Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/12/2007 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board (3)
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF COLLEGE STATION REGULAR MEETING — RESCHEDULED 7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 12, 2007 Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center 1015 Colgate • College Station, Texas Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Pamela Springfield, Staff Assistant; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Terry Childers, Deputy City Manager; Kelly Kelbly, Recreation Supervisor—Youth Services; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent Members Present: Jodi Warner, Chair; Kathleen Ireland; Joan Perry; Billy Hart; Jody Ford; Shawn Rhodes; Gary Thomas; Wayne Williams Members Absent: Gary Erwin Visitors Present: Tamara Keese; Jennifer Earl, Mary Sanders, Kara Schoenemann, Morgan Murgia, Brett and Lezlie Shirley, Walker Thompson; Avery Keese; Cory McWhorter; Drew Genk; Jake Shirley; Daryl Taylor; Bruce Armstrong; Travis Payne; Zachery Batten; Matt Sanders; Matt Robinson; Tyler Dollars; Jesse Stephens; Jacob Vandayburn; Oliver Heck 1. Call to order. Jodi Warner, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with a quorum present. 2. Pardon and possible action concerning requests for absences of members. Gary Erwin had submitted a request for absence. Jody Ford moved to accept the request as submitted. Kathleen Ireland seconded the motion and the vote was called. All were in favor and the absence was excused. 3. Hear visitors. Hearing none, this item was closed. 4. Consideration, possible action, and discussion of minutes from the Summit Crossing Site Tour on August 10, 2007; and Regular Meeting of August 17, 2007. Shawn Rhodes moved to approve the minutes from the Summit Crossing Site Tour and the regular meeting in August. Gary Thomas seconded the motion and the vote was called. All were in favor and the minutes from the two meetings were approved. 5. Introduction of new Greenways Program Manager, Gregg Lancaster. Ric explained that Gregg Lancaster had resigned to accept another job offer that he had received. The job had been reposted. Hearing no further discussion, this item was closed. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding City Council Strategic Plan —Terry Childers, Deputy City Manager. Terry Childers presented the City Council's Strategic Plan to the board. Discussion followed. This was an informational item only and no action was required. 7. Consideration, possible action, and discussion regarding a request for a public skate park — Tamara Keese. Ms. Keese made a plea to the board regarding the need for a skate park where the kids could have a safe, legal, place to skate. She was forming a committee that would be willing to do fundraising and what was necessary to get a park built, which they would like to locate near the EXIT Teen Center. She provided handouts for the board and staff. Steve explained the process to the guests present and stated that, ultimately, council and the voters would be the ones to approve the funds for a park. Discussion followed. The board asked staff to come back with some of the information that had been gathered the first time that the topic of a skateboard park had been addressed, along with City Council's decision. Hearing no further discussion, this item was closed. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the possible design concept by the developer for The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek - Park Zone 3. The developer had failed to bring forth a design concept in time for the meeting. Hearing no discussion this item was closed. 9. Discussion, possible action, and consideration regarding Board member appointments to fill vacancies on subcommittees to replace outgoing members. Fees Subcommittee: Jody Ford Planning & Zoning Joint Subcommittee: This committee is no longer in existence. Recreation Park and Open Space Master Plan Subcommittee: Wayne Williams, Shawn Rhodes Gary Thomas moved to approve the appointments made to the subcommittees, replacing the two members whose terms had expired. Joan Perry seconded the motion and the vote was called. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. 10. Discussion and consideration of possible 2007-08 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board goals to be approved at the October 9, 2007 regular meeting. The process to formulate the goals for 2008 would begin at the October meeting. The board agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m. on October 9Th. The goals would then be brought back to the board at the November meeting for approval. Hearing no further discussion, this item was closed. 11. Presentation, possible action and discussion concerning the current Capital Improvement Program: • Current Capital Improvement and Park Land Dedication Project Lists. Updated lists had been included in the board members' packets. The Adamson Lagoon bath house bid had come in over budget and would be re-bid in 2008. This was an informational item only. • Dedications of Less than Three Acres - University Commons Apartments, Phase III in Park Zone 3: Normally these dedications would be approved administratively, but in this case the board needed to make a recommendation to Planning & Zoning because the developer wanted to pay the development fee and dedicate land (approximately twice of what he would be required to dedicate), which would be added to the greenway in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. The Master Plan for Wolf Pen Creek shows a trail at this location and this piece of property would be needed for that to happen. Staff was recommending acceptance of the dedication. Jody Ford moved to accept the land dedication as recommended. Kathleen Ireland seconded and the vote was called. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. 12. Report, possible action and discussion concerning Board Goals, Departmental Goals and Objectives. Updated lists had been included in the members' packets. Hearing no discussion this item was closed. 13. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. • Fees Subcommittee Meeting -Will meet either the first or second week in October • Next Regular Meeting - October 9, 2007, Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center; to begin at 5:30 p.m. for discussion regarding board goals prior to the regular meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. • An issue regarding youth and competitive groups vying for soccer field use for practices, needs to be addressed and direction needs to be received before this becomes a major issue. 14. Adjourn. Kathleen Ireland moved to adjourn the meeting and Billy Hart seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. PcAcs 4 p(?_12,e2 Adv1-6-. 0 6wa2 (51,0t1 Ls I 07 /. 67 Nfrvne7 ,fi-FFiLift-rfo iv SeAA)cer CiCA,;, I) - I e rytoyu ti. r--• --tre-7-- t-ukr a ,NsivvIceektuvtown OreQaceeq, M(Alt/'1 MVeiid PF-esicletyk V‘a) eia ookymo- f3(z.nr.A Lc2.1.4 c- ttg-L --c. ,.. PA-r-e - 011 '17a.41-7- 7_, A', 50f--eir (A4ic- :714;: n A — r .0404t / iykr tc, ce. A rYt- e4' l' • , y 3r,kirg,7r Tt-ct:i, Fa 1, -,, ''' si(Gitir-/BAIK A - • 2ackery -86„iskr) * PlOr 150,ficier Seater t4of 1 ? i fivk cv-061/4 y., ,:5-n 6 Oef ej 77a „D/ks Pi ? /Pk &) red /Jee stept- ens s\ t'a ex PI eot5e, ak606 \100-i&kylvi-P 5Kod- i '"''' Z 1/p fi/ r ( .' OiActr )tcty_, Skett-- ; --rovvidtv 6,,t Oitiky,10-,k lik-- Council Strategic Plan Council Strategic Plan Briefing and Update Briefing Objectives September 11, 2007 • To review Council adopted strategic plan •To outline next steps •To respond to questions Management Planning System Council Strategic Plan CAMO4ventOtPlan • Critical element of MPS 171-LCATIN • Provides strategic direction • Establishes desired outcom es • Identifies strategic issues Strategic Business Plan Financial Forecast Capital Plan Operating Budget Evaluation 1 Strategic Plan Strategic Plan Organization of Plan • Council identified programs, tasks, and —Built around our Mision and Vision actions to be included in sta ff developed direction—Council policy n ando� pnehensive Strategic Business Plans plan concepts • Strategic Business Plans will be developed -lden�5es8Strategic Issues atprognam /d�vision |eve| —Identifies Policy Initiatives to address • Address the 8 Strategic Issues and Policy Strategic Issues Initiatives wPresented toCouncil (February20O8) Strategic Issues Council Strategic Plan 8 Strategic Issues • Questions —City~mesafetyanuywcunty • Comments —Effective communications —Growing sustainable revenues —Exceptional multi-modal mobility —Sustainable quality workforce —Exceptional infrastructure and core services —Diverse growing economy —Destination place to live and work 2 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Strategic Plan 2007-2012 Excellence is more than a goal in the City of College Station –it is the standard. Basic to that concept is the strategic manner in which the City views its planning and operations. One of the primary roles of the City Council is to set direction and establish realistic benchmarks for the municipal organization to achieve the desired future of College Station based on community input and expectations. Quality of life is the City's paramount consideration. The strategic planning process requires decision makers to focus, in a highly strategic manner, on those resources, talents and abilities to achieve desired results which ultimately shape the character of the City of College Station. The Strategic Plan document is an essential tool to allow the City Council and city staff to effectively develop and deliver a shared vision, mission, strategic issues, and policy initiatives which must be addressed to ensure College Station continues to deliver superior services for a rapidly growing population. Mission Statement ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF COLLEGE STATION, HOME OF TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, WE WiLL.CONTINUE TO PROMOTE AND ADVANCE THE COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. Connnnnity Vision Statement College Station, the proud home of Texas A&M University and the heart of the Brazos Valley, will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge-based community which promotes the highest quality of life by ... -- enhancing and protecting neighborhoods in a diverse community where residents are safe, protected from adverse impacts, well maintained and actively revitalized; increasing sensitive development and management of the built and natural environment; — expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural environment; supporting well planned, smart and sustainable growth; — valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources; developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities, infrastructure and services which ensure our city is cohesive and well connected; and Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 1 STRATEGIC PLAN — positioning College Station for both short- and long-term economic prosperity by expanding, strengthening and diversifying economic and education resources. College Station will remain among the friendliest and most responsive of communities and a demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will forever be a place where Texas and the world come to learn. City of College Station Core Values To promote: • The health, safety, and general well being of the community • Excellence in customer service • Fiscal responsibility • Involvement and participation of the citizenry • Collaboration and cooperation • Regionalism: be active member of the Brazos Valley community and beyond • Activities that promote municipal empowerment Organizational Values • Respect everyone • Deliver excellent service • Risk, Create, Innovate • Be one city, one team • Be personally responsible • Do the right thing– act with integrity and honesty • Have fun Using the community vision, mission statement, and values as a spring board, the College Station City Council has set the strategic direction for the city government through development of seven Strategic Issues and supporting Policy Initiatives. The Strategic Plan focuses organizational resources and identifies those intentional actions to be undertaken by city government to achieve the desired outcomes. Citywide Safety & Security Safety and security of College Station citizens is imperative. We want to ensure all citizens and visitors to the community feel safe while enjoying the quality of life offered by College Station. Policy Initiatives • We will invest in our public safety infrastructure to provide consistent and high quality public safety services. Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 2 STRATEGIC PLAN • We will benchmark our public safety services with other communities similar to College Station to insure we are setting the pace at a national level. Effective Communications Effective two-way communications with both internal and external audiences is essential to the continued success of the many programs and services offered by the City of College Station. Utilizing a variety of media and technology, we will strive to market our services, communicate our mission and values, engage our citizens in the decisions of city government while telling the College Station story to our elected officials, employees, citizens, community partners, and others nationwide. Policy Initiatives • We will implement a communication strategy which continually informs our citizens about the city government. • We will market the City of College Station as a superior service provider. • Cultivate citizen trust by fostering and practicing open, accountable and responsible government Growing sustainable revenue sources balanced with needs The ability of College Station to finance quality services, meet demands of growing our infrastructure and provide for the quality of life quotient for the community, requires fiscal soundness and growing our revenue sources. We will adhere to sound business practices which obtain true value for dollars spent, diversify our revenue sources through identification of innovative revenue strategies, and implement financial policies which protect city resources. Policy Initiatives • We will develop innovative income strategies to diversify and strengthen income base • We will re-evaluate and update financial policies to ensure they continually meet our needs as a city government • We will continually improve business practices to ensure we achieve the best value for dollars invested Exceptional multi-modal mobility The rapid growth of College Station is impacting our ability to provide an efficient public and private transportation network to ensure mobility and safety to our citizens. Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 3 STRATEGIC PLAN Development of an efficient multi-modal transportation system is needed to promote a healthy local economy and support the community's quality of life. Policy Initiatives • We will develop an integrated transportation plan which supports the development of College Station in consideration of its land use and transportation needs. • We will implement our transportation plans on a prioritized basis to improve our overall transportation network and support development of the community. • We will improve operational efficiency of our existing transportation network by implementing state of the art transportation management programs and systems. • We will lobby for state & federal transportation funds to continually improve our transportation systems Sustainable quality city workforce Our employees are our most valued asset. We want to ensure the City of College Station work environment is exceptional while encouraging innovation and creativity. We want to be able to attract the best and brightest and retain highly competent individuals who serve the citizens of College Station. Policy Initiatives • We will aggressively create a work environment which attracts and retains quality employees Exceptional infrastructure and core services Our core mission is the delivery of exceptional services to our citizens. Our infrastructure is the backbone of our service delivery system and we will continually make prudent investments to grow and maintain all infrastructure to support our delivery of services. We will expect our core services to be to of the highest quality. We expect our services to our customer to be focused, timely and cost effective. Policy Initiatives • We want to ensure our infrastructure is well maintained and expands to meet the needs of our citizens and various city services • We want core city services to be customer focused, cost effective and of the highest quality. Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 4 STRATEGIC PLAN Diverse growing economy We want to promote through effective policies and programs the continued growth and diversification of our economy. We will provide leadership to encourage the diversification of our economy while actively collaborating with our community partners to produce economic benefit to all citizens. Policy Initiatives • We will develop and implement specific plans to enhance and diversify our tax base. • We will develop and implement plans which promote redevelopment of strategic areas of College Station. • We will actively seek economic development opportunities and partnerships which position College Station as a national center for bio-technology. • We will enhance tourism with the development of needed infrastructure to support the tourism segment of our economy. Destination place to live and work We want College Station to be a destination city which attracts visitors, residents, businesses, and investment. In promoting and maintaining a high quality of life, we want to be a community which provides diverse opportunities for work, entertainment, livable neighborhoods, and business development. We want College Station to be among the best cool places to live in the United Sates. Policy Initiatives • We will invest in infrastructure and programs which creates a sense of place for College Station citizens • We will systematically identify and invest in those programs and activities which promotes College Station as a cool place to live, work, and play • We will promote comprehensive planning and management of growth to ensure College Station remains a highly livable city driven by quality of life. Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 5 City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board List of Subcommittees/Board Liaisons Fiscal Year 2006-07 By-Laws Subcommittee Comprehensive Plan Update Advisory Committee Gary Erwin, Kathleen Ireland (Alternate) Fees Gary Erwin, Kathleen Ireland, Park Naming Gary Erwin, Kathleen Ireland Planning & Zoning Joint Subcommittee ................................ Gary Thomas, Kathleen Ireland, John Crompton Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan Harry Crccn, Gary Thomas, Kathleen Ireland, Veterans Park & Athletic Complex, Phase II Jodi Warner, Gary Erwin (John Nichols, ex-officio member) Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee Jodi Warner, Joan Perry (Alternate) 0/Board/Subcommittees/List of Subcommittee 2006-07 COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 2007 GOALS & OBJECTIVES These goals and objectives are established in support of the City Council strategic issues and strategic plan. Board priorities are indicated in parenthesis. STRATEGIC ISSUE#1: SUSTAINABLE GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN COLLEGE STATION A. UPDATE THE COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Council priority A+) El Complete the Parkland Dedication Ordinance Revision (1) To City Council on September 13, 2007 El Prioritize parkland dedication funds expenditures (1) March 6, 2007 meeting O Develop proposal for acquiring neighborhood park land in advance of development; ETJ included in revised ordinance • Complete the update of the Recreation, Park and Open Space Master Plan In progress B. DEVELOP A 3 YEAR ANNEXATION PLAN (Council priority B) CI Incorporate potential park sites at the time of annexation (3) El Become proactive by acquiring park land in advance of development & reimburse by dedication funds (advanced funding) (3) STRATEGIC ISSUE#3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FISCAL WTALITITY A. INITIATE A MARKET STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW TOURISM VENUES O Explore the feasibility of a minor league baseball facility On Hold El Explore the feasibility of a water park (2, 3) Science Park concept presented B. CONTINUE TO PROMOTE PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IN WOLF PEN CREEK TIF • Design and implement Wolf Pen Creek water feature (3) El Implement Wolf Pen Creek corridor programs and operations STRATEGIC ISSUE#5: QUALITY OF LIFE A. DEVELOP FUNDING, SUPPORT & RESOURCES FOR REGIONAL PARK (1, 2) El Letter of support delivered to Senator Ogden (Nov 20, 2006) El Resolution of support for Texas Recreation & Park Account approved by Council (Dec 14, 2006) B. OVERSEE THE COMPLETION OF PARKLAND DEDICATION PROJECTS (1) El Begin acquisition and planning for a Northgate Park (ZONE 1) (1, 3) • Complete construction of University Park (ZONE 2) Design complete-to be bid in fall 2007 • Complete construction of Crompton Park, Phase II (ZONE 7) (2) Design complete-to be bid in fall 2007 • Complete construction of Edelweiss Gartens Park (ZONE 10) Design complete- to be bid in fall 2007 1 Q Complete drainage and shade improvements at Pebble Creek Park (ZONE 11) (2) C. OVERSEE A COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR PARKS Q Make progress on planned neighborhood parks (1) Q Complete Oaks Park design and renovation w/Community Development Funds (ZONE 2) (2) ❑ Improve Lick Creek Park signage (2) Q Complete design for a new Forestry Shop(3) ❑ Support neighborhood park development and improvements (2) ❑ New Parks Planning (3) • Complete the Cemetery Master Plan (1) (Council Priority A+) Approved by Council February 1, 2007 Q Complete the conceptual plan for a proposed senior citizen facility. (Council Priority A+) Approved by Council January 2007 RI Complete improvements at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (3) • Determine need for additional facilities (skate parks, improved dog parks, new sports facilities) (3) Q Develop implementation plan to address the findings of the 2005 Needs Assessment Report (2) Q Develop recommendations for a new five year capital improvement program D. TRANSFER GREENWAYS PROGRAM FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO PARKS & REC Q Implement the transfer of the greenways program to PARD (1, 2) Q Fast track hiring of Greenways Coordinator and update the position responsibilities (2) Gregg Lancaster hired effective September 1, 2007 Q Establish the budget for the greenways program within the Parks & Recreation Department ❑ Update Greenways Master Plan (2) -- ON HOLD E. TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBRARY SERVICES TO PARKS AND REC Q Complete the transfer of Library responsibilities to PARD (2) Q Assist with the development of a long range plan for library services F. OVERSEE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Q Earthkind Rose Demonstration Project at Steeplechase Park (ZONE 5) ❑ Additional landscape improvements at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (ZONE 2) Q Ask College Station Utilities to determine their interest for potential "Greening the City" (1) ❑ Seek support to implement the Urban Forest Management Plan (3) STRATEGIC ISSUE#6:COMMUNICATIONS WITH CITIZENS A. DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM • Develop an aggressive internal and external communications plan (Council priority A) (1) © Apply for NRPA Departmental Accreditation (2) B. IMPROVE DAILY COMMUNICATIONS WITH CITIZENS • Complete the implementation of RecWare on-line registration (1) Installation component scheduled for week of March 5th Q Implement the Park PALS program for all neighborhood parks (2) Q Conduct three neighborhood park "open house" events in Spring, 2007 Gabbard Park Block Party-April 4, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. Steeplechase Park Open House-April 11, 5:30 p.m. Oaks Park Open House-April 18, 2007 ❑ Conduct three neighborhood park "open House" events in Fall, 2007 — ON HOLD ❑ Host the annual International Scholars Picnic at Veterans Park American Pavilion October 4, 2007 Revised September 5, 2007 0 Not Complete Approved by Board January 9, 2007 p (1)-Board Priority D 2 Complete (2)�Board Priority 2 • Work In Progress (3)-Board Priority 3 2 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT&PARK LAND DEDICATION PROJECTS FY`07 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 Capital Improvement Projects Completion CapitalImprovement Project Project Funding Date Final Projects Status Manager # Budget Source �xoecfed/Actual Cost 44 �eaa.s,�A. 3.:. j� ,.dan.,1.s., ,,, JS amt ;A , 'ori 4 � t: aa,:- psa. ABx. . ��' �,e« �d � ,sm. >r� rta � �,� � hr' � ,�#�a i�. E°u � §: #,�# �� t +PNEty `�..a, 9 .