Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/14/1992

Home

APRIL 1991 LOSS CONTROL QUARTERLY / 3 Adopt'a para programs John E. Hennen, ~MCIT The idea of using v61unteers to undertake trash rem.brai and public area beautification has. taken the state by storm. The ~2OnrCept got its start when the staterDe~Dartment of Transportation initiated i~8 "adopt a highway" program .i~ Which volun- teers are responslbl~e I~Or cleaning trash on two-mile str~etc~as of state roads. In exchangeii:the :state pro- vides orange safety ~eStrS and trash bags and posts a si~ln ![ecognizing the volunteers' contriDuti~0n. Some cities have ropltioted similar programs for parks a.h.d ~ ,ther public areas. These progra','.~8, i! properly administered, can pr~vi( ~ a benefit to the cily withouf!su )gtantially increasing loss expo~re Accidents are less likely to ha~p( n. in areas that are inspected a~d maintained frequently. However ~o1~ '~teers may get hurt as a result nonce activities. Wh~ an "adopt a park" pr( should weigh the risk: efits very carefully. f t~ir mainte- ;n ~Onsidering igra~m, the city with the ben- ]e ~ty should in~a, way that struclure the prograrf minimizes the possl lility of acci- dents both to users c ltl~ park and to "adopt a park" votOnt~ers. When developing an "adoPt: a ~prark" pro- gram, the city ShOuld Address sev- eral concerns. ~ The city should limit tl~e. scope of the program. Not alllwqrl;( can, or should, be done by vDluhteers. For instance, volunteer~ s~h~uld not operate lawn mower~, ~eed wack- ers, or other types ~f ~achinery. Volunteers may maintain i~Ut should not construct or repair ~ity-owned facilities unless there! is ~direct on- site supervision by ~lua~lified city employees. Volunt~er~-should receive appropriate!rtra.'!ning and have equipment aPprOpriate lor the task they are doing~i,~, orange reflective vests if wor~<in~ in traffic areas.The city should ~ell ~r Olunteers what they can and car!.not~do. The city should e~ercJise some control over who volunteers. If a group volunteers to "a~doptra park," the city should receive a,complete roster of members who Will be engaged in the activity. If appropri- ate, the city may require volunteers to be over 18 years of age. For instance, it is probably not safe to have young children cleaning up trash along a river running through a city park. The city should also make sure that volunteers are aware of possible risks and get a signed liability waiver form from each volunteer before they start any cleanup or maintenance activities. Ultimately the city is responsible for how the park is maintained. It does not make any difference whether city employees or vol6n- teers do the work. The city remains responsible for inspecting the area to make sure the work is done correctly. Each volunteer group should have a contact person or coordinator who is responsible for reporting to the city every time the volunteers do any work. The city should then take steps to assure that the work is done right. The city should also notify the contact per- son of possible safety concerns before volunteer groups undertake work. For instance, the city may want to warn the volunteer group of locations of poison ivy, thin ice, bees, wasps, etc. As an incentive, you may want to provide 'some recognition to the vol- unteer group. If you use signs, make sure to properly maintain and place them. Both North Star Risk Services and the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust can assist you in structuring an "adopt a park" pro- gram that minimizes the possibility of accidents involving either park users or "adopt a park" volunteers. In addition, LMCIT is in the process of developing a program to provide some basic income and disability protection for city volunteers while performing services for the city. LMCIT hopes to be able to announce this program soon. Ckorrection: n mber of citatiou ma ,be used in / emp oy.ee / evah at ons // The Fa~ 1990 issue of/the Loss Control Q~arterly contaiF'ed an arti- cle regard~g the new/,law which bans quota ~systems. T/~e last para- graph of the\article ,~ated that the new)aw me~n_t that/t, he number of citations an officer )/¢rites cannot be used as a factor ir~ernployee evalu- ations. This wa~a~ error. Although the~r. iginal bill included language that/~, law enforcment agency may not u~e the issuance of traffic citatior~ as\a factor in evalu- ating the w~rk p~formance of a peace offic/er, this\ language was dropped fr~'m the fin~tl bill. Minn. ~tat. 169.~85 currently reads '?~ law enforf~ment agency may no~/.order, manda~, require, or suggest' to a peace officer a quota for thc' issuance of traf~c citations on a ,tally, weekly, monthl~ quarterly, or _yCady basis." ~ ~The.sta. tute does. r~ot.~rohibit uOng the issuance of citatibns as a f,~ctor in performance evaluations. ,/ We regret the error.