OF PIPE OVH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE RWTR RECLAIMED WATER SD STORM DRAIN TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UB UTILITY BOX ABBREVIATIONS COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2026 2 AL I C I A P A R K P L A Y G R O U N D R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T AP N 1 4 3 - 0 6 1 - 0 1 6 30 0 A R L E N D R I V E , R O H N E R T P A R K C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 2 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 6 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 11 1 S A N T A R O S A A V E SU I T E 1 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 4 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 252153 SITE.dwgPlo t F e b 0 2 , 2 0 2 6 a t 7 : 5 4 a m 1 TO P O G R A P H I C M A P TOPO OVERLAY -MASTERPLAN LOCATION 52 1" = 20'scale 20 0 20 feet 40 TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THIS MAP. CHANGES TO THIS MAP MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVED TOPOGRAPHIC SURFACE FEATURES AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THESE FACILITIES OR FOR THE INADVERTENT OMISSION OF RELATED INFORMATION. TREE DIAMETERS ARE MEASURED AT CHEST HEIGHT (48”). DRIPLINE DIAMETERS AND TREE SPECIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. MISCELLANEOUS BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM RECORD DRAWINGS. BASIS OF BEARINGS: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83)(2011) CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 2, EPOCH 2026.00. BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FIELD OBSERVED TIES TO THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK USING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS) METHODS. TEMPORARY BENCHMARK: MAG NAIL, LOCATION SHOWN HEREON, ELEVATION 99.87 (DATUM NAVD 88 BY GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK). EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS PROVIDED BY RALPH THOMAS, PLS 4760, FIELD SURVEY DATE: JANUARY 20, 2026 AND JANUARY 27, 2026. SYMBOLS & LEGEND EXISTING BENCHMARK SIGN LIGHT POLE GUY ANCHOR UTILITY POLE TREE TREE CLUSTER PROPERTY LINE FENCE STORM DRAIN OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE CONCRETE DETECTABLE WARNING AC ASPHALT CONCRETE APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BBQ BARBEQUE GRILL BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR BLDG BUILDING BM BENCHMARK CONC CONCRETE ELEV ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR GI GRATE INLET INV BOTTOM INSIDE OF PIPE OVH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE RWTR RECLAIMED WATER SD STORM DRAIN TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UB UTILITY BOX ABBREVIATIONS COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2026 2 AL I C I A P A R K P L A Y G R O U N D R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T AP N 1 4 3 - 0 6 1 - 0 1 6 30 0 A R L E N D R I V E , R O H N E R T P A R K C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 2 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 6 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 11 1 S A N T A R O S A A V E SU I T E 1 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 4 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 252153 SITE.dwgPlo t F e b 0 2 , 2 0 2 6 a t 8 : 1 0 a m 1 TO P O G R A P H I C M A P 53 TOPO OVERLAY -ALTERNATIVE LOCATION 1 1" = 20'scale 20 0 20 feet 40 TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THIS MAP. CHANGES TO THIS MAP MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVED TOPOGRAPHIC SURFACE FEATURES AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THESE FACILITIES OR FOR THE INADVERTENT OMISSION OF RELATED INFORMATION. TREE DIAMETERS ARE MEASURED AT CHEST HEIGHT (48”). DRIPLINE DIAMETERS AND TREE SPECIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. MISCELLANEOUS BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM RECORD DRAWINGS. BASIS OF BEARINGS: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83)(2011) CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 2, EPOCH 2026.00. BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FIELD OBSERVED TIES TO THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK USING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS) METHODS. TEMPORARY BENCHMARK: MAG NAIL, LOCATION SHOWN HEREON, ELEVATION 99.87 (DATUM NAVD 88 BY GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK). EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS PROVIDED BY RALPH THOMAS, PLS 4760, FIELD SURVEY DATE: JANUARY 20, 2026 AND JANUARY 27, 2026. SYMBOLS & LEGEND EXISTING BENCHMARK SIGN LIGHT POLE GUY ANCHOR UTILITY POLE TREE TREE CLUSTER PROPERTY LINE FENCE STORM DRAIN OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE CONCRETE DETECTABLE WARNING AC ASPHALT CONCRETE APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BBQ BARBEQUE GRILL BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR BLDG BUILDING BM BENCHMARK CONC CONCRETE ELEV ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR GI GRATE INLET INV BOTTOM INSIDE OF PIPE OVH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE RWTR RECLAIMED WATER SD STORM DRAIN TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UB UTILITY BOX ABBREVIATIONS COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2026 2 AL I C I A P A R K P L A Y G R O U N D R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T AP N 1 4 3 - 0 6 1 - 0 1 6 30 0 A R L E N D R I V E , R O H N E R T P A R K C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 2 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 6 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 11 1 S A N T A R O S A A V E SU I T E 1 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 4 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 252153 SITE.dwgPlo t F e b 0 2 , 2 0 2 6 a t 8 : 0 0 a m 1 TO P O G R A P H I C M A P 54 TOPO OVERLAY -ALTERNATIVE LOCATION 2 1" = 20'scale 20 0 20 feet 40 TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THIS MAP. CHANGES TO THIS MAP MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVED TOPOGRAPHIC SURFACE FEATURES AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THESE FACILITIES OR FOR THE INADVERTENT OMISSION OF RELATED INFORMATION. TREE DIAMETERS ARE MEASURED AT CHEST HEIGHT (48”). DRIPLINE DIAMETERS AND TREE SPECIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. MISCELLANEOUS BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM RECORD DRAWINGS. BASIS OF BEARINGS: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83)(2011) CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 2, EPOCH 2026.00. BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FIELD OBSERVED TIES TO THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK USING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS) METHODS. TEMPORARY BENCHMARK: MAG NAIL, LOCATION SHOWN HEREON, ELEVATION 99.87 (DATUM NAVD 88 BY GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK). EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS PROVIDED BY RALPH THOMAS, PLS 4760, FIELD SURVEY DATE: JANUARY 20, 2026 AND JANUARY 27, 2026. SYMBOLS & LEGEND EXISTING BENCHMARK SIGN LIGHT POLE GUY ANCHOR UTILITY POLE TREE TREE CLUSTER PROPERTY LINE FENCE STORM DRAIN OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE CONCRETE DETECTABLE WARNING AC ASPHALT CONCRETE APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BBQ BARBEQUE GRILL BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR BLDG BUILDING BM BENCHMARK CONC CONCRETE ELEV ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR GI GRATE INLET INV BOTTOM INSIDE OF PIPE OVH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE RWTR RECLAIMED WATER SD STORM DRAIN TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UB UTILITY BOX ABBREVIATIONS COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2026 2 AL I C I A P A R K P L A Y G R O U N D R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T AP N 1 4 3 - 0 6 1 - 0 1 6 30 0 A R L E N D R I V E , R O H N E R T P A R K C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 2 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 6 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 11 1 S A N T A R O S A A V E SU I T E 1 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 4 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 252153 SITE.dwgPlo t F e b 0 2 , 2 0 2 6 a t 8 : 0 7 a m 1 TO P O G R A P H I C M A P 55 TOPO OVERLAY -ALTERNATIVE LOCATION 3