�" .d, �� z � A�t?E to �.. � .� „xa Sa&--,-• € :gym $i- 4da . #b 1142: a .. �-.: �.- � � i � ns � s.'t, 3E^' �3 a a� �•' �-+fi v� � 1;,-::::,,,,:-; :,.4.,!1.-„;,,,,!:;•:,,,,,,. -,, f.,,,:11-.1 � � tiiy ''" 7`<S.. '.Y 7c T� ,x ii., :" '3k• $ 'f r' ? '. £ d .44 �w Ef TT ,'ki',...::;....;:,3:' .1 ,.. . 3. d x a. mi 5{ y q d3- z€ °t# d.? x,. 1 4 , �i W",�7. 1 ....z d .. v 3 fir tq. "T" iue � �x�# x',; #f€ t .�' #8 �3 1!,1 l-e® - :�a, F#€=< � 6,s€ i 3Y '' .r�. ���� ��'�%' �€;¢ .. ,ae ';.,;-,,I,-a#.".�ta€ �tY� fad. if µ{ rAftille #§ -6 € �`'3� ;i• � a . a' zx1';�_� P��a 1:-,::',':`'A:: :::- �g' "° m7sjs a# .,.f II. a7 ii reil � s �" � .k= ¢ AgR� � -�� �� s a^F,a} �tk:: �� .1::',f,;a� 3: ; � .tea ms�'� n . Kt. {€ a Ee: €€E e ; `; r' r r7a ;'.4.i,'a .i'a9 3 �.. 1:':::, ` "'Y # kEt +:_ >?`- - "9'S�a° a i':::,,g °% °v ya. §�, t 'i4..'!;%4i . . al a:-: a, ;, �' :2 '. , 4k'#b '& ,w S 4 tbb r#p i d f. a .€ .=a t = ;.E4 E i e.moi- e a 'STI;2�`' �a. �..,, .,:.E.'11',::�s" a"d ` F. 1'� € �.a. s... "�.£#-- x t#,ea` il• v. ."F € .. r' ° , a Y^f r _: # t aell:; y t .fir r , min 1111111 alrffiffillill 111.1111111111 Adamson Bath House Dew* Mill . , ,. Out to Bid lr PK0701 $90,000 tr �___ AFOH Cemete �—In Desi•nn Ross GG9905 $6,444,040���.,___ 11" IMO is • Forest Sho+ Under Construction ® PK0524 $779,000 �i t c ___ Gabbard lm+rovements Under Construction David PK4704 $140,040 !•r: __ Lincoln Additional Parkin. Under Construction PK0702 $99 000 � � • __ Pending Construction Oaks Basketball HB Court&Cover ••• t t Oaks Im.rovements In Design David PK0705 $143 000 luc� t # __ imi Pebble Creek Draina•e Im•rovements Under Construction PK4616 $54,044 c , :. • • ; ,. �__ t - �- -.+„-, MM+� ■ '.t' t ���it tit �t � __ iimmins � . �., i ,r.t iiE il: tC �__ .q , •• t-+. i•:-..it•t •�M .irlii�I��� i t i ! i r� __ CIP Summary Pending/On Hold In Design 4 Out to Bid/Re-Bid 2 Bids Received 0 Pending Design Contract — 0 Pending Construction Contract 2 No Status 0 Under Construction 6 Public Hearing Scheduled 0 29 Park Land Dedication Projects Completion Park Land Dedication Project Project Funding Date Final Projects Prioritized Status Manager # Budget Source Expected/Actual Cost ZONE 1 -$214,493 �_.___-_.__IIIIIIIII ZONE 2— 99 038 _��__-■�.—_— ��I b7Lt1� r. • P 04 �.�•i= 2/0: __ ZONE 3-$65,642 __ imium __ans ZONE 4-$1,225 —..__�,�__�_ ZONE 5 $5,451 ���IINIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Steeplechase Small Dog Area 1 On Hold David Zone 5 --_ ZONE 6-$202,761 _,■_ _ _■___ Southw-St �i, ,+. _ _� �__ ZONE 7-$6,73011111111111111 --_■--_ Crom.ton Ph se II Pending Construction RI 1111.11 Contract PK0712 $204,991 Zone 7 1/08 ZONE 8-$45,279 _■,___,_■111111-_ Emerald Forest Park Improvements In Design David PK0713 $44,500 Zone 8 --_ ZONE 9-$2,428 _.,__----_—_ Woodland Hills Development In Design WM PK0523 $34,000 Zone 9 5108 __ ZONE 10-$100,474 _■,_—_, --_ Edelweiss Gartens Development In Design ® PK0613 $366,000 Zone 10 2/08 61111=1111111111 —�,_.�__Southern Oaks Trails On Hold —�—m _— . ,g�v.�w4w.ia',a,Zax:, 1..2'..,:,,s.:, I �ma iimio „msummimmumtA Pending Construction EIMINEEMI -- Nantucket Cove Development Contract Zone 12 11!07 ZONE 13-$611 _■,__—„____ ZONE 14-$74,509 — ,__-'_■_-_ ZONE 15-$18,908 —.,_ —__.___ ZONE 16-$0 _.,___._-___ I-Intergenerational Project Park Land Dedication Summary a mm . y � n On Hold In Desi•n 4 Out to Bid/Re-Bid 0 Bids Received _ 0 Pending Design Contract 0 Under Construction 0 Under Contract 0 Public Hearin• 0 17 O:/Projects/CIPIC!P&Park Land Ded Project List.doc Page 2 -teN Parks & Recreation Department Goals & Objectives FY2007 (Not Prioritized) CITY OF COLLEGE STATION • Implementation of City Council Strategic Issues • Leisure Programs • Cooperative Efforts • Special Projects • Implementation of the CIP Program • Continuation of Staff Development Implementation of City Council Strategic Issues El Develop Alternative Revenue Sources A+ Proposal submitted on November 1, 2006; Concession proposal approved. • Develop Cemetery Master Plan ", A+ Design contract signed; site tour completed; visioning process November 2006; preliminary plan complete and presentation to Council on March 1, 2007 El Cemetery Phase I Plan ", A+ Design contract approved April 2007; Council updated August 6, 2007 El Complete and bid Cemetery Phase I construction documents A+ J Cemetery Marketing and Licensing A+ Request for Proposals scope of work developed; Marketing plan bid opened May 31 ; to Council for approval in July 2007 and contract signed. Cemetery Rules and Regulations created ", A+ El Begin Cemetery Option Sales A, A+ Sales options began on July 2nd Establish Cemetery Space Prices A+ Parks Portion of the Comprehensive Plan (Parks Master Plan Updated) A Executive Summary through Section III reviewed and updated December 2006; Meeting with consultant on February 22, 2007 to discuss Park Land Dedication issues; Developer Focus Group regarding Park Land Dedication held on August 8, 2007 Ei Senior Committee report to Council on Conceptual Design on January 11, 2007 iv A Succession Planning C Four superintendents attended; HR provided list of retirement eligible employees EI Director Position Replacement Process .. C Advance notice given to Management in December 2006; retirement date December 31, 2007 Cooperative Efforts El Support Brazos Valley Senior Games Games held the weekend of April 19th - 22hd, 2007. Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 1 of 5 1,1 Continue to support Grimes County Regional Park efforts Project on hold pending appraisal from TMPA; letter of support sent to Senator Steve Ogden November 2006; tour with Grimes County Commissioner's Court on June 14, 2007 Complete the update of the CSISD Joint Use Agreement Final draft prepared and reviewed by Legal. Reviewed by CSISD and proposed changes forwarded to City's Legal Department in August, 2007 El Complete improvements at Pebble Creek Park Shade covers complete December 2006; ILA for drainage approved Jan 2007; project bid awarded by CSISD. CSISD collaborative efforts on future CIP projects Meeting held November 8, 2006. E] Continue implementation of Veterans Memorial master plan Trails grant request prepared for memorial pathway and submitted to TPWD May 2006; Trail grant approved. Implement Park PALS (Park Advocacy, Leadership, Service) Program El Complete the transfer of Library responsibilities to PARD Assigned to David Gerling; transfer complete. El Preparation for Kid's Klub 20th Anniversary Celebration of Lights on After School October 2007 D Assist Bryan ISD Swim Team operation Host Annual International Scholars Picnic at Veterans Park American Pavilion Scheduled for Thursday, October 4, 2007. El Host Special Olympics Events Scheduled for October 2007. Implementation of the CIP Program El FY 2007 CIP Projects Ongoing. Monthly report given to Board. FY 2007 list distributed. [2:1 FY 2007 Park Land Dedication Projects Ongoing. Monthly report given to Board. px Design Wolf Pen Creek water feature Oversight Committee meeting quarterly; design is on hold. Science Park concept presented July 17, 2007 El Design new Forestry Shop Design complete El Bid out new Forestry Shop Out to bid; bid opening May 3rd; bid award to Council May 24th 0 Begin operations at new Forestry Shop Reallocate and redesign Central Park Maintenance Shop On Hold El Engineering and design of Adamson Pool Bathhouse Design contract with Arkitex Studio in place; design is in progress El Determine operation costs for proposed new parks Edelweiss Gartens — On Hold Nantucket Cove '' In Design Woodland Hills — Public Hearings held March 7th and April 10th; in design University Parks — On Hold Cost estimates prepared November 2006 and submitted Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 2 of 5 El Determine when proposed new parks should be built Edelweiss Gartens In Design Nantucket Cove — Design Complete Woodland Hills Public Hearings held March 7th, April 10th, May 15th Concept presented; in design University Park Design Complete; to be bid Fall 2007 El Completion of Crompton Park Phase II Construction of trail extensions complete; Phase II in design J Complete Oaks Park Renovation Design complete and out to bid Leisure Programs Determine priority of service for provision of leisure programs. El 25th Anniversary of Public Pool Trout Fish Out at Adamson Lagoon Held February 9-11, 2007 Get web-based information database for teens up and running Fall 2007 Reinstate the Teen Advisory Board _feecial Projects Ld Continued implementation of Park Maintenance Standards Ongoing - First quarter report to Board February 2007; 2nd quarter to Board April 23rd; third quarter to Board in August 2007 El Park Land Dedication Ordinance Revision Joint meeting with Planning & Zoning held February 9, 2007; On hold pending Comprehensive Plan E Investigation of UV systems for city pools. El Determine role of PARD in public health issues Planning Health Fair; Life Trail Exercise Equipment installed Implement RecWare on-line registration In progress - working with CS MIS and Active Community Solutions. Expected to be functional by Fall 2007. El Update library book check-out system at the Larry Ringer Library. In progress El Host 25th Annual Texas Public Pool Council Held the week of January 8, 2007. Implement Junior Trail Ranger Program at Wolf Pen Creek. Grant requested from Brazos Valley Junior League Implement the operation of new facilities at Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater. Support services building completed and turned over from contractor; second building turnover pending El Implement the Wolf Pen Creek Trail Interpretive Program Signage has been installed Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 3 of 5 E✓ Implement the operation of new facilities at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Q✓ Implement the operation of new facilities at WA Tarrow Splash Park �✓ Host ASA tournaments June 2007 14U State; Girl's Fast Pitch State -July 2007, 18U National Q Review and finalize Concessions Operations proposal Proposal approved February 2007; Concessions Supervisor position filled. Q Implement the transfer of the Greenways Program to PARD The position has been posted. Continuation of Staff Development ❑✓ Attend Supervisory Academy N September - November 2007 Amanda Putz, Scott Deffendoll, Melvin Lange graduated. �✓ Attend 2007 Management Academy N February 19 - 23, 2007 ❑✓ Attend 2007 Emergency Management Academy N February 7 - March 28, 2007 Melvin Lange, Bruce Ray and Cameron Park graduated. 1.1 Attend Arbor Master Training 2007 (Irving, TX December 8 & 9, 2006) Curtis Schoessow, Daniel Tice, Bryce Bloodworth 0 Attend the 2006, 13th Annual Southeast Texas Grounds Maintenance Conference Thirteen Parks Operations and Forestry division members attended the conference on October 26, 2006 El Coordinate prepare for and attend 2007 TRAPS Regional Workshop ED Attend 2006/2007 Texas Turfgrass Conference First conference in December 11-13, 2006 ' Scott Hooks „ A Attend 2007 Trends in Recreational Facilities Conference On Hold Attend the 2007 College Station Leadership Institute N May 15th -17th Peter Lamont scheduled; training cancelled. ED Attend Community of Respect training Peter Lamont, Grace Vrooman, Charles Harris Q Investigate feasibility of NRPA Departmental Accreditation Assigned to Geri Marsh. Application submitted by May 18, 2007; Site visit by CAPRA week of June 25th 2007; September accreditation decision pending ED Attend 2006 NRPA Annual Congress Steve Beachy and Ric Ploeger in October 2006. 0 Attend Licensed Irrigator continuing education class in January 12-13, 2007 Pete Vanecek, Ross Albrecht �✓ Attend Landscape Architect's Conference in April 2007 Pete Vanecek & David Wood Ej Attend the National After School Conference for Elementary and Middle Schools Lance Jackson and Jana Church attended. ❑✓ Attend the 2006 Texas Trails Conference in Grapevine, Texas Scott Hooks and Sheila Walker attended November 2-4, 2006 Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 4 of 5 E Participate in the State Hurricane Exercise April 30 — May 5, 2007 City not included in statewide exercise El Attend the Texas Recreation and Park Society Conference eN, February 2007 Steve Beachy, Geri Marsh, Peter Lamont V Item Complete pr, Pending/On Hold X Item will not be done Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Park Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist Date Received: August 7, 2007 Park Zone: 3 Current Zone Balance: $65,642 Project Location: 950 Colgate Street Name of Development: University Commons Apartments Phase: Ill Applicant: Charles Laningham - JMC Address: 13140 Colt Road, Suite 220-LB22 City/State/Zip: Dallas, TX 75240 Phone Number/Fax: Fax Number: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Municipal Development Group (MDG) Address: 2551 Texas Avenue South City/StateZip: College Station, TX 77840 Phone Number/Fax: 979/693-5359 Fax Number: E-Mail: REQUIRED COMPLIANCE Section 10-B-1: Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi-Family Dwelling Units: 42 Total Land Requirement: .336 Acres Proposed Dedication: .68 Section 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? No Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($198/dwelling unit): Multi-Family Fee ($160/dwelling unit): N/A Total Acquisition Fee: N/A Section 10-B-3: Park Development Fee Single Family Fee ($358/dwelling unit): $292 x 42 = $12,264 Multi-family Fee ($292/dwelling unit): Total Fee Amounts: Total Single Family Fee ($556/dwelling Unit): Multi-Family Fee ($452/dwelling Unit): Section 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: Section 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? Yes If yes, staff recommends: Section 10-B-7: Prior Park Acquisition Yes, Wolf Pen Creek Park Is there an existing park that can serve the proposed development? and lower trails If yes, staff recommends: Acceptance of the property. Section 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan? Comments: Section 10-F: Additional Information 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Yes Percentage: a. Detention/Retention? No Size: Meets Board Policy? Acreage in floodplain: .68 Percentage: Acreage in detention: Percentage: Acreage in greenways: .68 Percentage: Comments: Section 10-F (of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance) 10-F. 1 Any land dedication to the City under this section must be suitable for park and recreation uses. Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain or may be considered "floodable" even though not in a federally regulated floodplain as long as, due to its elevation, it is suitable for park improvements. (a) Neighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number of users. Comments: Close to apartment complex (existing University Commons). (b) Neighborhood park sites should be located so that users are not required to cross arterial roadways to access them. Comments: Next to Wolf Pen Creek Park and trail system. (c) Sites should not be severely sloped or have unusual topography which would render the land unusable for organized recreational activities. Comments: Most is fairly flat. (d) Sites should have existing trees or other scenic elements. Comments: Wooded (e) Detention/retention areas will not be accepted as part of the required dedication, but may be accepted in addition to the required dedication. If accepted as part of the park, the detention/retention area design must be approved by the City staff and must meet specific parks specifications. Comments: None 10-F. 2 Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area development, enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety, and minimize conflict with adjacent land uses. The following guidelines should be used in designing parks and adjacent development: (a) Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to greenways and/or schools in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co-development of new sites. Comments: in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor (b) A proposed subdivision adjacent to a park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access to the park from other area subdivisions. Street and greenway connections to existing or future adjoining subdivisions may be required to provide reasonable access to parks. Comments: (c) Where a non-residential use must directly abut a park, the use must be separated by a screening wall or fence and landscaping. Access points to the park may be allowed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if a public benefit is established. Comments: (d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of a park should abut a public street. In all cases, the City shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city parks. Comments: Close to an existing parking lot. (e) Streets abutting a park shall be built in accordance with the thoroughfare plan and the standards of this ordinance; however, the City may require any residential street built adjacent to a park to be constructed to collector width to ensure access and prevent traffic congestion. The developer may request oversize participation in such an instance. Comments: Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends acceptance of the .68 acres. Section 10-G: Approval: The board voted unanimously at the September 12, 2007 regular meeting to accept the .68-acre land dedication, to become a part of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor lower Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: trails area. Planning & Zoning Commission: City Council: I I - /„4,- 17.-- , Yr / .-,4' I 1 I / , ----+ 1K• 71 + / ( I, . giii Li. Sit O ..L.;, . .: Ho- -3w — ” ;, • IN I 44, El 111 f 11.0 u. Iip- a, al. t 1 +i r�' N /01 in .t-11°. y .(m �uI �: O 11"02 / $ui Nn P 9// - �� W ?t xt4 i■ �$g A. eA I II �� � , ` -- Rin II i o ;1 \i ' , f Q / , . 8` b ht 7\ /, , „?. $ , • e i' a Q \ , ti z /*I , A pr / I/ / y / L4'2 - —(1-1::: /// t/ {J i ~h,��;_°,_°,T;z.CSy 11 1111!!„° 11/11;!< M1/ ;!