Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Access Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposal to grant 24/7 access for 15–18-year-olds at Tech Center
Summary
After extended discussion about safety, liability and equipment damage, the council voted down a motion to extend 24/7 key-fob access to 15–18-year-olds who would be accompanied by a legal guardian.
The council considered whether to allow 24/7 key-fob access to the Tech Center for 15- to 18-year-olds accompanied by a legal guardian. John (staff member) summarized current access rules and said that the proposal would principally change after-hours access: “When the facility closes, then, 18 year olds and older with the key fob can access the building with nobody around, no no other people with them or anything like that.”
The Nut Graf: council members raised safety, supervision and liability concerns — including whether waivers cover minors and how staff would detect after-hours problems — and ultimately voted against the change.
Discussion highlights: John explained age-based access now: under-12 may use non-equipment areas; 12–14 may use equipment after orientation; 15–18 may use the facility during open hours but do not currently have unsupervised after-hours access. He described incidents where equipment was left out and cited a near-accident: an adult who is partially disabled “came in there and he tripped over 1 of the weights that were left on the floor.”
Council members pressed on enforcement mechanisms, key-fob accounting and the limits of existing liability waivers. The city attorney’s guidance was cited: written waivers used by similar facilities were described as lengthy and not ironclad when minors are involved. A council member noted the risk that a parent could be called away and leave teens unsupervised during after-hours.
Vote and outcome: Councilmember Smith moved to allow the access for discussion; the motion was seconded and later put to a roll call. The roll call resulted in a tie, and the motion failed. Recorded votes at one roll call included yes votes from Alderperson Newman, Alderperson Baker and Alderperson Leibnau, and no votes from Alderperson Henkel, Alderperson Smith and Alderperson Olsen; the tie resulted in the measure failing.
Ending: Council members asked staff to refine options rather than immediately change access rules — possible next steps included a pilot, clearer waiver language drafted with the attorney, or restricting access hours. The council did not adopt any pilot or change at this meeting.