< iiiii,:lihiiii:'iiiAll;!,,ILif: y¢!5/1 //6:40/0, Ary�HJlb0�Y3tl� E ` ` AL ° T A E I E A 1S �,J( SITE PLAN /�C \w.f{': )4 803-5354 EMDU "I''.O,MOXRT o V B >_ FOR c{4197 843-4243 -.,>4j4 UNIVERSITY COMMONS PHASE III °n,ro, �N SNR 4.NK v4d'' ENGtNEERR SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 4'''Aa COEwENT {y CDNSULTANMANAE:ERS `+ 'LOT 15 R-i,BLOCK B,EASTMARK PHASE II RES 1BDIt�SION N . . ry u m e ATEAEf , ��«,•, OXYt9�0T THIS ORAMIPROPERTY 15 AN NSTRUM0ACLPSU Dt PROFESS..CAHEP SER NCE AND IS All IV TEP REPRODUCED DU EDiY OF IWAE DEVELOPMENTOIN GROUP ATO MAY NOT RE fE° �� O (UTAK S1RSET VASttUCT NO 411 EXPRES0 D O USED IN WNOO MIN PART WITHOUT TNE NT �4 Calico STATES,BRAZOS COUNTY,TEXAS °�K ME3° 0^°^M G C'''''A'�As, ENPRESSEO 0 IS CN CMSENE OE mg.”ICIPM'EVDEAP T MWP. 2 M15 MAMNp I9 CMFItI(kf1E0 A9 PROJECT DATE. College Station Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007 College Station Teen Center 1520 Rock Prairie Rd. 10:00am MINUTES Members Present: Joyce Davis, Rick Heaney, Edgar Jones, Robert Meyer,Neal Nutall, Donald Pirwitz, Raymond Reed, Colleen Risinger, Jean Roberts, Ron Silvia and Yvonne Stevens Members Absent: E.E. Burns, Dorothy Hernandez, Jack Hernandez, Laura Holmes, Doreen Todd and Joanna Yeager Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director, Parks and Recreation and Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 10:10am by Robert Meyer, Chairman II. Hear visitors No visitors III. Welcome and introduction of new member Robert Meyer welcomed new member Ron Silvia and members introduced themselves. IV. Approval of minutes from regular meeting on July 30,2007 Rick Heaney made the motion to approve the minutes from the July 30, 2007 meeting. Ray Reed seconded the motion. The motion passed. V. Discussion, consideration and possible action on future Capital Improvement Program and Senior Center Project with Steve Beachy, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Steve Beachy discussed the process the city undergoes when a bond election is being considered. Steve explained that a proposed schedule for a possible November 2008 election will be presented to the City Council in September or October, 2007. Ray Reed made the motion that the Senior Advisory Committee continue to identify the facility as a Senior Center and show an example of multi-use programming for the building. Joyce Davis seconded the motion. The motion was approved. VI. Discussion, consideration and possible action on Sub-Committees • Members/Chair SENIOR CENTER SUB-COMMITTEE Chair: Rick Heaney Members: Ray Reed, Rick Heaney, Joanna Yeager,Neal Nutall, Edgar Jones and Ron Silvia PROGRAM SUB-COMMITTEE Chair: Don Pirwitz Members: Joyce Davis, Laura Holmes and Yvonne Stevens LONG RANGE PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE Chair: Ray Reed Members: Doreen Todd, Jean Roberts, Colleen Risinger ■ Meeting dates and times The sub-committees were asked to meet prior to the next Senior Advisory Committee regular meeting. VII. Discussion, consideration and possible action on Senior Services Coordinator report regarding upcoming programs and events. (report attached) VIII. Presentation, discussion and possible action on future agenda items: A Committee Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. • Sub-committee reports IX. Next meeting: Monday, September 24, 2007 X. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 11:25am Senior Services Coordinator Report August 2007 Month: July 2007 Event/Class Enrollment/ Location Attendance Free Comp. Class 14 Center for Regional Services Friday Bridge 30/24 Teen Center 42 12/22 Teen Center Exploring History Lunch 151 Conference Center Aggie Wrangler Dance Class 0 Conference Center Senior Advisory Committee 13 Teen Center Lincoln Center Senior Program 203 Lincoln Center Total Programs Offered: 7 Total: 469 Total conducted: 6 Current population estimate for College Station: 85,121 For September: September 4- Registration begins for Xtra Education Classes September 4 - Senior World Passport Program -Colombia All sessions start at 10:00am and are held at the EXIT Teen Center. Discover the Country of Colombia on Tuesday, September 4th. Enjoy samples of food and receive a passport to be stamped for each session you attend September 5 - Computer Club for Seniors The Club meets the first Wednesday of the month from 9:00am-10:30am at the Carter Creek Training room located at 2200 North Forest Parkway in College Station. The topic for Wednesday, September 5th is "Trouble Shooting and Helpful Tips" presented by Bob Cohen. September 7 & 21 - Friday Bridge September 13 - Senior World Passport Program -Bahrain All sessions start at 10:00am and are held at the EXIT Teen Center located at 1520 Rock Prairie Road. Discover the Country of Bahrain on Thursday, September 13th. Enjoy samples of food and receive a passport to be stamped for each session you attend. September 13 & 27- Let's Play 42! September 18 - Senior World Passport Program - Libya All sessions start at 10:00am and are held at the EXIT Teen Center located at 1520 Rock Prairie Road. Discover the Country of Libya on Tuesday, September 18th. Enjoy samples of food and receive a passport to be stamped for each session you attend. September 19- Exploring History Lunch Lecture Series The topic on Wednesday, is the "Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" presented by Don Powell. Lunch is by reservation only and is served at 11:30am. Donations are appreciated. Please call 764-3491 to make your reservation by Friday, September 14, 2007. September 24- Computer Classes for Seniors Classes offered: • Computers 101, This class consists of 6 sessions and meets on Monday and Wednesday mornings. This is a beginner computer class designed for seniors. • Email Workshop, this 2 day workshop will teach you how to set-up and manage email. • Internet Workshop, this 2 day workshop will teach you how to navigate the World Wide Web. September 27 - Fall Senior Dance Please join us at the College Station Conference Center, 1300 George Bush Dr. from 7:00pm- 9:30pm for a Fall Dance. The cost is $5.00/person. No pre-registration required. Refreshments and door prizes will be given away. Hear your favorite tunes from DJ, Tom Byer. The dance is sponsored by the College Station Parks and Recreation Department Senior Services and St. Joseph Gold Medallion Club. CITY OF COI I FGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ABSENCE REQUEST FORM FOR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICERS I will not be in attendance at the 61Q (k, :cif t S ' 161 o R 0 1 3I meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for the reason(s) specified: Name Date Recd Reason 414 _. / . 1 /A ____q___-- 1°,0 7 41,, i / # I i „ • 3 i, 1 Signature Requests for Absence must be submitted to the Parks Staff Assistant at 764-3414 prior to the meeting date. Page 1 of 1 Pam Springfield - Pardon From: To: Date: 9/10/2007 8:32 AM Subject: Pardon Pam, Sorry for the request for a pardon, but I have to fly to Little Rock on Wed. to attend a funeral. Thanks Gary See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. file://C:\Documents and Settings\pspringfield\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\46E5012B... 9/10/2007 moats I, iss°/*'1141-.41114. E pi ,.,.., s‘fikoPtiot C aro" IS • it 0 0 r ,:t 0,,,, . s • , - 411144s. r NR lJro . ,, .., +,, .. ,. ,,;.„4. --c ,, ;...,,,,-_, ' ... l: . , . % .„. ...," „.. ,....i,..:._;r„, „ ,i,.. .,.....!.c.,;,.,404, .,.., ...„ . 1 . , ...,,,,,, ,„:;;,,,;....„ „,...... . ,,,.. ..,,, 4 _...„*...,,,,,,,,,,,:„. . 1 . ., ... , , .., ,, Y , ..,, 1 fi ;,. . * +' ,,, A , ... , h� 4k .0,,, f' t ! Ilikh.'* ' ” ,..4-0:t'1.°,7::;.'' ' 111111• v aT w a a 1 St I` 4' ?WHY DO WE NEED A SKATEPARK? 1 . If your city doesn't have a skate dark, then your city 26- comes a skate dark. 2. OMOTES A I-- EALTHY LIFESTYLE, the kics are in t-ie game, not on the couch slaying it. 5. A sate par< can attract skateboarding tourists if de- signed to do so. 4. Skate parks support vibrant, healthy cornmuriities.just like many other athletic facilities. 5. We need to 9rovice a place for kics who aren't at- tracted to traditional team sports to express them- selves in an inciviclual anc athletic manner. 6. Most importantly, these kics need a safe place to skate anc they do not need to 'eel their 9asE_5ion o2tis is criminal, this has got to end. Why would anyone want to make a child feel bad about sornetling ;hey love so very much? WE NEED A SKATE PARK IN COLLEGE STATION TEXAS!!!!!!!!!! • 9 i y ArottOti<4.144.V, < -,04.44,409rtA,Aw404' *41. _ __ _ i 1W Y 9tePoapdiMg tta WALKER lit °li? "Why is skateboarding ti important to me.. ...The <- same reason that football ' is important to aggies,its our way of life,and we love it." k 4 ..iit XAVIER "Skateboarding is important to me because it gives me a sense of pride in what I do" COLT "Skateboarding is important to me because it keeps me doing something 1 other than vandalizing the town or doing drugs, it r "„ - keeps me out of trouble. if *"' we get a skatepark it will keep us away from skating the town and messing up areas that we cant skate:' AUSTIN kateboarding isn't a sport for young punks and vandals, / -7_7 its a life style of kids trying something that can make feel elcome and wanted by society.Even though we can't kateboard almost anywere in this town anymore because of the label people put on us.95%of us are good kids who make good grades and stay out of trouble,the other 5%are the acctual punks who are causing the real trouble. .kateboarding or not those kids make a bad name for us." JAKE --•. ., .,, "I have loved it ..,,, since I vtwo- was four years 4 old!" ;p, < A Jameson "Skating ;a is cool!" Aaron , "I enjoy ating a whole lot!" Although skateboarding has received much mainstream credi- bility in recent years, thousands of communities have yet to provide skaters with a place to legally practice their sport of choice. As a result, many adults still regard skaters as disre- spectful troublemakers. Business owners chase them away. City officials pass ordinances to impede them. Police give them tick- ets. Shrouded in stigma and with few resources to overcome it, many skaters still grow up feeling disenfranchised, and the in- stitutionalized image of skaters as delinquents becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. ?DID YOU KNOW PAGE? • Skateboarding is currently the 6th largest sport in the United States? • Skateboarding is a $50 million a month business, with yearly sales for 2000 estimated at over$800 million. • A 1999 Harris Interactive Survey showed that kids 6-17 rated the X-Games second only to the Olympics in sports they enjoyed watching most. The Super Bowl came in third. • Douglass Elementary School in Boulder, Colorado, developed a school skateboarding curriculum for gym class? • Most skateboarding accidents occur when skaters are first learning the sport (the first week) the other part is when skaters are in unsafe environments (cars and uneven surfaces such as the streets). • Compared to other popular sports like football and basketball, skate- boarding has far fewer annual injuries per thousand participants (Basketball-224; Baseball- 1 16; Soccer- 62, Skateboarding-20. ac- cording to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a division of the U.5. Consumer Product Safety Commission.) • When you Google Skateboard Parks you get 1 ,990,000 options. • There is an International Society of Skateboarding Moms? • This park will act as a strong magnet for athleticism beyond your imagination. • Skateboarding is a furnace for calorie burning, the obesity rate in skateboarding is zero! (when they love it more than video games) WOW, and I am not kidding! t 3 �1 Before + r , ` After = T S . SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT Skateboarding is an activity that is prac- ticed by millions of young people across the ,. "'NZ country, they represent every ethnicity and span the economic spectrum. To suggest that skateboarders are a bad element is to suggest that youth in general are bad. This sport is character building, these kids have to wait their turn to do their tricks, while waiting for their turn, they watch and cheer for their peers who finally nail a jump after unwavering perseverance , These kids are the most polite people I have ever meant! These children may not be the ones paying taxes, but they are shaping our future. If they are let down too many times, then they will not get the opportunity to prove that they are worthy enough to be heard and believed in enough to show their gift of inspiring you to sit on the sidelines and watch in awe of their athletic ability and artistic skills, in a safe ,fun and legal environment. Contact sheet: Tamara KeeSe tamjamse&ca hotmail.com (979) 2608-2029 home (979) 324-2409 cell Committee will be formed and the contacts will be added for now any questions please don't hesitate to call or email me. ESIG Statement of Qualifications Skate Park Design Services go • N re l' ie a t ' qtr • '74 , SITED esign Group,Inc. nA t/ Carlsbad,CA OBice 2734 Loker Ave.Wesf,Suite H Carhbad,CA 92010 877.34.7275 !ti 360.918.1702 www sitedesig ngroup.com DESIGN GROUP, INC. .Landscape Architecture .Urban Design •Skate Park Planning&Design ^cvnstmctmnxdmm/strat/on SITE DesiGrcup, c thanks for the rtit to provide ourStatement ofC>uaU&sdo sfnr your future skatepark project. Designing a successful facility requires the wrvices of a carefully selected team of experienced skatepark consultants. SITE Design Group, Inc.and our resources consist of cohesive team of skate park designers, landscape architects, pro skateboarders, park planners, construction managers and specialty contractors who possess the requisite skills and experience to successfully complete your project on time and on budget. We are pleasedto have received national recognition from municipalities,top skaters and the media for our attention in determining the needs of the users and surrounding community, and in the skill of designing creative,cost-sensitive park facilities.Our innovative designs,including our new skateplazas are rapidly winning world-wide attention for providing skate-able facilities that complement the surrounding urban landscape. Weare confident that with our team's extensive knowledge in design and construction of skateparkfacilities,we can provide the best product with due care and diligence. I realizeyou are in the beginning steges of development for your projectject but would like to make myself available as a reurce for any information you might need along the way. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at our Carlsbad, CA headquarters @ 877'734'7275 or via e-mail at mnn@aitedeoigngroupcom. Sincerely, 4,41-14":461 Michael R. McIntyre RLA President TABLE OF CONTENTS s p-;f53.-i,,,,,,:-.11;41:,.-:','..-3,„ittlit,,,'--,7: r.i'',15.:',1-',' -. - ',,,,,i,..0*, ,,,,6:,,,'..--..,'-,i,,,-- -„ -; - -,.,.,).,-4,,,.'&,-,-,,,, , ,-„--',,,,,,,-,,„,i,,,i0.,,,,,,,,,, ; .,,,,',:if.,;' W 3 ,.. ' ';',.',,t, 4 ,,t,tr..4 '' ,'S . , '1,s,,. ter.""`) - SECTION 1 - Firm Overview SECTION 2 - Philosophy & Approach SECTION 3 - Typical Project Schedule SECTION 4 - Park Locations Map SECTION 5 - Relevant Experience SECTION 6 - CompanyIo ,_ ,., ,a ,ar• .v . - Carlsbad,CA Office �+ /� ,� 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H SECTION 7- ';Su•p,lemerital Material Carlsbad,CA 92010 1 [f]877.734.7275 [f]760.918.1702 , /g3 f i P www.sitedesigngroup.com s'rH ;� SECTION 1 FIRM OVERVIEW,... . . . ..„,. ., � f Firm Overviews SITE Design Group, Inc. is a consulting � 1, „,4 firm specializing in Skate Park Planning, , : Design and Development,providing sere "� ices to clients throughout the United -' 04 g States, Europe, and Asia. SITE Design k• Group, Inc. was created to achieve the ,,� 1-, _ PRINCIPAL: goal of designing the most progressive ` ' �y A fin &f. r�f `'�� `� ' :. facilities with integrated site planning solu k.' e a R x Michael R.McIntyre,RIA,ASLA tions, and meeting the needs of our ..-..44 s ^ 4 � mrmCAs1edesigngroup.com clients and their community. Our profes- , z X'. ” _t. . sionally recognized, award winning skate 4 ' y ; k �'` ' park designs throughout the United States ' and abroad exemplify our ability to under- .it. ' !'''' .. , stand the complexities of public and pri- , �`e;. ) . �� ,,; vate skate park development, regardless ''„Q-,,-...,-,,,,,,,, '` Lao4 •. .' . of location. ., ' LOCATION: SITE Design Group,Inc.(SDG)embraces a visionary,small-team management strategy,striving to provide a level of Carlsbad,CA Office personalized service. We dedicate one person to oversee each and every phase of a project,and assign key person- 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H nel with relevant experience gained on similar projects to address your planning needs. Through utilization of state- Carlsbad,CA 92010 of-the-art technology and attention to detail,we deliver a cohesive,focused effort over the course of the project. [t]877.734.7275 [ft 760.918.1702 ' . v: ,' SITE Design Group,Inc.offers many advantages in the execution of work on your skate park project, offering expertise in Landscape Architecture, Planning, Urban Design, Parks & '' I ' ' Recreation Planning &Design, and Construction Administration under one roof. We provide the client with a knowledge-based * ? . '. company to complete a project in a functional and creative man- , a'4"-'ea,,,,,„,:,r , ner. We focus on solid design and sound planning with the needs WEB ADDRESS: , and desires of our clients as our main priority. www.sitedesigngroup.comzikA ,\ 'w' 1 , , ®,, ei,# k ami a* .vaa 4,44 st th,41,17 1 fly, �.�F % - a , ,,,fig SKATE PARK GIEVELt]PI1AENT :;•I ec r k, i A ? , , , ' ,.. ''''' ' .11,,'--r:,---.. ,,, Tr:, _ ' ,,,,,,,..„-,,,,,,::; :'%74,0;,ft ,, ict?," -, ,h`4, -' ''.'''' ' ' ''',4bsi ' ' t Fa „ > ad w ;:- - milk, ,.„,1-, ----- rk-si!.:,,f'fote kri‘ti-O „,4,',„ ,- :;-„- iy- ,- , , t .. SECTION 2 PHILOSOPHY & APPROAC 4 , t Philosophy and Approach Skate Park Philosophy User Involvement The success of the park will be credited to the active participation of the park users. It is crucial to establish The design philosophy of SITE Design Group is to an effective process and obtain design consensus create a user-friendly quality facility that applies to throughout. SDG understands the importance of various skill levels and is exciting to the skate park receiving additional input from users who have users. The key element to launching a successful achieved professional status in skateboarding and in- skate park project is community involvement. The line skating outside of the community. Their input users are involved in the review of all generated ensures that the design brings functional concepts from design concepts to insure a community-based design. around the world,as well as receives approval from the It is our intention to continue working with any estab- professional skaters. lished focus group to maintain the continuity of the original interest groups. Our designs are unique through site integration. Skate parks can be visually Technology spectacular, primarily created through the arcs, tan- SDG is committed to providing the latest thinking and gents and grade differences. Our skate park designs technology to skate park design. We have a proven are intended to provide an inviting setting to be success record using AutoCAD for construction docu- enjoyed by not only by the skaters, but also the pub- ments and Intergraph "inroads" for modeling, anima- lic/spectators. tion, slope analysis, volume calculations,quantity sur- vey,cut and fill balance,coordinate geometry,calcula- Approach tion reports,and more. Research Schedule SITE Design Group constantly researches information SITE Design Group, Inc. establishes well-defined to design better skate parks through failure analysis of schedules for meetings, tasks and design products. past constructed public facilities built. We understand Timely meetings with our design team and the City what it will take to create a structurally sound skate park representatives will be regularly scheduled to review that will stand the test of time,and not inhibit the user concepts,costs and progress. Prior to the start of the experience. We understand all the methodologies and project,a master schedule will be developed to define techniques that need to be applied during the construe all pertinent tasks, sub-tasks, duration, milestones, tion process to make this park better built than any meetings and submittals. This process will ensure the other public facility. client and SITE Design Group's design team under- stands the project scope and associated task dura- Budget tion. The proposed design and budget will be extremely real- istic. SDG is currently working on cost estimates for Coordination several skate parks similar to what your City proposes. It will be our commitment to the project that the We stay in constant contact with contractors throughout required parties/resources remain informed,the proj- the process for up-to-date cost information to ensure ect schedule is designed to ensure a quality product, that there are no surprises or cost assumptions. All our estimates are accurate and delivery is on time. All area take-off information,is extremely accurate includ- internal schedules for the project will have resource ing our computer modeling that takes into consideration names associated with the project tasks prior to the total surface areas,specialty materials and earthwork start of the project. calculations. Design Guidelines Construction Process SDG will continue its efforts evaluating opportunities SDGstresses the importance of being an integral pa and constraints for the skate park and its relationship of the construction process. Design documents cannot,'; to the other park amenities. We will provide Sound Substitute for field coordination and requirements for information justifying the space allocation based, ort shaping a quality facility.We help shape the concept in theme, budget, circulation, parking, lighting, security the field from quality concrete finish samples tran ion and safety as a minimum. This creates a realistic templates for perfectlyt `trawled radii_ steel coping Carlsbad CA Office design approach, especiallyewhile wo king with`the back guides and much more. 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H skate park users and,designtteam ,,,..: Carlsbad,CA 92010 [I]877.734.7275 If]760.918.1702 � M www.sitedesigngroup.com ,• s,- coq "� . kap SECTION 3 TYPICAL PROJECT -SCI EULE a � I Typical Project Schedule Mar 27 Apr 10,'0 Apr 24 '0 May 8 0 r May 22 Jun 5 ID Task Name ` Duration i Start Finish S TIM F:T S W S T M F T S;W SIT;MiF T,S= 1 i TASK 1.0 PROGRAMMING&CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 5 days Mon 3/28/05 Fri 4/1/05 pv 2 l 1.1 Issue Skate Park Data Sheet to Client 1 day Mon 3/28/05 Mon 3/28/05 [,l' i 31.2 Data Collection 1 day Tue 3/29/05 Tue 3/29/05 4 1.3 Conceptual Layouts 2 days Wed 3/30/05 Thu 3/31/05 liv 5 i 1.4 Project Kick-Off Mtg#1 & Public Mtg#1 1 day Fri 4/1/05 Fri 4/1/05 6 Milestone-Task 1.0 Complete 0 days Fri 4/1/05 Fri 4/1/05 4' 4/1 7 TASK 2.0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 13 days Mon 4/4/05' Wed 4/20/05 8 1 2.1 Skate Park Conceptual Layout Plan 2 days Mon 4/4/05 Tue 4/5/05 2.2 Project Specific Web Site 1 day Wed 4/6/05 Wed 4/6/05 10 2.3 Skate Park Schematic Design/Master Plan 3 days Thu 4/7/05 Mon 4/11/05 I 11 2.4 Project Meeting#2 1 day, Tue 4/12/05 Tue 4/12/05 12 : 2.5 Develop Preferred Skate Park Master Plan 5 days Wed 4/13/05 Tue 4/19/05 13 2.6 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Skate Park 1 day Wed 4/20/05 Wed 4/20/05 [ y. 14 i Milestone-Task 2.0 Complete 0 days Wed 4/20/05 Wed 4/20/05 4/20 15 ;TASK 3.0 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT-60% 18 days Thu 4/21/05 Mon 5/16/05 16 3.1 Project Mtg.#3-DD Coordination-Ph.Conference 1 day Thu 4/21/05 Thu 4/21/05 17 i 3.2 Materials Research 2 days Fri 4/22/05 Mon 4/25/05, 18 3.3 Prepare Base Information 2 days Fri 4/22/05 Mon 4/25/05 .._....19 3.4 Site Plan 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 20 ' 3.5 Preliminary Skate Park Materials Reference Plan 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 21 i 3.6 Preliminary Skate Park Layout Plan 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 : 4-- 22 1 3.7 Axon Plan 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 23 3.8 Preliminary Grading&Drainage Plan Coordination 2 days Tue 4/26/05 Wed 4/27/05° -►1 Task L Rolled Up Task External Tasks :7 ,t Progress IIIMMIIIIIMMIIIIII Rolled Up Milestone O Project Summary Milestone , Rolled Up Progress INIIIIMMMINI Group By Summary Summary .M.111111.11.1. Split Typical Project Schedule Mar 27 Apr 10 '0 Apr 24 '0 May 8 0 May 22,'1Jun 5, ID Task Name ' Duration i Start Finish STMFTSWSTMFTSWSTMFTS 24 I 3.9 General Lighting Plan Guidelines 1 day' Tue 4/26/05 Tue 4/26/05 25 I 3.10 Sections/Profile Plan 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 26 3.11 Preliminary Landscape& Irrigation Plan 3 days Thu 4/21/05 Mon 4/25/05 i 27 S 3.12 60% Construction Details 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 28 3.13 60% Specifications 3 days Tue 4/26/05 Thu 4/28/05 29 3.14 Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Co.; 1 day Fri 4/29/05' Fri 4/29/05' [1-$11 30 3.15 60%Client Submittal 1 day Mon 5/2/05 I Mon 5/2/05 —5T7 3.16 60% Client Review 10 days Tue 5/3/05 Mon 5/16/05 32 . .... Milestone-Task 3.0 Complete 0 days Mon 5/16/05 Mon 5/16/05 5/16 33 I TASK 4.0 -CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 90% &100% 21 days Tue 5/17/05 Tue 6/14/05 34 I 4.1 Design Team Meeting#4-DD Overview&Coordinal 1 day Tue 5/17/05 Tue 5/17/05 [ 35 I 4.2 90% Construction Documents 5 days Wed 5/18/05 Tue 5/24/05 36 4.3 90%Statement of Probable Construction Cost 5 days Wed 5/18/05 Tue 5/24/0511-01 37 1 4.4 90%Specifications 5 days Wed 5/18/05 Tue 5/24/05 38 I 4.4 90%Client Review 10 days Wed 5/25/05 Tue 6/7/05 39 4.5 100% Construction Documents 5 days Wed 6/8/05 Tue 6/14/05 40 4.6 100% Specifications 5 days Wed 6/8/05 Tue 6/14/05 m 41 Milestone-Task 4.0 Complete 0 days Tue 6/14/05 Tue 6/14/05 _... 42 1TASK 5.0-BIDDING 31 days Tue 6/14/05 Wed 7/27/05 43 ; 5.1 Pre-Bid Conference 1 day Wed 6/15/05 Wed 6/15/05 44 5.2 Bidding Questions/Clarifications 30 days Thu 6/16/05 Wed 7/27/05 45 Milestone-Task 5.0 Complete 0 days Tue 6/14/05 Tue 6/14/05 Task 1 Rolled Up Task External Tasks ,_ .' Progress MMIIIIIIMINIMIIIIININ Roiled Up Milestone O Project Summary -' Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Progress 111111MIIIIMIIIIMMI Group By Summary Summary grIMIIIIIM.1' Split SECTION 4 PARK LOCATIOISMASPR p:. I ,:;1,1.„.. Aja. �J �'' °P -- ty y� !#� . "" A , affil ..rr, m i • ., -'-‘,..„..,-:.--A.',.... --.F. J.,.4F-yo - ...„.7,,,,,,„:„.•_,„.,, ,,,,i,,,,,;:„.,..„,.„,,,„, ;.„,,,..,,, 40 : .. 141,,,,,,,,t.,1, „„„ii:,,,trox: ,,,,, ,,,,,..,,p.i.00,..,, -,,,ite , .:,.. ..,;:.,,:,,,0„......:;'si 2-1- ,,.."', ...,.;,,,g.;1 t=41.$*;4;`,":-.1;tt", '',-"'7‘‘'t ,t.; . ,:,-:,,t: ". , '''' ) ''''. " WIPP 117'lt 4fijRT ,.-. T n�: an f Win. r€; 10 s '-� ear ;�,. # ,7.4*,--..,,---M- ✓ � _ � _ '; �1.D� �- €. .� ,i.- - . -„I zotrj. ,•*, •--, zi; • -,,./i,-1,-... . ;.� mop, _two ' to "iE#.fi 3 d e T t r a n t i ra r vo. SKATE PARK LOCATIONS qy��� •. L. f � E �`�P a, e�f r t '�Jict#1 ‘ Vit` AV - i...44;',..%,75-fetre 11*Y o a is _°Y .� 9 'Y; '�.s`, 1 -,-rk•• ' -,', 11" , 0 TTAtitttit,vp 1 *:.,„,,,,.. .', 4 . „ „ . , ,,, A I SL DORADO)SK.PARK 4'3t f C� - •, . 2 CNOWOHI4,LASK.PARK - �' _ -z.. 4CNOEP.OAT 9 BERKELEY SKATE PARK 4 LIONS DEN SKATE PARK �2. MISSOURI " *Atspig<sA# 57 HANNIBAL SKATE PARK �s , ALABAMA 5 CLOVIS SKATE PARK ( a�t+s erc' i 78 SPRINGFIELD SKATE PARK t 41 ROCK'N ROLLERS SKATE PARK. 7 S SKATE PARK ., i h ,€auwtarucc.A;r- =..r6lecsT eems�,, TT CRF.vE COIR SKATE PARK 8 GLENDALE SKATE MTH( CAYMAN D GCS ARIZONA PMENCRIC 78 KANSAS CITY SKATE PARK a CHINO SKATE PARK 65 GRAND CAYMAN SKATE PARK A4MtSAs p3Y, I '# ,� } 74 INDEPENDENCE SKATE PARK. 15 BUSHMASTER SKATE PARK t0 ENCINITAS REDESIGN €c€ARp AraAx, sea,Ass G€ .AD (EMCRMS ARM PPG KA COLORADO. TS FOXGLEOXGLENN SKATE PARK If ROBB FIELD SKATE PARK MINNESOTA Sf7TA.. OKLAHOMA 13 YM TE PARK: et...DcbatI,C42 SKEWAY'SKATE PAitH. UTA.H:. 12 MEMORIAL SKATE PARK 43 DULUTH SKATE PARK 31 RIYERFRONT SKATE PARK 17 SSIWERSTIUON SHADOWS CORON MIRKA AA,CAI 48 BOULDESKATE.PARKf.. ; "AP" z#3xsArxMPaev"�` 51 LOGAMSKATE PARIS. 13 CORONADC3 SKATE PARK sostsuA so, ROCHES FR SKATE PARK'. •f.aua.+rn eACDOWzaot MP'4N K 'x.`w9 47 AURORA WHEEL PARK: stocrsrstss,Pars 52 PARK CITY SKATE PARK 18 MOU35sELL MOUNTAIN RANCH SK.PARK 148AERANDS SKATE PARK.. OREGON ' :�AAx crPt,urt (, *tows)auRM+T Cas 53 BOUNTIFUL SKATE PARK 19 PARADISE 315E VALLEY SKATE PARK 23 DELANO SKATE PARK> D .A{d�AI E NEVADA 54 LINCOLN SKATE PARK urt fTE E SI GRO'B_MS 1PNITR20 PECOS SKATE PARK 24 BLAIR SKATE PARK 50 ANTHEM SKATE PARK 55 REEDVILL E CREEK SKATE PARK 51 CLEARFIELD SKATE PARK. butaattrut3'.Axa 81 GLASGOW SKATE PARK GROB&VG 21 TEMPE SPORTS COMPLEX WAROLA3t• (T ;EAd vs.rws..w� 5T LLAAYTTOON SKA PARK 60 WAROLAW SKATE PARK. ��#mi MPG • 22C0011DGESKATEPhRK: 64LA"t4HR SKATE PARK. FLORIDA A NEW I EXICO SOUTH AFRICA 53 RMONTSKATE.PARK. (COEMOCE,AG e.4n r.a.a 3S S7RLANE745KAI£PRT2#C s..rt cm,.WM 25FAMILY YMCA: 68 BOLINAS SKATE.PARK " ""'FE= 44 LOS ALTOS.,KATE PARK TONY HAWK!WAVE HOUSE SKATE PARK 63 OAKLEY SKATE PARK trs€oaerr+.IR SMoi�wa,cws €+soos7:t* ••v, ;MASAN stw:•A MCA., EA N GEi 25 CAMP FIRE. 68 ALBA NORTE:SKATE PARK HAWAII. 44 CALVARY CHAPEL SKATE PARK' 67 LADING SKATE PARK, 26 NOGiA�iLES SKATE.PARK ' r56 SALVATION ARMY SKATE PARK SA OSoCRuc _has 70 EBCOrIDIil SPi7R.5 COMPLEX 4S TAGS SKA"PARK TEXAS say 28 CAROLINA SKATE PARK 2804004444,AN MSCONORICI . 27 5 R SPORTS COMPLEX 71 SA CLAs RITA SKATE PARK' ILLINOISNEW YDFi.ti gcs as.r<, E} `T a (SPAM S 22 FREESTONE SKATE PARK 72 BERRY PARK SKATE PARK 28 WILLIAM- AM SKATE PARK 29 ICAGERT,APS MUM,CAI 37 WILSON SKATE PARK 82 LOWER MANHATTAN SK.PARK. s.01.000 Pk, 46 WAKEFIELD SKATE PARK IS 1st DIVINE EXTENSIONS SK:PARK 73 RESIDENCE �a n c;t`x w+cR�o=,t,sr# 30 ABILENE SKATE PARK 30 ?1,40-10f.'AET x €EPC4�#Aa CA} 38 NORTHEROOK SKATE PARK 83 UPPER MA35�-IATTAN 8K.PARK. c+ #sE,txi 18 GLET4DALE SKATE PARK 74 VILLAGE 8 SKATE PARK "�`` t�€vivrmf c,.,'iY! 32 ALLEN STATION 2 SKATE PARK 32 14KEE}WtE.AP (CORER VISTA.w 39 SPRINGFIELD SKATE PARK u4PEra TIG f,"ea'fiaicFEE[(}�, WASHINGTON 68 ANTHEM SKATEPARK 88 ORANGE COVE SKATE PARK OHIO 33 KELLER SKATE PARK 33 WaPREY P'if4i;fil:Ali {MWYCt♦;coVE GAY METIER,TM 84 SKYWAY CHURCH SKATE PARK 87 PALM SPRINGS SKATE PARK KENTUCKY 48 HATHAWAY SKATE PARK ' MENARD SKATE PARK 3.4 fit MUKILTFO YMCA SKATE.PARK 65 PEORIAISKATE PARK SANAK AZ} F AN cAt KETTERINGK,6+,,. ,.,•„wt BEAR BR ro 88 SAH FRANCISCO PIER 27 BK PARK 58 RICHMOND KATE PARK 49 KESKATE PARK TS BEAR BRANCH WHEEL fRiENDLY AREA a csTea.w €"4'oNH.:AZT {sAN rltAIctsco,(A3 €wr W�Aa).WO !KETTERING,RN! tYYCbtlCAtAT.TA! List of Skate Park Projects Alabama Huntsville Insanity Skate Park Design Arizona Apache Junction Superstition Shadows Skate Park Design Chandler Snedigar Sports Complex Design • Coolidge West Park Skate Park Design/Build Flagstaff Bushmaster Skate Park Design Flagstaff Foxglenn Skate Park Design Gilbert Freestone Skate Park Design Glendale Glendale Skate Park Design Goodyear Skyway Church Skate Park Design Peoria Peoria Skate Park Design Phoenix Paradise Valley Skate Park Design Phoenix Phoenix 1st Divine Extensions Skate Park Design Prescott Yavapai Skate Park Design Scottsdale McDowell Mtn Ranch Skate Park Design Tempe Skate Park at the Tempe Sports Complex Design Tucson Campfire Skate Park Design Tucson OTT Family YMCA Skate Park Design Wickenburg Wickenburg Skate Park Design California Berkeley Berkeley Skate Park Design Bolinas Mesa Skate Park Design/Build Borrego Springs Badlands Skate Park Design Chino Ayala Skate Park Design Chula Vista Veteran's Skate Park Design Chula Vista Village Six Ledge Park Design Clovis Letterman Skate Park Design Coronado Coronado Skate Park Design Delano Delano Skate Park Design El Dorado Hills El Dorado Hills Skate Park Design Encinitas Magdalena-Ecke YMCA Skate Park Design/Build Encinitas City of Encinitas Skate Park Design . Escondido Escondido Sports Complex Skate Park Design Fresno Lions Den Skate Park Design Glendale Verdugo Skate Park Design/Build Lake Forest Etnies Skate Park Design Lathrop Lathrop Skate Park Design Ocean Beach Robb Field Skate Park Design Orange Cove Orange Cove Skate Park Design Palm Springs Palm Springs Skate Park Design/Shotcrete San Bernardino Blair Skate Park Design San Francisco San Francisco YMCA Pier 27 Skate Park '"'Design Vallejo Vallejo Skate Park Design Cayman Islands Grand Cayman Black Pearl Skate Park Design/Build Colorado Boulder Boulder Skate Park Design Denver Aurora Wheel Park Design w -,,,.,;,3,w,,A, Ne. La Junta Sk8Way SkatePark - Design/Build v. Carlsbad,CA Office Delaware ,, ',,-.,2 , D 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H ^` -� Carlsbad,CA 92010 Glasgow kate lurk Design Newcastle County ,g [t]877.734.7275 ,•- x„�, s Y�', ,•„V: r [1]760.918.1702 - - •` '� Florida Orlando Orlando Skate Park Design/Shotcrete Hawaii wwwsitedesigngroup.com Kamuela Waimea-Salvation Army Skate Park Design/Build Additional park information r x can be found at: www.sitedesigngroup.com List of Skate Park Projects Illinois Chicago Wilson Skate Park Design Northbrook Northbrook Skate Park Design Springfield Springfield Skate Park Design/Build Kentucky Richmond Richmond Skate Park Design Minnesota Duluth Duluth Skate Park Design Missouri Hannibal Hannibal Skate Park Design/Assist Build Kansas City Kansas City Skate Park Design Maryland Heights Creve Coeur Lake Memorial Skate Park Design Nevada Henderson Anthem Skate Park Design/Build New Mexico Albuquerque Calvary Chapel Skate Park Design Albuquerque Los Altos Skate Park Design Taos Taos Skate Park Design Ohio Garfield Heights Hathaway Skate Park Design Kettering DC Shoes/Kettering Skate Park Design Oklahoma Oklahoma City Riverfront Skate Park Design Oregon ' Forest Grove Lincoln Park Skate Park Design Hillsboro Reedville Creek Skate Park Design South Africa Durban Wave House Design/Build Texas Abilene Abilene Skate Park Design Allen Allen Station II Skate Park DpeessligganiBuild El Paso Carolina Skate Park Galveston Menard Skate Park Design Ingleside Ingleside Skate Park Design/Build Keller Keller Skate Park ', Design ' Midland Pearland William Sam Memorial Skatt.Park,„ ";- , Design Pearland-Coppinger Family YMCA , Design '*- The Woodlands Bear Branch Wheel Friendly Park ' Design * Utah Bountiful Bountiful Skate Park Design' Carlsbad,CA Office Clearfield Clearfield Skate ParkDesign , ' Layton Skate Park ,a.i,DDeessiiggnn/Build 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H Layton Carlsbad,CA 92010 OakleyPL oagrkanCity Logan Skate park , Fairmont Skate park ,,,,,,, Design/Build itj 877.734.7275e, ' ' ' 'Park 0 aki eciY,t8yk4te:tepapil;e4,,:\ [f]760.918.1702 Salt Lake City Washino ton Mukilteo YelArapncAhosfkSanteohpoamirksh Mukilteo Family Design , ‘ www.siiedesrangroup.com Additional park Information con be found of: www.sltfdesigngroup.com SECTION 5 RELEVANT EXPEs RIENCE y s Rele:,,:.a,,,-„.::',E,::,-.:3;:rie,nce LOCATION Kettering Skate Park CITY:Kettering STATE:Ohio PROJECT SUMMARY �� � SITE Design Group, Inc. is currently working with the ,._41:104,604, ,,,,,,eilt,.... City and Residents of Kettering,Pro-Skater Rob Dyrdek s and DC Shoes in designing the first ever plaza style °_ ., SITE STATS skatepark. This project brings the urban flavor back to the skaters in an environment which provides"legal to s ride"street obstacles such as ledges,planters,bench- 7-. SIZE 27,000 square feet es, stairs and railings, while simultaneously providing TYPE:Inground Concrete the community with a beautifully landscaped plaza. ` "' ' �„ BUDGET:$500,000 CONTACT Ma Beth Thaman r� "� e. - �' i a ,,, Rc;42 °.� ,y ea ` ,it'jf: \l. Mary �' �£v E� R �, aJt,•,,,,17,...',,,.,„,:„.,,,,,-,--,..,.1" C y:�. Iii a:Fit L :c ,, y0Z'f�n g g Director of Parks,Recreation E� ��` '�{ &Cultural Arts +- `.ail+ ., A " L aK.�.�.' w ��;1 .:: ' City of Kettering,OH �..F >« �.: <a�-,44,,,, ...,4,....:41•11,"1-.<- , • % , , 937/296-2454 • ,.. =- � � s � .. �' . �r ; 7 fi , ' ,,- .tpiPijittrr i'� f y� �.�M.M�r,w J «j ypx ��i*s l a y i' p C.Y $V.u?V L"aBd'i' ,.£fis,Is '.gym, ,= ytf ,��, cadsbad,CA Office 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H w ,� ' �` �' Carlsbad,CA 92010 . ' [t]877.734.7275 a """ [f]760.918.1702 f Y ,�. ` �` `Tn 1 �+ s i �i i""M" a �� - °�u 4' ` www.sitedesigngroup.comi''''2,'.'4.,)„11, g •' a Al,1 Relevant Experience LOCATION Etnies Skate Park CITY:Lake Forest PROJECT SUMMARY STATE:California SITE Design Group,Inc.worked with skate apparel company Sole Technology and their sponsored pro athletes in designing a 38,000 square foot skatepark in Lake Forest,CA. Cited by Thrasher Magazine as"the best bet in Southern California"and a"concrete paradise"by Transwodd Skateboarding Magazine, the Etnies Skatepark is comprised of 50%transitional and 50%street terrain. ; SITE STATS The park consists of a clover bowl,a peanut bowl with traditional pool tile and : �` coping,a vast transition flow course,and alinear-style street course complete `� ; SIZE 40,000 square feet ,- 1114.41.Z.Z::...;:::',Ni4;iiiiiii3O with rails,stairs,gaps and ledges.The park opened Feb 2004 and continues to �" TYPE:Inground Concrete receive great reviews from the skate community at large. z ,, BUDGET: $650,000 a £ ,, €a :Ig CONTACT !i. :#� «3w, : To- ''' ,S .' ,' f` J Mark Waters , a �' °`'» M{ - - � Sole Technology _ 5r4„ d� ti -°�' £ m 1949)900 2726 1 P '` 'S ' ' aI.,,,,,,,..„.„,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,, �e Ai ` k .� -l � �y Com': vanIk T ,r,,.,.,...,,,„........., --- . „:„.,:,,,-,,,:‘,,„,...x..,„,i74.71titalAvh ..,...,„,„ 4, . .,. .., . , :,.. .,.. ,,.....,,,,,f,.-„,i..,„,,,,,,,,:,„„,..„:„,k,..„..,.,:„,,,,,„., ,..„„,,„,,,,,,..„„,... „, , , ,, 73'...-...n..*R.,....:4:ix...i.T.4.,,,g::46gJi-$.. -...:,..2, s' = ,. 4, '' lea ,°il Ea. �t r _ rip .# �. gym -1 ' fi.t!;i''i'.•*'t:4:,'44ii41,.4T11tf,4 r*ii.,,''r*•0''0' ':'-N-',,.'`,,,5,11':1•'„,',4.,c44-414':"'''"''-:i"-'',, ., 4 ' ' * \ u sac.5)5'iiv r ,, , - .. Carlsbad,CA Office ,\ NtL��,� 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H �' Carlsbad,CA 92010 £ [11 877.734.7275 R; .., h [f[760.918.1702 ` k j 7 r E ,„ i y . " ai • '4 . t w ww sit ed esi g n g ro u p.c o m ..,. '•' r ` ' � . fir, .� ''a '•w Relevant Experience LOCATION Boulder Skate Park CITY:Boulder tel STATE:Colorado PROJECT SUMMARY Mr.McIntyre was the designer for the City of Boulder's second skate park project. The tasks included several ., - public meetings with the skate park users, conceptual ,A b 4 design, design development and preparation of con , . SITE STATS �; struction documents. The skate park and site improve _ s men design and costs were unanimously approved by " ., t SIZE:17,000 square feet r%,. ' the City Council. An eventful grand opening was held ; TYPE:Inground Concrete November 18,2000 with a large turnout of local skaters r BUDGET:$400,000 'a ' 'V ;„<.,/ `7`-` a ...„...„:1....k.,.. 4'.s ands spectators. " P .; '4.:.1,-,, M, CONTACT Maureen Spitzer c; A Porks&Recreation " ly` City of Boulder (303)413-7227 rc • a V i .. ',„ :,<4 it":, 'S : ( 1 .,,; tii, _ k ,Eif 9 o Y t ':4 Y t v -, �4 ,,, Carlsbad,CA Office Rx 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H r,.... "'` __ a ._.," r. Carlsbad,CA 92010 per" a',....7. (I)877.734.7275 zx - ` �'�_ F 760.918.1702 t+,4 r ';4''''''',:.-°,*,,,, ¢ + 1 , ,7'.'$'-',4:.ttit'-:::„..1,,,,..„,,,,,,,..."r--:,'„4,,,i,,,s'i, ' ,}' ' g $ § l' 1 ' '1!'!'i,' .1.::--.. www.sitedesigngroup.co tli a I ' a . "tn. Relevant Exaerirr e LOCATION Etnies Skate Park CITY:Lake Forest PROJECT SUMMARY STATE:California SITE Design Group,Inc.worked with skate apparel company Sole Technology and their sponsored pro-athletes in designing a 38,000 square foot skatepark in Lake Forest,CA..Cited by Thrasher Magazine as"the best bet in Southern California"and a concrete paradise"by Transwodd Skateboarding Magazine, the Etnies Skatepark is comprised of 50%transitional and 50%street terrain. SITE STATS The park consists of a clover bowl,a peanut bowl with traditional pool tile and f coping,a vast transition flow course,and alinear-style street course completer SIZE:40,000 square feet with rails,stairs,gaps and ledges.The park opened Feb 2004 and continues to TYPE:Inground Concrete receive great reviews from the skate community at large. , BUDGET: $650,000 - ' ,. .' ',..,;74'"- 444(''''.-4111.1"4.41,4:tt.. .)001,,.. 4,414t4,,,,; CONTACT �. a wt * , 3 . Mark Waters - P Sole Technology * r 0 e ,' . (9491 900-2726 " i. _ [i� a < a � ]1 te+� ,t p`S` oidoill « s. ' b:'g ArmE� • ' `' y-fi., n , M i aP c,*" I k- sitis •4:13'"'''''',"''''''r'''''4- -c° - R '6 , <' f 1 f,..; y �m : ,.t g. t. 3 -4d£ ,= _ e . '4 , I _. „ SPE . , „ , . ,, ...,.„,. , , — . -,4100•00 .-- W j Carlsbad,CA Office 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H Carlsbad,CA 92010 1< ' [11 877.734.7275 [f]760.918.1702 _ v E 1 ? www.sitedesigngroup.com .,,",. i `',,,., i $ ' ,,, '' :' ' Relevant Experience LOCATION Wilson Skate Park CITY:Chicago STATE:Illinois PROJECT SUMMARY SITE Design Group,Inc.worked with CM@Risk,ESD Construction,Inc.on the Wilson Skate Park in Chicago,IL. SDG conducted several skate park focus group meetings with the community as well as several design workshops with the user groups. The meetings provided general consensus regarding skatepark design and resulted in a final design SITE STATS which consists of both transitional as well as street terrain,thus accomodating both styles of riders in the Chicago area. In addition to conceptual and schematic design,SDG performed design development,construction documents and con- SIZE:21,647 square feet struction observation for the project. TYPE:Inground Concrete BUDGET:$850000 CONTACT Mitch Glass Chicago Parks District a ` (312)742-4694 ,f , z e : -gym a r d -"'. -...,‘,/,''.r.',"0,1:'im '` , . 1 ' '' 1 , «tea. , Carlsbad,CA Office :' . w,' a .. � 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H ' „ �� Q Carlsbad,CA 92010 xt ' [t]877.734.7275 - 's [f]760.918.1702 ;„ ... ° �4 "` 3 4 • wwwsitedeslgngroup.com ' Relevant Experience LOCATION Aurora Wheel Park CITY:Aurora STATE:Colorado PROJECT SUMMARY SITE Design Group, Inc.,the Prime Consultant devel- :. oped a "Wheel Park" concept for the City of Aurora, Colorado. The Wheel Park is situated on a 15-acre . park site and includes an 20,000 sq.ft.skate park,six SITE STATSiikr (3) In-Line Hockey Rinks, a NBL Bicycle Motocross A, track and all supporting park infrastructure. SDG per- SKATEPARK SIZE.20,000 sgft „,.:,. a.,,.,:,=1,.'” __ tJ „ ��' formed Design through Construction Documents as TYPE:Combination 4y •' " well as Construction Observation. The project further �, ' + � ENTIRE PARK BUDGET:$2,200,000 entailed the coordination of all sub-consultants includ- ing civil,electrical,and structural engineers.The Wheel 4r „ , CONTACT Park was part of a featured tour during the 2001 " , . Jack Cooper National Recreation and Parks Association Conference r ' ,� City of Aurora in Denver,Colorado. ` ., - a (303)739-7160 " ^2 't t. .F.!, 'I.4 :•4- fl � s 7 r ,lit4 , ,,,4, 4 ,,. „,/,,,c,„c,,, /.4, . , ryysi dm t` ,144 qty r '� � : 3. � � r p x it,', s tl f�f qqq' � `k,fifi99 0•1''¢ 9j$gj¢ ,{"meg$}j8},g;1e}sy,.{y;$;y(tl$pgp t 9 tfr [;4;..1.,7,7,„T 4;.r�77 t(((fffa ity,'„/�1",,p(9 j( rr 'j,/;2,, 'j, &Iltoir, ' , 5F{,i'a\ -'.�°c p4;• ,,,:::°i,.{fi.416#;11,1 d :r Y p3'Fi(y,'pig! 4�(?+ +,,,;t J 9., Si, ,.,..." If, *A oa Carlsbad,CA Office "_ ` 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H Carlsbad,CA 92010 "'` :� (tJ 877.734.7275 : AP e � a. [fJ 760.918.1702 ' , * 1 mus 4i s' Y� 4'1 g * r -. 7*6 www.efedesigngroup.com "" m os, e ;y,, Relevant if conceptual mann! SDG peAlir,fleadpark. SkateSepGdesstina- Park Park proJetsenfationatee.r.r "^ la y becemn'deib_skill level nand()sketceon and structiorknwnich hasr street are%gaing in eievati_o Orlando ledge,u Architects on thdeoc°u documents nlex ekatenfPaabeginner4'deeP'lcnhaatranaferdng Phase development,construction for the SUMMARYBrito nstruction e and complex consists of 5 to 11' spine with be built du Experience LOCATION Rhodes and PROJECT d with R control additionallyi,def plaza United States. overall,A,course consists of a street CITY:Orlando schematic visits ensu s the .pool. The The fin-also STATE:Honda Sipe werkedesign,design Ted quality bottom' design for advance and flat The Thela°rgrIaffnodw°Park srain rangesfeatures tion point and and the deck a r pockets. course a both _come con- struction site skaters across flow times on, _and deep several degree hiPs park. 1 , - SITE STATS and 45 tion of the ., --- ,00 ft ii construction _,...., - __, A ARK SIZE:25. r tse SK TEP und con,-r€le d level TYPE:Ing'°BUDGET.1.6 m" .,....,.., lm . .1,14Aile;,Z11'N which will PROJECT .--OKESISSiill ' iiVEI -'-Si 4:: ...,,4,..k...',-triv .,..,, :„... CONTACT .,-.......„,„. . ......,........ n Lastraee „ ... ,.„ ..„ .,. .. '..,V,1441,01',1*. .:tiiirif 'Aier4:itil -,:drillVir Byra . ,,,,to Architects Kiiillit*, ,Ztittaliit,424i1etinriii'',,' .4aitgitil „ f:: -l'i!';'' '',',- ,,,r,•-*!'iT'''''''''"i• • t:T'•ttt"*-A'''''!'4,•l:n'...4iti(,*',;: :;!:t*rr,it.:;444':'ift',:, ,A:rlptt;„.. 2 .„gig*fil,07..,..•••• , ,,,,:::,•.,;.,:,•, ,,I,-,-. (407)6 8-tz Rhode:7. '88 .iigi.etk -0rii;:;----,414`'''''''..:' .:•:'•, '' ltrAit.,..tilt* '44`1,i41114-: Pv4m4 0.-`,":"'•,,,ittitiiit:Thhtitli0:te Pr'' •tt i'l, ;la*. ,, ",,1 ,,,„,„..., • , oa:,,g7:14ttil '.••:tt.',AN,Ritt.•• ,4,;",,r,r-'1; ,.;i" :,,:..c,,,:it#:',1,,, , N -.',.,,”, t4.4,,A' ..4,4ii,46114...,:,4,4117,, tigittoillkAgtoAfft,5-1 !•,.:.vg.,.' r4-- ' ;!....,-: :12-eLi-,----- , —, ---,------•"- ''' .-.-,:.:•- ,....•':,:t4ti '. tier:.....,...• .- •.„„,,,.... ahakt— ,•4',,.... .----0,:,,, ' ' - i 41'''''' ""iKrIl,',,,,,:.:.--Aff;'7,-.•;:y.4.4,t,-.....,,,.....,„'",,-,-6,'!;141,4,02, ' 1. plitifi•':.,„)-..:-,Itiviilotto ,,...,,.4,,m.),,:4,..4•4.t.ii,igh ,--...(-,,-7,k-,i -,,,,..•',•°•,'-,"."':i'IripiA1.4,4,„, •••,‘ • - i . "• .,, :. "4.•4%4",i,- .. ' '' ' ' • ,'4.,. • , - *••'-W*.t...:•c4rit,,i,.. t-,-- ' 1 '':,' •:,.. ,• ' , '.,,V;,',,,,,- ,''''.'. • -44,44444!.::•iiitC . : f ':: ''' '' , . ... .. ,- ,---... - .... . • --. , II ,-' .,. rTiViik:'; ,,,,,Idoott-tilinililiiiiit-11,'414ElgitiqiiIiii- ---771iigli:: :4..i.;,,,,, f:OIifi' . ik . atclitt$ N51"41, -- ' -ii i -!iII-AE ':?''Ei.'", ' r , : - '':'%'41,..,..rimn0f•'..cli Egy,.. „,,,;43"taciiiklit4 4 ii44414011,,"e)4`4:•••4.ii:fr;\11:4.• ••••'::''',7%414itiiitti „,,,,,,,,,,idttrir."&•'''Irtt6.'. ;41"14274:!•.;','§;*;frItlitt.2114:1• 0;4444 '. ' 11;ii:•`.111401.'''11V•i tia4littiti,Pkif:•: :--i :•: 10, *klitt,, ,,rC,",7:::',2•:'ilt•rc. .) 14ttitINP.''''. '-•''''''-- • ' ‘,..4t4e•:t44:4,,,,,‘‘• ,,,•••.^4.•.4.,..:••3w,44,::4411 :: -4',4',:“:•*4,t4tL'''''nmi.'"NtA1::::'''''!i';414'''''''- ''' ditti*,4,11,14:**VP.Ifjltkirte tlyei:,•;!,?'1.':illt14.4:;:41,76°P*}71ii:Kt ...0-'‘`-:' rrktatZ ,:z•:,,sz,77-,...-;•,',...1:,.44„ .4,-t....r„hy ,,,„ ;-; ,, ,,trletr.,..:• --,,40,,c,:--:,- „,„,,m,1,,:t„.„-,,„,,,-,: ,.„,,...,,,...1 :,,,01.-----7--;-; ••,,,,, ,,,,;(•„*,0,,r1p-9,,, • -.,,„.-•.•;„.., , ,. ...,,,„.,.....„ 1.,t..i.4:=,,,,:,-.2•1,04'A.ft1P/,'.1„;',,z•-•%:,.`,ft*Itifiltzl,',.:!:*,-k•••-•? • •--, . ' „.„,.„...-..--„,•• _ .„.01FiRiF.,-,,,,!.,,i:-.,,..,:i•°•,1- 4,;.„„„ „...,,,,-,„ii,.4 ,-.,,,,-„... ..:',,,,,,•'-,!:,,..,•"2ek" illikdifiet4. :, -------,---I,, , r,„co,•:,-„-:.....,:,:, 77-,.,-- mptt...,-...47:,,,T.,---.7-1 _ , ...-,•,:.,, .::, ...„--„,).7-7,,,v..-''• .,''--.:',' '';q''',,:;"" ''", ,"PO'llt 7:1.) '' " .."-1!:t'''''''',''•-' . - ''",.:: ,.. ''; ' '‘i....,-;iii,•S'S At',,„_,-':','.'"AZ f:ii., ,I.----.7, „--'i,i•,:•,=.44raVtil tr..:•. - t.,.. ".' ••,'• ' llit ,,, ..z,4•7• ;e'''',,t',44.,. .';"''' te,Q.tvc...v,Ity''•••,:i't 1,,t:iir,i. •••••• ' , ,,, ,, , ,;,,,, • , , ;,-', . ''.....:••.,..4i ,* .', ' ',;',..4•iu.',1:,:,,-771:il ..4".i...-.„:7:„. r., . i ' ,,....„, . ,, ,. - ,, :t ,,, , 4-' r7W:1,',A's4,,,ii,,:„.f.,:',„ .1‘7A ,, 3 !A5ir.,,f,,;(41.i.TgRk 0%11 . ...,., '' r.'::''''' e''' ''.' •::' 'Itti,: tiiiiPt*Ii2Nkf, : 11;:lk!i1Ooliktiuts*" .--':' '' ' ' -<- t?*I*StY-Igto!rtgfoiittaIL-iioiQitktti .Iiii-iit--, ---::,..d,CA°fftce. Suite H -- „ ,- -• tIalikijit-T- .',...1kliPME.1-1ZSglittitiWitZZOITHONIII ‘r'll'&'' carisi...-ker Ave.West. 2: : ''''' ; '' 44'-' 2734 Lod,CA now kirf.k747ii4.:, 'ir' *1:AkttllVgV Corisba 2275 11877'734' 2 - :4;;', 'il'i'''6:::'':''''',..-...r,, ttiatil i ,,918.i 70 [0 7°u' . ,.. , • tedeSigngMUP.0 °M ' Relevant Experience LOCATION Wavehouse Skate Park CITY:Durban COUNTRY:South Africa PROJECT SUMMARY `irWV0 Gateway Shopping Center funded by Old Mutual 1 ~ � Insurance of South Africa, decided to add a major , #' o,, ! z e t' "youth anchor"to the shopping mall as a critical compo- -, i, " f -r ,'gi:-,..0 SITE STATS nent to its success. i Waveloch,Inc.of San Diego,California was contracted * I - SIZE:56,000 square feet t �... a� , TYPE:Combination to develop the"WAVE HOUSE"concept that included a , -m ' , wave machine, Tony Hawk Signature Skate Park ' BUDGET:Undisclosed ..� restaurant, retail shop, music, and contest venues. ' " SITE Design Group, Inc. was contracted for planning, , ,• 3. CONTACT design, development and operational procedures for p "' ;, ``'' Tom Lochtefeld the skate park. �� `"� "� �` Waveloch -•. „ ;a""'" - (858)454-1777iiiiN 4444 'ii y e ® it q p : ' "Ot ac3 ` 'yaw, °} IF34. T, §, >t i tD dzx t 'r ,'x ia,"`S ® - i , fi f E. r F r7sc^,. ,� yAq, ! ., " ` fax � a ,„3= / 'V; § om. / ,,,•,,% 'gyp„ x 1. ��� g r a� `e ' ,:,' . "- ''ff4,11,i44;- . '- 4'1*'~I:lilv-i.44' 'n.irfo. it,.!' ''''..''...":.7,' ''.•'4: or, , ,,,. M $ ii,• .a,,l'Aww.-YAA'A-r. • it 4,,A.AAitt<-A:A ' � 3 3I''.414K-AI:4. , fi , ' ' q 4' $ �. ta'+"""<t�t _YAR 1 b' t.r, - ?d . `""e +�, cei-,,,L.,,,,,.as a6�tu`3,,=v.:a g� Y "* . i " �*,d"_ v:,','. { AI lii Jik 41.1 Carlsbad,CA Office - P '�, `� '• '' ,- ;` .- _ 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H ,. � �'I- r Carlsbad,CA 92010 w P � • [t]877.734.7275 - a oi"P lf]877.734.1702 a 4 .-.„„,,, . „,e „� �,s asJf�«lj //f , t� / wwwsitedesi n rou com '`„ `` V i \,; '` j r ec,� a / Relevant Experience LOCATION Insanity Skate Park CITY:Huntsville STATE:Alabama PROJECT SUMMARY �-4 Insanity Skate Park is a 30,000.sq. ft. world-class � ; extreme skatepark for skateboardng and aggressive "" �Ej. 7 inline skating. Drop in on the 12'half pipe,surfaced in SITE STATS Skatelite Pro, or skate the intense concrete street = `< <: course that runs the entire length of the park. SIZE:27,000 square feet Skaters can carve lines in the 9' deep concrete bowl . t `r , -1**11141 TYPE:Inground Concrete with coping and a 6' lead in! Street skaters will be " ` fL BUDGET:380,000 3 stoked over the 3 large fun boxes,grind rails,and over ,�, f ��� ° ,` � �� A � ��� BUDGET: CONTA3 45 above ground ramps including back-to-back mint ' s• >j r vert ramps. T Pam Farlow '',,.1.,':44.5:,,:,3,:p01.1-,4M4.„,,,,,,,, .,��� ti '�'�w .," , General Manageriff :,r„ Insanity Skate Park _..... ........ .+. IN* kt • 1TRB ,, (256)721-0000 R, •(,....4y04'9.i. - g r e (� k3�y. � � ➢� I k r rt, bf@2 1 ll r (tl877.734.7275 §��`�"�'"`,.� -� £,."_' -•• ter««, ' ,..bz._ ; ` 'i..13,:•4Eiw L'AYp••(g.: <tv.:-, 'a "Carlsbad,ca once r ' ;^2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H x - - r Y w j ;f Carlsbad,CA 92010 t g 0 ,` A"vf'..[f]760.918.1702 r ' 44 " r www.sitedesigngroup.com ;s, - - Relevant Experience LOCATION Lathrop Sk8Park CITY:Lathrop STATE:California PROJECT SUMMARY SITE Design Group, Inc.worked with the City of Lathrop in developing and designing a 7,500 square foot custom above-ground skatepark facility. SITE Design Group,Inc.worked with the City and Community,providing program- ming,conceptual and schematic design services. During this phase of development, SITE conducted two public meetings and design workshops as well as provided an interactive web-site for community feedback. Upon reach- SITE STATS ing design consensus, SITE continued with design development and the preparation of construction documents. The park opened August 14th,2004. SIZE:7,440 square feet TYPE: .440 s u Concrete SITE received the following coorespondence from the City: "Thanks for the great design skaters and skaters BUDGET:$350,000 from other towns say its one of the best to be found!" Gabe Goulart,City of Lathrop CONTACT Ann Wall , Director of Parks&Recreation � ��� .g �-_ ""•.� City of Lathrop .� (209)249-1717 :. t k.d 111117'-!:IT,:::^''.':',;3'...''::''''71,,IA-‘'''4'1''''''S t,..—....„ ' ` ' '-' t,..,; 1:1,:;;Ilitio, ._ 4,i. ,,7 ,:,,,,.,,4-4,,r,,„,: A , Aa �� Q of % a. i � v ,i,,, ti . -..t,,..', ",ss,,f ,,....:Ar,4,-.4 0, i' " ' '1111'-"Talva;it 1,.,:....i '-II,.:'-' • '. ' , '` - Carlsbad,CA Office €€., ' g • €E ,, 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H � ,: Carlsbad,CA 92010 - --- " l',. ;- a s� [f]877.734.7275 _ :' [f]760.918.1702w [ ,a,: wwwsitedesigngroup.com ': °` `� Ir v., ............... Relevant Experience LOCATION Escondido Sports Complex Skate Park CITY:Escondido STATE:California PROJECT SUMMARY t The Cityof Escondido hired SITE Design Group, Inc. s �- to renovate the City's existing skatepark in Kit Carson Park. As the park will accomodate boards,blades and SITE STATS bikes,all three user groups participated in the design , workshops led by Michael McIntyre. The new park 9 ' will be constructed out of phenolic,aweather-proof, SIZE:19,320 square feet ,�� paper based resin,as opposed to the former composi- ' TYPE:Adove Ground tion of metal and concrete. Completion is expected inszlea, s r '� ri, BUDGET: $430.000 2005. .- CONTACT e=' .:_a+..._�, - Peter Ritchie `" '' . ,iii..ff,—,''1',""'7, :,,,*:,,„:;t,:,i,t•', a ! _ Community Services Director „ Escondido Sports Complex ok (760)839-5426 ' a le `. - w .. . , 3 ,F <w. d..._�� - » , �: R R-4,1„? Carlsbad,CA Office i ;, �' ., y?T , 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H Carlsbad,CA 92010 + ' `�"E [t)877.734.7275 ? �t `' [f]760.918.1702 • ¢, rd. .' ' °ce.,, w, ... www.sitedesigngroup.com W. °,.. „, ' ' , -,,,,,,,' fi,, ,. , , .................._.. Relevant Experience LOCATION Snedigar Sports Complex CITY:Chandler STATE:Arizona PROJECT SUMMARY Michael McIntyre worked with the City of Chandler on a feasibility study for designing and constructing the city's SITE STATS first public skate park, meeting the needs of skate- '' , boarders and in-line skaters. The issues of research SIZE:34,000 square feet included: liability, costs, operations, user definitions `;; _ TYPE:Inground Concrete required amenities and opportunities for private/public �� F �. .. - �-° � , m _ ., partnership,and site selection. This feasibilityprocess BUDGET:$300,000 E "" "y' z included public participation, work sessions with user ', "' ',, CONTACT groups, site analysis, and the development of design "' �* - Mickey Ohland concepts.Mr.McIntyre,Project Manager and Designer, :m :x k <, aW"" completed the conceptual design,design development .'"' City of Chandler " +' '' t, 't• and construction documents for the 34,000 square foot Community Services Department facility and integrated Community Park. �a (480)782-2743 "-- "'�'•'P SITE Design Group, Inc. performed construction observation services over a four-month period meeting a scheduled March 4,2000 grand opening. a 2 ,k`::'::g falte 1 °!11 ;,,.:`.:.',.,',;',-:',:c,..1:„.' 4 l;1 k ' ,' T , ''aft,' f ` , , z -,i ff' a ' , q l "p� t .1.—.....,..., . .' .,t,--. '`,0:.'', '„, :,1:,''',41,..t, i Arr., ..,, ,1` ' '''7. ' ' 4 ',?','tirrh'i' ' ,'' '''''''i ' ;, i f 1 till!f -i m , it L,,,. , ,„ 1„,„..„',. ..t>.il, ''°` , P „,-"e°14. ,14,° ' - AIG Sad^ • • Carlsbad,CA Office ' e 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H _-° -- �Mil _ Carlsbad,CA 92010 �� m � w [t]877.734.7275 if]760.918.1702 I'° andler Skate Park was quoted as ",, 'Iea�ding the skate„ park pack in `America" in the June,,,2000 issue of Thrashes Skateboarding Magazine wwwsitedesigngroup.com �: " " N „1„4, _e, and received rave reviews" :by 3 time ESPN X-Games Gold- Medalist Andy Macdonald w Relevant Experience LOCATION Anthem Hills Skate Park & In-Line Hockey Facility COMMUNITY:Anthem Hills STATE:Nevada 441 PROJECT SUMMARY Del Webb's newest Anthem community in Henderson, Nevada envisioned the need for a community skate park , , and in-line hockey facility within the Anthem Hills 1,:.'2" SITE STATS Community Park. Prime Consulting firm BRW, Inc., ' hired SITE Design Group, Inc.as both their Skate Park ,, `�, ` SIZE:25,0000 square feet and In-Line Hockey design consultant. The overall w ' j". TYPE:Inground Concrete design team consisted of the City of Henderson Parks ,^ a SKATE PARK BUDGET:$350,000 and Recreation staff, Del Webb's Anthem team, local ' engineers, and BRWs design IN-LINE HOCKEY:$185,000 9 team. Tasks Included . � ,, Conceptual Design, Design Development, Construction • s �;CONTACT Documents and Construction Observation. The skate , tt Michael Park park opened in Spring 2003 and continues to generate �' Project Manager postive feedback from the industry as well as skaters nation-wide. The success of this facility has prompted Del Webb BRW(Prime Design Consultant) to hire SITE Design Group to develop a skate park facility for their new Anthem community in Phoenix,AZ. (602)648-2325 .4 ap e a,7ammo- _ft b h y- d -, P Y.. .$, . , at .ms 4� , i,;;i', ..,:i„...,tti ^,'' aF ' e av ,s _� airl 'if.rL � f. biz: t.a7 .yg afar".„,.' <.:., „t'„a ".. �f F 9 N., n , f. 3.y ` - %('IE is,vet a k 8.3g;.1;'$t�+i 4#Fa�.73 Pd� R",,#,,,,,%, �:,,,,..,,,,,:iiiv, £ � k � � Carlsbad CA Office ff a +a.. -.:,,,-04 + - 2734 Loker Ave.West,Suite H : p a . Carlsbad,CA 92010 � � d [1]877.734.7275 •'�' °- a """ [f]760.918.1702 ' -- z r li 4r� - p.w. —' ., ( r e tri, fix^ 3, 3--2d b4 'al tt let, ' '¢�` awa, www sitedesigngroup.com , .... ......_................. SECTION 6COMPANY BIOS Company Bios TITLE Michael R. McIntyre, RLA/ASLA CEO/Principal Michael McIntyre possesses the proven experience and management qualifications to effectively coordinate '. t „ t1 � ) t .t 't REGISTRATIONS the various aspects of developing public and private i` `` � = s ": skate park facilities. His diverse experience in skate 't ` :i, ;','..,,'''.24.4,''' ''':,'":, „, , , , ,‘‘, ,, park design and development, and history as a Spon g '. Arizona Landscape Architect ` p Bored skateboarder,make him unique as a Landscape ,,1 (#34186) Architect who designs quality skate facilities, whsle {, maintaining his "grass roots" connection to the skate hk'; , r California Landscape Architect community. In addition to designing municipal skate """°°-' 4 �, (#4096) parks in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, _ a - Nevada, Utah, Illinois, Texas, Michael also regularly -' �" ,,^�""' Utah Landscape Architect writes articles and gives lectures on professional skate "� ',u`' < (#5238119) development. �� ' Licensed Contractor(CA#698979) Certified Landscape Technician in Construction(CLT#96595) °7, 4 ,'�jf 4�' $-+is {� nevwtt Irrigation(CLT#96617) �'.* , ! '+ ..,,'z%. ,� ,, Maintenance(CLT#96604) ' +� "` Certified Landscape Irrigation ,.%^ �,. ,�. ' �„ ` :�, ^:. r,� "HI' 6 a��� � � �„ ., � ;,,,,,,,,:=_-...,s,,e ., T`�` ter,; EDUCATION "k`'.1,� r �' Bachelor of Science degree in .. ' ' Landscape Architecture from ., ° a°p 7 '" § �� California Polytechnic State ass ..,„,,t1....,„::. '�, University,San Luis Obispo, �. + ' g r California,1992 ; 1 �, Recent Accomplishments CONTACT INFO Guest Designer/Builder for Monster Garage on the Discovery Channel 2003 EMAIL:mrm@sitedesigngroup.com NRPA 2000 Program Extreme Exhibit Skate Park Planning and Design speaking engagements at the 1999 National Recreation and Parks Association Congress in Nashville,Tennessee Speaking at the 1999 Arizona Parks and Recreation Annual Educationf;Convention. 1999,2000 ESPN-X Games Assistant Best of Southern California-Ocean Beach Skate Park 1998 Best Public Skate Park-Flagstaff,Arizona by Thrasher Magazine<Editor's Choice Awards Chandler Skate Park"Leading the Pack in America",Thrasher Magazine; Guest Speaker at the Bay Cities Joint Power Insurance ity,2000 and 2001 somilor *...* i . ' Along with featured articles in local, Carlsbad,CA Office ' national, and international newspapers 2734 Laker Ave.West,Suite H and magazines regarding skate' park Carlsbad,CA 92010 desi n and construction, g professional [t]877.734.7275 �:skaters have endorsed Mr. McIntyre s [1]760.918.1702 cF ._. 1. designs;as some of the best facilities designed to date. ' ' www.sitedesigngroup.com k I f' • ' � KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL KANTEN RUSSELL Professional Skateboarder/ Designer/ PM Kanten Russell, an integral team member of SITE • ., Design Group, Inc. brings a unique combination . working with communities developing functional and technical skate park facilities. He is a � Professional Skateboarder, Designer possessing several technical skills from surveying,AutoCAD versions 2000-2006, Eagle Point and Auto Desk , ' LDD. He has extensive experience working on ,. " several site and landscape plans requiring accu- ; � ,,o rate grading, drainage, horizontal control and A construction detailing. His technical knowledge of z, ce 0 site development,skateboarding, park design and 4 '* 114 �, *' ' eager desire to work with communities formulat ,„ , . ing the best parks for the budget is unsurpassed in , ,• -�- , ot. ,,, ,, „,,,..,,,,.. the action sports industry. Kanten Russell has been involved in skateboard- ing for over 20 years. '. ' He has been a well known professional skate- it– Aii, t 4 t boarder for 12 years 1993-2005 and continues to ,§ be a presence in the industry. Kanten has been r, 1 � 1, featured in many Magazines(including 4 covers), �' 3 videos,and newspapers interviews and articles. �� ,, - 04 itt Kanten has traveled all over the world on tours doing demonstrations at skate parks in numerous countries including the entire U.S., Canada, Europe, Spain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, , Japan, and even Tahiti. Kanten is well known for ` .W. going big down and across huge gaps but his s. /� experience riding countless skate parks has given ”°-,....i' " Y` him the perfect bad<ground for the community . . ;to- process in formulating the best parks to date. Prior to joining SITE Design Group, Inc., Kanten had been working full time in the Land Development field with the City of Chula Vista, CA under Jose Gomez and acting City Engineer , , i • , i Matt Little on multiple city improvement jobs that ,;' �� `, ., included everything from the research of maps ' *•.*,',,, and documents, to the surveying in the field, ' *! m ). drafting and calculating right-of-way deliverables , �` „,v for the en inee ring and construction de artments. ` In addition, he worked with Hunsaker and • Associates, CA(an Engineering,Planning, and Surveying firm)in the Mapping department where I. MA :€ has was responsible for drafting ALTA surveys, , - Final Maps, and boundary determination for numerous projects in southern California and developments in Arizona. Kanten has a degree �. and certification in Survey drafting technology from Cuyamaca College, CA. y .. as KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL BRIAN MOORE DESIGNER/ PROJECT MANAGER Brian Moore has been in the skate park industry for 10 years and has been advocating for public skate parks for over 20-years. Growing up and * '' iff§1,4*IA skating at a professional level with his peers �� � allowed Brian to "visualize" the possibilities of ;" laying out skate parks and creating innovative skate park products. His career in the skate- boarding industry began with a reputable wood skate park design/build company where he quick- , Iy worked his way up the ranks to becoming Vice President of the company. Brian's proven record of success at the highest levels in the skate- boarding industry includes the design and con- struction of world championship event courses. , ,.zap As the skate park industry grew, Brian's career escalated. He became the National Sales Manager for one of the countries largest skate park designer/fabricators. During his tenure, he streamlined a successful sales system that allowed him to manage and work with sales groups representing the company's products worldwide. From starting out with a reputable wood skate park designer and builder then transitioning to a large steel skate park designer and fabricator, allowed him to have vast experience in both con- struction fields. Now he is the newest member of SITE and will offer his expertise when designing new skate parks and will be able to suggest just which type of skate terrain would best be suitable for the skaters, bikers, community, and other fac- tors that play a role when developing a skate park. Having immense knowledge of every differ- ent type of skate park construction and terrain will continue to push SITE as one of the leading n, skate park designers in the world. Brian's skill, knowledge of the industry, and expe- rience with the public sector combined with his own personal skateboarding experience make Brian an asset to SITE Design Group, Inc and their many clients. Skate Parks Over 250 public skate parks Skate Events Vans Triple Crown of Skateboarding World Championships Competition Courses ESPN/PAC SUN EVENTS Sig4TE ASR TRADE SHOW MBNA Magic Show KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL ERIC LEE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Eric Lee began his skate park construction z `� career by building parks n the Pacific Northwest. He has skated for 20 years and has extensive -° e of skateboardingand skate park ter- rain. knowledge �� _ Coming from a construction philosophy, Eric has worked on more than 25 turnkey concrete �° � 4 skate parks and has been involved with many design improvements. Eric has over 15 years of experience in construction and has supervised crews in conjunction with local General Contractors in 16 states. He is skilled in all aspects of building,from site layout and excavation to shotcrete and finishing. Construction Experience " Las Vegas NV Skatepark v La Junta, CO Skatepark x Layton, UT Skatepark C; Oakley, UT Skatepark Springfield, IL Skatepark Coolidge,AZ Skatepark ry Glendale, CA Skatepark Palm Springs, CA Skatepark Fontana, CA Skatepark Uplands,CA Skatepark Claremont Bowl, Mission Valley YMCA Lincoln City, OR Skatepark Islets, OR Skatepark Newport, OR Skatepark Lompoc, CA Skatepark Edmand, OK Skatepark Monrovia, CA Skatepark South Bend,IN Skatepark Butter Bowl Seattle, WA Skatepark Kamilioki, HI Skatepark Borrego Springs, CA Skatepark Grand Rapids, WI Skatepark Charles County, MD Skatepark Laguna , Niguel, CA Skatepark Placerville, CA Skatepark Green Castle, IN Skatepark ,�r SECTION 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Skate P"":.., nformatIo ) � � SJ .. Grol, ist Name -'��_ city � ;� chant " �" . Contact "`���� - Phone "�" t: See ��� �,"� Skate" s of 20,000 square' eet in'size or larges -- " Albuquerque Skate Park Albuquerque,NM City of Albuquerque Barabara Taylor,C.I.P. (505)768-3849 $ 300,000 35,000 X Allen Station II Skate Park Allen,TX City of Allen Sheila Condon (713)871-1414 $ 550,000 35,000 X Anthem Hills Skate Park Henderson,NV Del Webb Michael Park (602)234-1591 $ 350,000 25,000 X Aurora Wheel Park Aurora,CO City of Aurora Jack Cooper (303)739-7160 $ 2,200,000 22,000 X Bountiful Skate Park Bountiful,UT City of Bountiful Neal Jenkins (801)298-6220 $ 420,000 26,600 X Borrego Springs Borrego Springs,CA City of Borrego Springs Jim Kelley-Markham (619)232-1580 $ 350,000 26,000 X Campfire Skate Park and Site Improvements Tucson,AZ Tucson Campfire Chris Stagg (520)624-4355 $ 350,000 22,000 X Carolina Skate Park El Paso,TX City of El Paso Tim Fulmer (915)541-4382 $ 402,000 25,000 X Cayman Islands-Black Pearl Skate Park Grand Cayman,BWI Michael Bell Michael Bell (345)947-0755 undisclosed 36,100 X Chino Skate Park Chino,CA City of Chino Mike Kolling (909)464-0768 $ 550,000 28,000 X Clovis Skate Park Clovis,CA City of Clovis Allan Morgan (559)324-2362 $ 350,000 28,000 s. X Coronado Skate Park Coronado,CA City of Coronado Eitan Aharoni (619)231-6100 $ 300,000 25,000 X Delano Skate Park Delano,CA City of Delano Phil Newhouse (661)721-3335 $ 600,000 23,300 X IEncinitas YMCA Skate Park San Diego,CA Magdalena Ecke YMCA Garrett Bjornson (760)525-1065 $ 1,500,000 40,000 X Etnies-Lake Forest Skate Park Lake Forest,CA Sole Technologies,Inc. Mark Waters (949)900-2726 $ 550,000 40,000 X Freestone Skate Park Gilbert,AZ City of Gilbert Kenny Martin (480)503-6282 $ 300,000 23,000 X Kettering Skate Plaza Kettering,OH City of Kettering Mary Beth Thaman (937)296-2454 $ 500,000 38,000 X Lions Den Skate Park Fresno,CA City of Fresno Ken Tigson (559)621-8706 $ 550,000 30,000 X Orange Cove Orange Cove,CA City of Orange Cove Bill Little (559)626-5103 $ 600,000 30,000 X Orlando Skate Park @ Festival Park Orlando,FL City of Orlando Byron Lastrapes/R&B Arch (407)648-7288 undisclosed 25,900 X Paradise Valley Skate Park Phoenix,AZ City of Phoenix Mike Dean (602)262-5051 $ 350,000 27,000 X Reedville Hillsboro,OR City of Hillsboro Gil Williams (503)224-5238 $ 350,000 26,000 X Robb Field Skate Park Ocean Beach,CA City San Diego Michael Ryan (619)236-0143 $ 450,000 41,000 X Rock'n Rollers Madison,AL Quantum Properties Pam Farlow (256)721-0000 $ 380,000 24,000 X Riverfront Skate Park OK City,OK City of Oklahoma City Larry Ogle (405)297-2133 $ 425,000 28,600 X Snedigar Sports Complex Chandler,AZ City of Chandler Mickey Ohland (480)782-2743 $ 330,000 34,000 X Springfield Springfield,IL City of Springfield John Linxwiler (217)544-1751 $ 245,000 16,000 X Superstition Shadows Skate Park Apache Junction,AZ City of Apache Junction Jeff Bell (480)983-2181 $ 25,000_ 22,000 X Tempe Skate Park Tempe,AZ City of Tempe Mark Richwine (480)350-5325 $ 600,000 38,000 X Wavehouse Skate Park Durban,South Africa Waveloch,Inc. Tom Lochtefeld (858)454-1777 undisclosed 56,000 X William Sam Memorial Skate Park Midland,TX City of Midland Monette Burke (915)685-7354 $ 200,000 27,500 X Wilson Skate Park Chicago,IL City of Chicago Michael Josef (312)762-1568 $ 1,000,000 23,000 X Skate parksAA 10,000 to 20,000"Square feet in size. :, s, . M ;' Berkeley Skate Park Berkeley,CA City of Berkeley Mark Mennucci (510)981-6436 $ 425,000 18,000 X Boulder Skate Park Boulder,CO City of Boulder Maureen Spitzer (303)413-7227 $ 400,000 17,000X_ Bushmaster Skate Park Flagstaff,AZ City of Flagstaff Mke Connor (928)779-7685 $ 145,000 13,000- X_ Calvary Chapel Skate Park Albuquerque,NM City of Albuquerque Bob Church (505)338-3662 $ 425,000 17,300 X Clearfield-Fisher Park Skate Park Clearfield,UT City of Clearfield Chris Lund/NWL (801)355-5959 $ 250,000 18,100 X _ Escondido Sports Complex Escondido,CA City of Escondido Peter Ritchie (760)839-5426 $ 275,000 20,000 X Fairmont Skate Park Salt Lake City,UT City of Salt Lake City Scott Van Dyke/ASWN (801)269-0055 $ 220,000 15,660 X Forest Grove Forest Grove,OR City of Forest Grove Nick Wilson (503)224-5238 $ 250,000 17,500_ X Foxglenn Skate Park Flagstaff,AZ City of Flagstaff Mke Connor (928)779-7685 $ 250,000 16,000 X Garfield Heights Skate Park Garfield,OH City of Garfield David Spehar (216)622-2402 $ 350,000 20,350 X Layton Skate Park Layton,UT City of Layton Dave Thomas (801)546-8586 $ 290,000 16,600 X Logan Skate Park Logan,UT City of Logan Brendan Pratt (435)716-9245 $ 285,000 16,000 X Mukilteo-Snohomish YMCA Skate Park Mukitteo,WA Mukilteo YMCA Jeff Dunleavy (425)493-2416 $ 425,000 19,000 X Oakley Skate Park Oakley,UT City of Oakley Paul Wolstenhulme (435)640-2767 $ 225,000 10,550 X Park City Skate Park Park City,UT City of Park City Matt Twombly (435)615-5177 $ 600,000 20,000 X, Prescott-Yavapai Skate Park Prescott,AZ Yavapai Community Mike Fann (928)778-0170 $ 280,000 15,000 X The Ott Family YMCA Skate Park Tucson,AZ Ott Family YMCA Stephanie Christenson _ (520)885-2317 $ 155,000 16,000 X Verdugo Skate Park Glendale,CA (City of Glendale George Balteria (818)548-6421 $ 350,000 15,000_ X Skate par:t ,tl,OOQ square'fee size and smaller s, Coolidge Skate Park Coolidge,AZ City of Coolidge Nicole Zimmerman (520)723-6075 $ 125,000 7,500 X- Duluth Skate Park Duluth,MN City of Duluth Mark Anderson/LHB (218)727-8446 $ 200,000 9,500 X Hannibal Skate Park Hannibal,MO City of Hannibal Jamie Page/Kiingner Assoc. (573)221-0020 $ 160,000 9,000 X _ Lathrop Skate Park Lathrop,CA City of Lathrop Ann Wall (209)249-1717 $ 140,000 7,440 X Salvation Army/Waimea Skate Park Waimea,HA Salvation Armny Tina Martinson (808)294-8484 $ 150,000 7,500 X San Bernardino Skate Park San Bernardino,CA City of San Bernardino Robert Sepulveda (909)384-5167 $ 125,000 8,000 X Vallejo Skate Park Vallejo,CA Greater Vallejo Rec. pew Hesterrnan (707)648-4602 undisclosed 6,900 X Veterans Skate Park Chula Vista,CA City of Chula Vista Tim Jachlewki (619)294-8484 undisclosed 7,000 X design 'group , inc . .Landscape Architecture .Urban Design .Skate Park Planning&Design .Construction Administration Skate Park& Plaza Design with Affiliated Costs COST On average, the cost per square foot of a concrete skate park ranges from $32-$35 depending on site complexities, site amenities, and the style of park that is desired. Other items that impact cost either raising it or lowering it include local equipment rates, material rates, prevailing wage and local labor rates, all of which vary from state to state, region to region. SITE COMPLEXITIES Site complexities are varied and unique to each site. For this reason, we suggest contacting a professional design firm prior to or during site selection process to limit some of the obstacles that can drive construction costs up. One example of a site complexity includes public utilities currently occupying the chosen site and needing to be relocated. The cost of re-locating the utilities comes out of the construction budget. Other times, the selected site lacks current public utility service. In this case, utilities such as electricity, water, or public telephone service will need to be established. Again, the cost comes out of the budget. Other items that impact cost include extreme or variations in topography: extreme grades or grade variation, poor soil and/or sub- surface conditions, such as a high water table or solid rock which requires blasting. Other considerations include possible complications in access to the site, vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow interfering with or traversing the site, and any underlying protection zone laws or land-use restrictions. All of these items are surmountable, but will impact the budget. SITE AMENITIES Site amenities can also affect price when constructing a skate park. Some examples of site amenities that can increase cost per square foot include the addition of lighting, perimeter fencing and landscaping either throughout or around the site. Other amenities, which are optional, but add cost to the bottom-line, include spectator seating, drinking fountains, payphones, large clocks, shade ramadas and restroom facilities. A city or town may have set requirements regarding some of these amenities. In some instances they are mandatory and specific: a town might require that a skate park be gated & fenced, further specifying the fence must be constructed of wrought iron and be at least 6 feet tall. These are items which should be investigated while in the fund- raising stage of development. LABOR WAGES A high number of small parks across the nation are government funded or co-funded projects. In these instances, there will be a prevailing wage condition, meaning each worker on the job must be paid a pre-determined set wage for the locality depending on job title and responsibility. In addition to the hourly rates paid to workers, the contractor must also pay pension, health and welfare fees for each worker employed. This can result in higher labor costs which will impact the budget. The same can exist in union environments. Workers must be paid the union set wage, plus pension, health and welfare. For this reason, it is imperative that cost estimates be done during each phase of design development. Although skate park design firms can not always dictate the local costs, you will get a good general idea of the cost for your park before you come close to breaking ground. CONCRETE SKATEPARKS An often overlooked element that impacts price is the style and type of park desired, designed and constructed. There are several different styles and types of skate parks, with various levels of cost associated with each. The most popular type of park today is constructed out of concrete. Not only is concrete more durable, requiring less maintenance, the finish is smoother and provides for a better ride. Concrete skate parks are often referred to as "in-ground" as most often a site is excavated and either all, or a portion of the park is built below surrounding grade. However, concrete parks can also be built "above grade" by importing fill dirt, compacting it and then excavating the newly modified terrain. The method employed is solely dependant on the type of park and any prevailing site conditions as mentioned in site complexities above. BOWLS & POOLS Within the genre of concrete parks, several design options or "style" of park are available: bowls, flow, street, urban plaza or a combination that blends two or more of these styles. The least expensive of the three, often associated with old school California skate parks consists of a small "bowl", which replicates an empty swimming pool. Bowls can be constructed on a relatively small site and can be designed to meet the needs of all age and skill level groups. They can be small and simple or big and deep and can vary in depth by containing both a shallow and deep end, making them versatile. These types of parks are primarily constructed out of Shotcrete. Shotcrete is applied with a high-pressured hose that sprays the concrete onto the vertical wall surfaces of the bowls. It is applied in sections and hand-finished to form a buttery smooth surface. Typically, the coping is constructed out of rolled steel and runs along the entire rim of the bowl. The coping allows users to perform hundreds of "lip-tricks" Skate Parks&Skate Plazas 2 Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group,Inc. (tricks done on the coping) and the ability to "grind" (ride on) the coping for long distances. An emerging trend in pool design is the use of traditional swimming pool coping, made of concrete, to further replicate the experience of riding in empty swimming pools, as skaters did in the 70's prior to the emergence of skate parks. Pool tile, stairs, pool light, love-seat and skimmers are additional design elements being incorporated into "old school" style bowls, commonly called "pools". The old school coping requires a different technique of riding than steel coping, and provides a challenging and fun environment for all park users. Regardless of the design intricacies of the bowl, this style of park is typically the most affordable type of park that can be built. While very affordable, small parks consisting of less than 10,000 sq ft usually cost a little more per square foot on average than larger parks. The reason for this is quite simple: whenever a construction project is larger in nature, the contractor will benefit from discounts because the volume of materials being purchased is greater. As a result, bigger skate park projects often get discounts on concrete, steel, fencing, etc. They are also able to get discounts on equipment rentals as the machinery will be used for a longer period of time. Although these discounts typically are given to large scale projects, small parks can and should ask for the discounts by requesting them as an "in-kind donations". By employing good fund- raising skills, many park projects are able to get materials, local labor and equipment at much lower prices, and in some instances at no charge whatsoever. FLOW COURSES In the concrete genre of parks, the most popular type of park has historically been the flow bowl. Flow parks are larger and spacious in nature, have increased flat bottom areas as well as larger deck areas which surround the course. Flow courses incorporate various types of terrain and can therefore accommodate a greater number of users at one time, address all levels of ability and gratify different styles of users. Features incorporated into a flow park include but are not limited to pyramids, banks, ledges, quarter pipes, vert walls, curbs, ledges, stairs, and hand rails. The wide, open course environment allows users to freely ride in many directions and link up different lines throughout the park. In a flow environment, the skater can drop in or push off and flow through the course, riding up and down curved walls and banks, and navigating over various props. This terrain is ideal for the large skater population accustomed to riding vert or transition. URBAN PLAZAS (SKATE PLAZAS) A new emerging style of park becoming popular in metropolitan areas is the skate plaza. Skate Plazas consist entirely of street terrain and mimic traditional downtown urban plazas. As skaters are typically prohibited from riding downtown areas and are either chased away or given citations for illegal riding, the skate plaza offers a unique Skate Parks&Skate Plazas 3 Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group,Inc. solution for skaters and community alike. Plazas appeal to street skaters because the sites are challenging and call upon their individual and creative approaches to skating. Street skaters assess the terrain and figure out different ways to approach it, ride it, and perform tricks within it. Skate plazas vary in size and design, but will always contain traditional street style elements such as benches, ledges, stairs, rails, gaps, sidewalks, etc. Unlike the common plaza in most downtown areas, the Urban Plaza is specifically structurally and functionally designed for skating: the rails are of various heights, length and set at specific angles to reflect "real" street skating. The appeal of the urban skate plaza to a community is several fold. First and foremost, it is aesthetically pleasing. Plazas often contain planter boxes containing flowers, trees and other plant life, providing texture and color. The use of colored concrete may also be utilized to provide artistic variation in the flat work and enhances visual impact. As the plaza design is urbane in nature, it blends well into the metropolitan environment, creating a space that can be enjoyed by those who pass by or sit to watch the skating activities taking place. Finally, one of the greatest benefits of the urban plaza is that by providing a legal place for street skaters to ride, damage to private and public property not structurally designed to withstand skating is curtailed. Overall budgets for urban skate plazas are on the higher end of the cost per square foot spectrum. This is due in part to the additionally desired and/or required site amenities. During the design process, plazas require more engineering than traditional bowl or flow courses due to the features they contain: plaza versus traditional sports lighting, grading and irrigation plans for planter boxes in addition to the flatwork, etc. During the construction phase, several items affiliated with plaza design impact the cost: the addition of trees, shrubs and/or flowers, installation of drip irrigation, the use of colored concrete, and the construction of the actual street skate props. Street elements such as rails, stairs, ledges and benches, cost more to build as they are cast in-place, steel reinforced concrete elements that must be formed, poured and set. Their construction requires more time and effort, which results in higher costs. The increase in cost however, is not prohibitive and when added to the design in moderation, will not drive the budget up substantially. When a plaza is 35,000 square feet or larger, the increase in the aforementioned costs are offset by the discounts given to purchasing construction materials in larger quantities, discounts for lengthier equipment rentals and the lower ratio of mobilization to overall construction budget. COMBINATION PARKS Research suggests that there are some communities that consist almost entirely of one type of skate-style user, either street or transition. However, most communities typically Skate Parks&Skate Plazas 4 Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group,Inc. consist of both. Even in communities where either style of user prevails, not all skaters in the community are going to want an exclusive street or an exclusive flow style park. In any of these situations, a hybrid park which includes flow and street elements is ideal. Parks can either have the different sections of park separated by decking, or can have elements combined in one overall design, or a combination of both. Cost for hybrid parks can vary depending on the above-ground structures chosen as well as the street section details and other amenities. BIKES. BOARDS AND BLADES: MIXED USE FACILITIES Parks that will incorporate BMX bike use, in addition to boards and blades, or bike only parks, need to be structurally designed to withstand potential damage to the concrete. In this instance, SITE Design Group, Inc recommends using a higher psi concrete as well as protecting exposed concrete edges with the steel. The steel protection plates limit chipping and chunking in the concrete that occurs when a bike peg hits the concrete. Although experienced riders will often land their tricks correctly, you need to be aware that a novice will not have the same skills and therefore might miss the edge when attempting to hop onto a ledge to grind it. For this reason we also recommend using thicker gauge steel for coping to help prevent "burring". When the coping is burred, it must be sanded smooth to keep it safe. Constant sanding will eventually compromise the steel, making it thinner, hence the need for this design modification. Finally, all coping and edge plates must be tightly secured with anchors spaced more frequently than needed in skate only facilities. All of these items will increase the cost per square foot for mixed use or BMX only facilities. Overall, BMX or mixed-use facilities cost approximately 25% more than skate only facilities. However, they provide the much needed protection that when lacking, can result in an unsafe, compromised and badly damaged facility. Skate Parks&Skate Plazas 5 Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group,Inc. Skate Park Statistics GROWING TREND The growth of skateboarding continues to increase at an exponential rate. According to data from the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 11.6 million people between the ages of 6-18 years old were skateboarding in the year 2000; this number has grown 48.7% from 1999. Researchers further expect there to be 15 million skateboarders by 2005. Additionally, there are 3.8 million freestyle BMX bikers in the United States; this number has gone up 800,000 from 1997. As the number of skateboarders and BMX riders increase, so does the need for designated facilities to accommodate their sports. Currently there are approximately 1000 skate parks in the U.S., all of which have been built between January 2001 and July 2002 (Atlanta Journal Constitutional). At the beginning of 2004, there were 1800 parks that have been built both in the U.S. and abroad. There are as many as 2000 more parks projected to be built in 2004 in the U.S. (Heidi Lemon of Skate Park Association- www.spausa.org). According to the website skatepark.org, 168 communities in the U.S. have currently posted a want, need, or urgency for skate park development in their area. This is also keeping in mind that this is only one website where people have written or posted their comments to a known source; again, this is a good example of the popularity of skate parks. AFFECTS According to www.spausa.orq, skate parks are the number one choice for teens when polled by local park and recreation departments. The Skate Park Association of the United States of America has also stated the same fact, adding: "...In this age bracket, (6-18 years old), skateboarding is the third most popular sport in the nation." Surveys report that there are an estimated 50 to 100 users at any park, at anytime, during any day compared to other athletic facilities which lay dormant most of the time. Sources add that the good traffic yields less danger in other areas in the park. More eyes on the street help for a less dangerous atmosphere. With such a young population utilizing skate facilities, it makes sense that by providing additional facilities, communities can provide safe places for users to go and take part in constructive activities. Safety and risk management is another issue often touched upon while discussing the skate parks. Interested parties are encouraged to search through www.skatepark.org/propaganda/legislation/for further information. PARKS NATIONWIDE There are approximately 1800 skate parks in the United States; seven states have less than ten skate parks for the entire state, while California has 200 skate parks in the state. In 2002, www.skateboard.com/frontside/getlocal/parks/ had published the number of skate parks per state. - AL - 16 parks - KY- 21 parks - ND - 7 parks - AK— 7 parks - LA— 8 parks - OH- 63 parks - AZ — 36 parks - ME — 17 parks - OK— 12 parks - AR— 20 parks - MD — 24 parks - OR — 17 parks - CA— 200 parks - MA - 105 parks - PA—43 parks - CO — 73 parks - MI —44 parks - RI — 10 parks - CT—42 parks - MN —41 parks - SC -14 parks - DE — 5 parks - MS — 13 parks - SD -9 parks - DC — 1 park - MO — 32 parks - TN - parks - FL — 85 parks - MT— 12 parks -TX—47 parks - GA— 30 parks - NE — 14 parks - UT — 17 parks - HI — 8 parks - NV 13 parks - VA—40 parks - ID — 23 parks - NH —41 parks - WA— 58 parks - IL — 115 parks - NJ — 62 parks - WV— 18 parks - IN — 37 parks - NM — 12 parks - WI —47 parks - IA—30 parks - NY— 80 parks - WY— 10 parks - KS — 30 parks - NC —46 parks According to skateboard.com, Massachusetts contains 105 skate parks. Based on the population of skaters in the area, it means that there is one park for 11,543 kids between the ages of 6-18. In Illinois, there are 115 skate parks, or one park for 20,622 kids. California has the largest number of skate parks with 200, which accommodates for 32,775 users per park. States with a smaller amount of skate parks also have large amounts of users such as Oregon with 17 skate parks, and 38,814 users per park. Mississippi has 44 parks, and 41,771 users per park. South Carolina has 14 parks and 55,141 users per park. Finally, Louisiana only has 8 parks in the entire state, yet has 106,054 users per park. State Number of Parks! State Number of Users! Park Massachusetts 105 11,543 Illinois 115 20,622 California 200 20,622 Oregon 17 38,814 Mississippi 44 41,771 South Carolina 14 55,141 Louisiana 8 106,054 As you can see from the table above, even those states with the smaller numbers of skate parks have an enormous number of users when comparing them to states with a large amount of skate parks, (skateboard.com). SUMMARY The number of park oriented sports is clearly increasing; this yields the need for a place for local users, whether they are kids, or adults, to go and enjoy themselves. Action Sport Complexes have been able to provide skate park users with a safe and monitored place to practice their well known hobby. Skate parks are used more than any other sports facility on any given day; which further supports the need for additional facilities nationwide, and the fact that there will soon be a need for more. design group , inc . •Landscape Architecture •Urban Design •Skate Park Planning&Design .Construction Administration Skate Park Funding Information Funding a successful skate park facility requires the services of a carefully selected team or corporation. We have compiled the information below to aid you in your search. One idea that many people have found useful is searching online for funds KaBoom and Skatepark (www.skatepark.org) both contain decent fund-raising suggestions. Using a search engine such as Google g|e.com). or Yahoo (www.yahoo.com) are also ways to find funds to support your skatepark project. Below is a list of some of the companies that may also be interested in providing funding. AddiUono||y, there are many grants available that are state or regionally specific. Searches should therefore be conducted on both a national and regional level. Other than grants, we s ,t you explore sources for in-kind donations as well—mancompanies will provide services or materials at either a reduced cost or for free, rather than payout a cash donation—but it all works! Allstate Foundation The JwneslsGroup(817/b8149Q9; (wxww.aUntaba.00m/nommunity/Paqomndereso?Paq vmxmvjenenisonn) e=fbundodonfunding.htm ) American Eagle(http://planner.eskal8.org) Pay It Forward (poyiMbnwendhuundmdon.org) Ben&Jerry's Pepsi-Cola ua. et/kfc/ pui.htm) (wxww.banjanyzmm/foundatinn/index.htm|) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (substance Bikes Belong Coalition(617/426-9222) abuse grant) —336/716-5170 8htaWoter(http:Vvmww.bhta.com/227|.htm|) Ronald McDonald House Charities (social CocaCo|a(httz8vwwv2.cuoa- services division)630/623-7048 cola com/oiti7enship/sponsorships htm() Snapple (8 a | ) Comm unity Development Block Gnxnt-(CD8G) SoBe b b /ohout/contact.ahtm|) (vmww.hud.gov/proQdeon/odbgerd.chn) Sprint(www.sprint.com/sponsorships/) Cybergrants ^l^t° ,' . -o °ox Target(Target.com) Enright Patterson tpatters@wfubmc.edu Tony Hawk Skate park Foundation The Foundation(info@skateplaza.com) (www.tonyhawkfoundation.oro) Home Depot(wxwmhomedePotfoundsdion.org0 Tropinano(vnmmymca.net/kfc/popsi.h|m) I look forward to discussing how SITE Design Group, Inc. can make your future skate park project a pleasant reality, and I feel certain there are available funds out there for your project. I will also be happy to send you any additional contact information I come across as development of your project progresses. Please feel free to contact me at any time; I can be reached at 877-SDG-PARK, or via e-mail at hrion@nit*deoigngroup.00m. Brian Moore Director of Sales& Marketing e design ,Jroup , inc . .Landscape Architecture .Urban Design •Skate Park Planning&Design •Construction Administration SKATE PARK SIZES The newest trend in urban settings with populations close to one million is the development of several different tiers of skate parks dispersed throughout the metropolitan area. The largest of these is the regional skate park facility. Regional skate facilities are 35,000 square feet or larger, are centrally located and become destination points for skaters & bmx riders throughout the nation. These facilities also host professional demo tours such as Got Milk, The Tony Hawk Tour, ASA & NISS as well as nationally televised pro-contests including CFB, X-Game Qualifiers, Gravity Game Qualifiers and the Van's World Cup Series. They also host local amateur competitions and at times offer skate/bmx clinics and camps. As such, regional skate parks generate a great deal of media coverage and are known for providing terrain of varying skill level and style. Regional facilities usually provide for two distinct types of riding terrain: street and flow (or trani). However, with street skating gaining popularity, we are seeing a greater interest in "pure street terrain," or true urban plazas. Skate plazas look like traditional downtown plazas. The difference, however, is that these parks are actually designed specifically to accommodate skate/bmx/in-line riding. The handrails are set at different heights than would be appropriate for the pedestrian, the gaps are closer together, the stairs shorter and steeper. These nuances are recognized and applauded by urban terrain skaters who skate who finally have safe, legal, and challenging facilities to ride. The plaza design is also being embraced by Municipalities as the plaza blends in with the local environment: they are aesthetically pleasing and complimented by planter boxes, trees, grasses and other ornamental landscaping elements. Less urbane municipalities are opting for either pure flow parks or, as mentioned above, a combination parks that includes both types of terrains and accommodates all styles of riding. The next tier below the regional park is the mid-size district park. District parks are approximately 15,000-35,000 square feet in size and accommodate the various districts within a large metropolitan area. Though smaller in size, they continue to be one of the most popular size park as they not only service more localized population, but their budgets often fall within the price range of each district park's department. These facilities are easily accessible, non- supervised, often fenced and lighted. Their design can consist of all above-ground elements, all in-ground concrete or a hybrid of both and is determined by community input combined with the expertise of the design team. Initially, one or several sites are identified as potential skate park sites. A Skate Park Design Firm assists in determining the best possible location of the park from an urban planning and recreational perspective. Public meetings are assembled and led by the Design Team to obtain feedback from officials, the community-at-large and park users to ascertain the desired design and structure of the park, detailing the types of preferred elements, style, etc. Most urban areas with populations close to one millionwill have one regional park, accompanied by a number of district parks. Whereas both regional and district parks serve larger urban aneea, smaller parks are becoming more popular in neighborhood communities throughout the United States. Neighborhood parks primarily serve their own local population. Oftnn, these parks are walking distance for most neighbors. These parks range from 6.500-15.000 square feet in size. Smaller parks are often the choice for areas with either limited funds or space. Like the district perks, the style and type of park that can be built varies and is dependent upon the desires of the local user group. If there are existing tennis courts or parking lots that can be converted to above-ground modular porhm, costs can be greatly reduced depending on the equipment desired. As most modular pricing does not include taxeo, shipping or inmdoUmUon, it is imperative that these prices be discussed initially to keep the project within budget. Finally the smallest tier of park is the skate or"wheel friendly" zones. Although the smallest tier emerging in skate park deve|opment, wheel friendly zones or "pocket parks" are becoming increasingly popular. They are easily funded and developed, are often utilized by local riders who lack transportation, are unsupervised facilities without helmet and pad nequinomante, and typically are not fenced. Skate zonwa, quite simply, are skate elements that are incorporated into established local parks. Each zone is contained in a site typically comprised of 1,500-5,000 square feet. These zones can be accessed via established park pathways and often, due to the unique elements affiliated with each zone, will draw other riders in search of honing their technique and upgrading their skill level. The skate zones offer a high degree of flexibility and diversity as skaters/bmxers/in-liners can practice one particular set of skills in a controlled anvironment, out of the pedestrian's path, yet within their view, adding a new recreational element to the park. In the past year, several large urban cities as well as newly built housing communities are incorporating zones into their smaller pmrks, thus addressing and providing recreational access for three of the fastest growing sports in the U.S. For those unfamiliar with the concept of a "zone"or"wheel friendly" areas, zones are created to work with the environment and address direct need within an immediate area. The most important considerations when incorporating zones into a neighborhood are site selection and diversity of riding terrain. Each park should contain a different set of elements to draw riders from the immediate area as well as local surrounding areas. As riders will be inclined to visit zones in other areaspublicocoosmmumt be addressed in the initial stage of design: vehicular access & parhing, pedestrian accano, public transportation, placement of the zone, safe entry into and out of the zone and security. Skate/BMX/In-line users differ in that their sports are technically booed, and the only way to improve is by constant practice. Whereas one site might contain a series of rails at varying lengths for users to practice mounUng, grinding, sliding and dismounting tricks, another site might contain a small quarter pipe to practice ramp riding skills. Yet another zone can contain a series of |adgms, and oncdher, an exciting street element to ride such as a small set of stairs, or a gap to jump, or benches to ride. The possibilities with skate zones are endless and very attractive to skaters of all skill |eve|o, particularly beginners who might be intimidated to enter a skate park and practice their skills in a |argor, more populated park. More experienced riders will come to hone skills in a more private setting than the |orgo, spectator friendly skate park. Copyright 2007 SITE Deign Group,Inc. 2 And fino|ly, any in the area will make use of the zones to practice before competitions. Costs for Skate Zones are extremely variable and are totally dependant on the site and the type of equipment insta||ed, be it above-ground modular or concrete. AQoin, when modular equipment is priced it is imperative to add in taxes, shipping and installation. One of the most important elements common to the design and development of all types of skate parks is location. It is imperative that the community hire a firm that not only possesses a professional background in Landscape Architecture, butofinn that is comprised of skate park usera/deei0nere, with the ability to bridge the gap between what works best for the community as well as the local park users. It is imperative to conduct data research and collection to determine population, b of park users, types of existing parks, t d | sites, potential funding, potential amenities as well as potential site complexities. This is accomplished through either an initial feasibility study or during the design process via a series of public meetings, design workshops and a designated web-site designed for public information and feedback. During these meetings and the effort of data collection, it can be determined how many parks need to be created, a reasonable phasing time-line which establishes when parks are to be added to an area, the location of the four tier levels of parks, what elements each level of park should contain, and a structure for local as well as regional funding. For additional information please contact: Brian Moore SITE Design Group, Inc www.sitedesigngroup.com I #i-,,i_f_..,.. W (.1) ..... ..., :::..,„.. 47:5: ... if 4 ,� , # ii; .,, ,.., , - , --„...... „ ,, „:„..7,. 7. , .„„„„,.....7 ,s..,..,......... ,....... .. . ....„. ; .. . . ....., ,...„., ,,t. .,, ..,, ,, . ,, „.....: „.........,,,,.....,,.,.i.„„, . • _.,...... .... . ...„,. . . ••• ,4_,.._, ...„... .„.„... ..,.........., _ L) 0 sal iselik,14 .4,,,..a';44;1.-i.:.-1F- ...„11,:wai ' WCD . ,. ....„,,,...........„,„,. .. ........„., . .... cr o „ ... ,_,..... . .. „ ..„.. .. .„...„ .......„,„„,....„„ . „:.. . „......., .,, .: .... . .......... ...... .„... ............ „. ..... , ...... ......„„.....„.....„. .....„ ,„.. . .,..,..., . ,.... ..„... ...,. . ,, .. , _ . .. ..,. . „ . ,..,...„.„:„,.....,„„. „„:„,„ „.„..„.„ .. .,...., .... ... _ .„. .. .„.„. .. . .. „ . „. ,„,. ... .. „ „ .. ..,... ,.. „.....„,....„.„,„ .„...„,„„ „„„...,, . ............. . ......„, „...,„ . ... ......... ,..„. .. . .„„...,...„.„.. . ...:„.„.„.., .......„ . ,..,.....„......,.... . ..„„.....„..., .. .......„ .....„ ......„...... .„. „..., ........ ........„ .. ..... . .. .„..... ...„ . . . ... . ....,. . rn V� ,.. . . . .... ... .,...... ......... ... „....... „_...„ ...:, . ..„,......„.. .....„..„.., .„..„.............„.:„... ..,..„„ ,....,....„„ . w , ,-.1 _ ....„„..„.„.,„ �r��g _ ,,. .. ,, . .,.:.., :„.„ ..„......„ , a CD '.''''''' .-;:'''''''''''''''''''0 Jw 2 ..,. .. .. . _ 7E U ......_,,...,.... 01 z c o E _ m p ti o m ICE CO 0 > w Qtr, � � � 1E Op u , z yaw !1 va 11 ® u �7 Odd � � d z 0 mU QN � t y_ w ® � ® ® w p 0 m� Z W O Ti f > o ill 23” z m � � p � e - 1 b iii0 E 0 - p \ � d o .°� xct. a� u3o p CO 1 -- f � �i o � + > pn � w, � OrJa ❑ ------,_ - I V' 0 . : . . - - • *..../.41,.......1.0* it 4 design group , iiic . PLAZA SERIES : SPECIFICATIONS: -VAI-ZIL 1Y 01 GF-IND Ill („)(.2.KS SKATE PLAZA 12 , 000 - FLAT BAR MANUAL PADS -LEDGES RAMPS . -I'3ANK -F-IUBBA LEDGE .w F3 I 1) F?Am 'SS; ' t , f ' ';',1,k1','",i i , 1 i ,„ 4 ' ,,,,,f,• 4, '1 t '''' m ' ' 12,000 SQ.FT. . , ,. i ' , ' aiti DIMENSIOissIS: ,, LENGTH- 1 50'-0 [45.72rA] WI!)r ti -80°-0°' [24.38M1 CONSTRUCTION COST +/- $30 PI.--R SC.I.F L. A\t'I RA(;I , , , ,‘ VARIES PER REGION OP TIONAL FEAT LJI-21:S: -RAIL VARII IY ,t1' • 1, - , !,. °A ' -t. ,t , '", -,. „ 4 ' -STEEL BMX P , RC)TE C T 1()N PLATE a-':' -GRANITE LEDGES , , e , CONTACT INFORMATION: 877-BOG-PARK (TOLL FREE] wvv\ru.siti- rieta",ignorc:tup.cOM 044 a-?:6CI - 1u thajte 0,,t_ Q- /3-07 T. Agenda Item Cover sh®etR Agenda Item # Regular Item Consent Item X Workshop Item Item Submitted By: Steve Beachy, Parks and Recreation Director Council Meeting Date: December 20, 2001 Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a report related to the feasibility of a skate park facility in College Station. Item Summary: This report is part of the action plan that attempts to address issues related to Vision Statement #4, Strategy #5b: To meet the needs of College Station citizens, we will develop Comprehensive Leisure Programs, Prepare feasibility report on skateboard park. This is a long-term plan. This is a staff prepared report examining the feasibility of constructing a skateboard park within the City of College Station. The report addresses several issues including location, design, construction, operation, maintenance, financial impact, location and liability. Additionally, recommendations for each of these areas are provided. The draft report was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on November 13 and the final report was presented to the board on December 11. Item Background: As early as 1988 the City Of College Station began investigating the possibility of constructing either a skateboard park or a roller hockey rink. In FY 2000, $162,000 was approved for the construction of a roller hockey rink. After consideration and public comment, it was determined that a skateboard park was the greater need. The reason for this is two-fold, first, comments received at the public hearing indicated that there was far greater support for a skateboard park. Secondly, there are two existing roller hockey rinks in Bryan, and conversations with David Schmitz, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Bryan, indicates there is not enough demand to fill these two existing venues. In FY 2001, a skateboard park became City Council Strategic Issue 4 Strategy 5 b, (develop a feasibility report for a Skateboard Park) The skate park project became a Parks and Recreation Advisory board issue in 2000. The public hearing was held on January 30, 2001 with the only action being discussion, consideration and possible action concerning the possible installation of a roller hockey and/or skateboard rink at an existing College Station park. At this meeting City staff and board members discussed various aspects and options of a skate park and roller hockey rink, including possible sites for the facility. In October of 2001, the Department began a survey of municipally owned and operated skate park facilities in Texas. The results of this survey are included in the report and include information from one facility in Colorado. Budgetary and Financial Summary: There is currently $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation, planned to be issued in FY03 as part of the City's CIP plan. These funds will provide for one phase of development for the proposed facility. Additional funds in the amount of 134,000 will be required to construct a complete facility as recommended in the report. Operational costs are estimated at approximately $9,545 annually. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council receive the report and provide direction concerning additional actions that may be required regarding this strategic plan. Staff further recommends that the implementation be started in FY03 as planned with further development included in the proposed capital improvement program. Advisory Board Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommends that the skate park be built in phases starting in FY 02. The board recommends that the Certificate of Obligation planned for sale in FY03 be sold in FY02 and additional phases be funded either through the CIP program or the issuance of additional Certificates of Obligation. Council Action Options: 1. Accept report and recommendations. 2. Provide further direction to staff for additional work. Supporting Materials: 1. Skate Park Feasibility Study BACKGROUND As early as 1988 the City Of College Station has been investigating the possibility of constructing either a skateboard park or a roller hockey rink. In FY 2000, $162,000 was approved for the construction of a roller hockey rink. After consideration and public comment, it was decided to build a skateboard park. The reason for this is two-fold, first, comments received at the public hearing indicated that there was far greater support for a skateboard park. Secondly, there are two existing roller hockey rinks in Bryan, and conversations with David Schmitz, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Bryan, indicates there is not enough demand to fill these two existing venues. In FY 2001, a skateboard park became City Council Strategic Issue 4 Strategy 5 b, develop feasibility report on Skateboard Park The skate park project became a Parks and Recreation Advisory board issue in 2000. A public hearing was held on January 30, 2001 with the only action being Discussion, consideration and possible action concerning the possible installation of a roller hockey and/or skateboard rink at an existing College Station park. There were 117 visitors in attendance at this meeting (appendix A). At this meeting City staff and board members discussed various aspects and option of a skate park and roller hockey rinks, including possible sites for the facility. The floor was then opened to comments from the public. 27 speakers chose to give their opinions. The public comment included the type of facility, staffing, and hours of operation. One concern was raised as to whether the facility would be open to bicycles also. A majority of the visitors, when asked, supported a skate park facility vs. a roller hockey rink. In October of 2001, the Department began a survey of municipally owned and operated skate park facilities in Texas. To date four cities have been identified and surveyed. The number is low because there is no central point of contact in Texas that has a list of these facilities, including the Texas Municipal League Risk Pool. A copy of the survey and its results are attached in appendix b for review, however, the key points include type of construction, staffing and hours of operation. Each of these items, along with recommendations a City facility are discussed in the remainder of this report r I Monument, CO s' sq 1 09/13/07 12:40 PM On November 13, 2001 a draft copy of the report was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. At this meeting, the Board examined the costs associated with the development of a skate park in College Station and the funding currently planned in the CIP. Based on discussions at this meeting, the Board recommended that the skate park be built in several phases starting in FY 02. Their recommendation includes the initial development of approximately 10,000 square feet with the potential for future expansion. This amount is based upon an estimated project that can be developed with the $162,000 that is forecast for FY 03. This amount is not in the current budget. Implementation would require council approval and an amendment to the budget. For this reason, the staff recommendation for the implementation, is to proceed as planned with the initial phase to be developed in FY 03 utilizing certificates of obligation as the funding source. Additional phases should be included as part of the capital improvement program planned for 2003-2008. 2 09/13/07 12.40 PM OPERATIONS The majority of the Cities that were surveyed indicated that they open their parks to the general public during posted park times and do not staff the facility. The only city I found that provides a supervised facility is Temple. In discussions with Kelly Allensworth, Recreation Superintendent in Temple, she indicated that if they had it to do over again, they would not staff the facility. This option is currently being reviewed again. Staffing the facility can lead to a significant increase in the Cities liability, whereas not staffing the facility can lead to a reduced liability if done properly. According to Michael Popke, in Skate Nation Magazine, "The majority [of skate parks] remain unfenced and unsupervised."' This item will be discussed further in section 7, Liability The four cities in Texas that I have found that operate skate parks only recommend that safety equipment be used. There is a trend in California, which tends to lead the trends in this sport to require safety equipment by ordinance (appendix c). This would then require the Police Department to stop to issue citations. Such actions as gating, posting signage clearly indicating our hours of operation, rules and equipment recommendations at the gate can all serve to protect the City's interest. Current figures for the maintenance of the three skate parks that are unsupervised ranged from unknown to minimal. The operating costs for the supervised facility in Temple was reported as $28,380, according to Val Roaming, Parks Superintendent. The cost for an unsupervised facility is expected to be minimal, as the inspections recommended to insure safety would be a part of the regular schedule. The final issue is one of joint use, could both bicycles and skateboards use the facility. In speaking with other operators and reviewing available literature, the standard appears to be to allow both to use the facility, but not at the same time. The separation requirement is due to the difference in speeds between the two. Most operators do agree that skateboards and roller blades can share the facility at the same time, but bicycles are separated. The separation is accomplished through the use of signs and posted times, indicating which type of equipment is allowed. 888/84, 8 e Monument, CO ' '. ,,... DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 3 09/13/07 12:40 PM Design of the facility is critical and can determine if the facility is successful or not. "Skatepark building is a complicated process and those who have experience agree on several key elements to designing and maintaining a quality skatepark. Getting the users involved in the process is important..."2 All of the cities surveyed, as well as a review of the literature indicate involving the users in the design process increases the likelihood of the facility being used. Another key factor would be the involvement of the neighborhood surrounding the facility. As indicated by the number of individuals and comments made at the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing, there is sufficient public interest in the facility to garner the needed input. There are two common methods of constructing a skateboard park. The first, and most costly, is the poured in place method. The skate board park in Abilene is 12,000 square foot facility built using this method. This method requires that the shape be dug into the ground, then having the concrete poured in place. Discussions with the Abilene Parks and Recreation Department revealed that they had problems with the construction, in that local contractors who were hired to build the facility did not have the tools or expertise to build the facility. Additionally, the facility, which opened in August of this year, is already having problems with the concrete cracking and chipping. The chipping is primarily from the pegs of the BMX bikes that are allowed in the facility. This facility cost the City $240,000 to build and maintenance costs are unknown at this time. Abilene x.mpe W 'eg�� k�'ihY� }7• E The second method, which is typically less costly is the"ramp"method. In this method, a flat concrete slab is poured in place and then a variety of ramps, "grinder" poles, platforms and other apparatus are bolted to the slab. This configuration also allows the facility owner to rearrange the facility without major construction. This would allow the owner to produce a "new" park every so often. The facility in Waco is 10,000 square 4 09/13/07 12:40 PM feet, and according to Andy Cedillo, Recreation Supervisor for the City of Waco, the facility is to already small and is very crowded with only thirty skaters using it. "A common mistake is building skateparks too small."3 Temple built their park for $40,000 on an existing tennis court complex with ramps purchased from Ramptech. »vµ, mMaaoye.ru+yvru Temple Skate Park Waco purchased equipment from Big Daddy Inc. at a cost of $45,000 including shipping and installation and placed them on an existing tennis court slab. An additional 3,000 square foot area was poured to increase the park size. gfAtte! ye, Waco Skate Park Based on conversations with both Waco and Abilene, they indicate that their parks are small compared to the need,they are 10,000 and 12,000 square feet respectively. The table below is provided for a comparison of park costs and sizes. City Facility Size Cost Year Built Tyler Unknown 13,900 1998 Temple 1 14,400 S.F. 40,311 1999 Waco 10,000 S.F. 45,000 2001 Abilene 2 12,000 S.F. 240,000 2001 Monument CO 3 12,800 S.F. 150,000(est.) 2001 (Constructed on an existing tennis court slab 2 Abilene has a poured in place concrete facility. 3 Constructed by volunteers with donated materials. 5 09113/07 12.40 PM It 60' + 80' .1 160' 01 y a � _.� �" ya-r i tie., s . • n I it ' • ,� •'1 . 0 _ �rw ^ 4, • e. Ai t tic tr; t, • 3 0o i Ijj �.� ... r ..... * -' moi a PI a monument Skate Park • ' Skate Parks FSU Incorporated 0 ill 4r &Ramgs 1506 W.Saint Vrain a) Drawing:Full Park Layout wl Parking,Top View c. n ■ a] , .� Cob Spgs. ,CO 80904 .-+ emitted RV K_ Patt(rsnn Harp•Alin 9R 199R 1_M. . , ,_� Inc. 1.00a.7Ca.O19A1 MAINTENANCE Maintenance of this facility is typically minor. None of the Cities surveyed relayed any maintenance costs. However, meeting with Abilene and speaking with Waco and Temple, all indicated that maintenance cost were minor. The Texas Municipal League, in its Skating Facility Guidelines makes several recommendations for the maintenance of a skate park. Part of these recommendations include a daily visual inspection for broken equipment or obvious hazards. There should be documented monthly inspections by the maintenance supervisor as well. All inspections should note such items as warping equipment, cracked or chipped concrete, "Irregular riding surfaces accounted for over one-third of skateboarding injuries according to CPSC study."4, or other unsafe conditions. = N Both of these inspections should include all walking, standing and riding surfaces and the surrounding areas. Surrounding areas can include but are not limited to landscaping, fencing and sidewalks leading to and from the facility. Any and all maintenance and repair work should be documented, including what type of maintenance, when performed and who performed the maintenance. The equipment life expectancy depends on the type of facility built. If a concrete facility is selected, then the facility should have a much longer life expectancy due to the nature of the construction. The ramp type facility will have a hire rate of deterioration, but replacing a single ramp will be less expensive than re-pouring concrete. The current literature, provided by companies who build the ramp style facilities, have warranties of two to five years. Replacement costs would be the cost of the new ramps, plus shipping and installation 7 09/13/07 12.40 PM FINANCIAL IMPACT The City currently has $162,000 planned for the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a skating facility. These funds are to be raised by issuing Certificate of Obligation in FY 03. Abilene indicated that their facility cost $240,000 to build. Tyler indicated that their facility cost $13,900 to construct in 1998 and Waco paid $45,000 to purchase and install the ramps, on an existing tennis court with a 3,000 square foot addition, and this facility opened in October. Temple paid $40,311 in 1999 and the facility as located on an existing tennis court. Currently there is $162,000 proposed for the FY 03 budget for the facility. In order to maintain that budget, the facility can be no more than 10,000 square feet. The facility should be built in a manner that would allow it to be expanded when funds became available. The following budget is based on estimates previously done by city staff and information gathered from the equipment manufacturer's literature. The budgets reflect costs for a base park of 10,000 sq/ft and the costs of developing an additional 5,000 sq/ft. or 10,000 sq/ft. Phase I Base Facility 10,000 Square feet Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft $ 55,00000 Equipment $ 20,000.00 Professional Fees $ 10,000.00 Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft. $ 6,000.00 Signage $ 2,000.00 Lighting $ 45,000.00 Benches (4) $ 6,000.00 Water Fountain (installed) $ 3,000.00 Subtotal $147,000.00 10% Contingency $ 14,700.00 Grand Total $161,700.00 Phase II Option 1 Option 2 Additional 5,000 Square feet 10,000 Square feet Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft $ 27,500.00 $ 55,000.00 Equipment $ 70,000.00 $110,000.00 Professional Fees $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft. $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Subtotal $104,000.00 $178,000.00 10% Contingency $ 10,400.00 $ 17,800.00 Grand Total $134,400.00 $195,000.00 8 09/13/07 12:40 PM (Cost of additional equipment is based on pre-designed facility from Ramptech catalog based on a 15,525 and 19,575 square foot facility. Spohn Ranch estimates $177,542 and $231,832 respectively for equipment costs) Operation and Maintenance Costs Based on conversations with the City of Temple and with Curtis Bingham the following maintenance costs are forecast. Electricity $2,000/annually Daily Inspection(Crew 30 min/day) $2,020/annually Monthly Inspection (Supervisor 3 hr/month) $ 525/annually General Maintenance Supplies $5,000/annually Total $9,545/annually 9 09/13/07 12:40 PM LOCATION The location of the park is a critical item, if the park is not convenient for the participants, it will not be used. There are several park sites within the City that could accommodate the facility. They include Bee Creek Park, W.A. Tarrow Park, Central Park, and Wolf Pen Creek. These sites are all large enough to handle the facility and all have access to neighborhoods. However, Southwood Athletic Park seems to be a more logical choice for several reasons. First, Southwood Athletic Park is co-located with a maintenance facility so the daily maintenance would be more readily available. Second Southwood Park currently includes The Exit Teen Center, and these individuals will be some of our primary participants. Southwood has a location, near the Teen Center that can accommodate the facility and has adequate parking. Finally,the user group that we are attempting to satisfy already uses Southwood as their skate board and roller blading facility. This occurs on a periodic basis at the existing basketball courts and surrounding areas. Locating the facility at Southwood would put it in an area already identified by the user group as the place to go. Locating it elsewhere may cause the participants to continue to use the facilities at Southwood Park in an inappropriate manner. Several sites within the park are being considered for the skateboard facilities Southwood Park ia 10 09/13/07 12:40 PM 0ro.Li, Bryan N Earl Rudo. e ht- 1 / T / m S 01t"j yocs ck ,co O�a i. 1 • 41111s6 N w0.01s-1:„ 14)00 1� ��• f ii, N_ Gly Ga4 �O ,(o•cps` SZ OVIk v r s cG -tis.`F \,44, 4 lc, , 4. Off' • 1211- ON -a Q ,4Z - TAMU <4.4s gis)c) , Itg C94' �I o44� y� f�p 4O`- s2'c'r't�� �jAlf• \4 ÷-t\E M Easterwood q- 4. 0(% S AirportF o 4e V ti O ' ,moo Southwood �� College Station Athletic Park 11 09/13/07 12:40 PM LIABILITY Liability has long been a major concern of municipalities deciding whether or not to build a skate park. Skateboards and skateboarding have the appearance and the reputation for being dangerous. However, recent studies have shown this to be a false image. In the National Parks and Recreation Association's July 1997edition of it monthly journal, Matt Rankin reports: "When compared to other recreational activities, skateboarding has a lower percentage of reported injuries per participant (.49%) than other activities, including soccer (.93%), baseball (2.25%) and Basketball (1.49%).5 Additionally, the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code, Chapter 75 Limitation of Landowners' Liability (appendix d) contains specific language that recognizes "skating, in-line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, and rollerblading." as recreation. It also states that "the owner does not assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted." This protection is granted providing the City post signage with specific language dictated by the Code. This language is also part of the Texas Municipal Leagues Public Skating Guideline published in April 2000 (appendix e). TML also provides guidelines for operation, maintenance, equipment, the skating environment and a sample of facility regulations. Additionally, recommending that all riders wear safety equipment could further reduce the City's liability while in the park. According to TML this equipment should include, helmets, knee and elbow pads, wrist supports and proper shoes. Given the language provided by the State Legislature and implementing most, if not all of TML's recommendations would appear to reduce the City's risk to an acceptable level. Sk4or5 fr ] } p y kkkkkk £� 12 09/13/07 12:40 PM RECOMMENDATIONS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION It is recommend that the facility be constructed in several phases. The first phase should be at least 10,000 square feet and built with the funds planned in FY03. The second phase could be either 5,000 or 10,000 depending on the use the original 10,000 square foot facility receives, this development could be done in FY04 or 05 depending on the financing available. The facility should be built using the ramp method for two reasons. First, the installation cost is considerably less than the "in ground" method. Second, over time, the facility can be rearranged to provide different experiences for the participants. A fence, with a single gate should be included with the construction to allow the park to be closed for maintenance and repair. This would also limit the possibility of a "loose" skateboard or bike reaching the general public, and limiting the speeds at which the participants may enter the general flow of park traffic. The youth of the community should be invited to be involved in the process, either through public hearings, focus groups, one-on-one discussions with the skaters or a combination of all three. Their inclusion will assist in achieving a design that is attractive to the youth and increase the likelihood of the facility's acceptance OPERATIONS At this time, it is recommended that the facility be fenced with a single entry point. The facility hours of operation and rules and equipment recommendations should be post at the gate where they would be visible to all who enter. The facility should not be supervised during normal hours of operation. We should at least remain open to the prospect of allowing bicycles to use the facility, depending upon the type of construction and the manufacturer's recommendations. Separation of users should be achieved through the use of posted times and specific signs indicating whether bicycles are allowed or not. MAINTENANCE After discussing the issue with Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent, we are making the following operational recommendations. The facility should receive a general inspection daily to check for broken objects, trash and general cleanliness. An in depth park inspection should occur once a month, during the regular inspection rotation. This would take approximately 3 hours to inspect for broken cracked or chipped surfaces, secure fasteners and other safety related items. 13 09/13/07 12:40 PM LIABILITY The use of the recommendations made by the Texas Municipal League in the Public Skating Facility Guidelines, along with theprotection given the facility under Chapter 75 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, give the City of College Station a good deal of liability protection. Therefore it is the Department's recommendation that these guidelines be followed as closely as possible in the design of the facility and operation of the facility be unsupervised with recommended rules posted. FUNDING The current funding plan is to issue $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation in FY03 to build a skate facility. These funds could be used to build the initial 10,000 square foot phase. Funding for the second phase could be either through the issuance of Certificates of Obligation or through inclusion in the next Capital Improvement Program. tow � ' Monument, CO 4,04:4"0:14 09/13/07 12:40 PM REFERENCES 1. Popke, Michael, "Skate Nation", Athletic Business, 69, October 2000. 2. Bennet, Greg, "No Longer Forgotten",Todays Playground, 25, September 2001. 3.Guthrie, Dick, "Q&A", Skatepark, 12,November 2001. 4.Texas Municipal League, "Skating Facility Guidelines", 5, April 2000. 5. Rankin, Matt, "City Skateparks are Not A Recipe For Disaster", P&R, July 1997. 15 09/13/07 12:40 PM Appendix A College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Agenda and Minutes, January 30, 2001 Agenda and Minutes, November 13, 2001 16 09/13/07 12:40 PM xt.,....,,,;Foi,:),,,-:-.,- 3 A:4*-740.- , -,w.,.,$,T.06,0*. ,. ,, , :,,,,,,,,wt:f:fo-lif,,o.,,,,, 4,g?Ai,%190.1: E Sp+e ial lf' Iec� - , ting public Hearing . Tuesday January 30, 2#101 ' ; City-1 II Council Chambers � F 1101 Texas Avenue 7:00.;3 in. ax z 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the possible installation of a roller hockey and/or skateboard rink at an existing College Station park. 5. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1- 800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college- station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. 17 09/13/07 12:40 PM City of Collegt Sta tion � x £ Tuesda ,.T ni u y 3p,2001 .. City iail Council ti ittbers 1101 Texas Avec ue *K I, 0p Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Curtis Bingham, Park Operations Superintendent; Scott Hooks, Operations Supervisor; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Shannon Waddell, Recreation Supervisor; Pamela Springfield, Senior Secretary; Mary Tucker, Action Center Coordinator; Kris Startzman, Board Secretary. Board Members Present: Chris Barzilla, Chair; George Dresser, Co-Chair; John Nichols; Bill Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis; Jon Turton; John Crompton, Alternate; Laura Wood, Alternate. 18 09/13/07 12:40 PM Visitor's Present: Sam Price, 1200 Walfon Drive Al Benavides, 1205 Village Drive Christy Elmendarf, 11121 N. Dowling Road Lisa Benavides, 1205 Village Drive Noelle Koenig, 6018 Augusta Circle Levi Peachey, 19119 Peach Creek Cut Off Charlie Doucet, 2409 B. Pedernales Charles Ahn, 2803 Brothers Blvd. Garrett House, 2604 Clearwood Court Samantha Rosin, 1201 Berkely Katherine Core, 1809 C. Woodsman Matthew Blake, 1112 Winecup Andrew Hajash, 6422 Barnwood Marshall Rowe, 1427 Stokes John Hajash, 6422 Barnwood Eric Singleton, 4625 Greens Prairie Trail Lindsey Rearick, 2100 Fairfax Court Chris Meyer, 9103 Waterford Net Nuttin, 2912 Normand Drive Andrew Meyer, 9103 Waterford Will Mefferd, 1107 Ashburn Avenue Scott Meyer, 9103 Waterford Jonathan Jensen, 2903 Durango Court PJ Armstrong, 2600 Quail Hollow Derek Reed, 4905 Ingellwood Court Sam Winn, 1402 Village Drive Jason Odine, 908 North Avenue Charles Bryant, 5471 Timberline Drive Chris Marshall, 2906 Wood Meadow Jessica Ledesma, 124 Ridge Loop Michael Proctor, 3917 Hawk Owl Cove Philip Latham, 201 Highlands Street Misty Callaham, 207 Augsburg Court, Dean Perry, 2913 S. Pueblo Court Chris Vanlandingham, 2323 Trace Meadows Samuel Urso, 1005 Laredo Jerod Hugghins, 312 Dunn Holly Huffman, Eagle Street Jimmy Scales, 9200 Brookwater Circle Michael Pird, Carmel Place Janet Dale, 3130 Norton Lane David Robinson, 1019 Murifield Village Liza Martinez, 409 Live Oak Jerrel Thomas, 3301 Bahia Gerald Mitchell, 1112 Winecup Derek Wedel (no address given) Susan Blake, 1112 Winecup Chris Farrell, 1803 Leona Dakota Diehl, 2101 Barak Lane Chris Chalman, 2323 Trace Meadows Quinten Parmer, 4400 Green Valley John Hall, 2321 Trace Meadows Cindy Sabesta, 302 Glade Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek Michell Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Chase Sanford, (address not readable) Michael Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Ryan Doyal, 2701 Longmire Drive, #706 Michael Roe, 3307 Westchester Erica Bogan, 2200 Lobo James Stanislaw, 1101 Westover Raymond Vogel, 2200 Lobo Peter Lammesti, 1502 Dominik Robert Cogburn, 1402 Caudill Jessica Hardison, 602 Coachlight Court Jason Arechiga, 117 Sunset Drive Mary Gail Buck, 1207 Westover David Worley, 3819 Stony Creek Robert Malinak, 1114 Airline Cadie Archer, 806 Southern Hills Court Vincent Perry, 2913 Pueblo Court South Amy Fairhurst, 1302 Haley Place Todd Holbrook, 3620 Vienna Tracy Borsnek, (address not readable) Mark Rodgers Jr., 1115 Paintbrush David M. Watson, 1013 Winding Road Prudence Morris, 1606 Una Peter Watson, 1013 Winding Road Keith Arzac, 2011 Angelina Lindsey Moffitt, 4610 Colonial Rodrigo Arzac, 2011 Angelina Soni Stallings, 1205 Guadalupe Visitor's Present Tracy Klusaeck, 801 Llano Ekhi Arzac, 2011 Angelina David Wellman, PO Box 132 Barbara Rees, 4905 Inglewood John Fife, 3005 Bluestem Mike Jones, 1606 Una Aaron Loveless, 3001 Coronado Drive Justin Goss, 3523 Graz 19 Austin Orand, 2321 Trace Meadows Cody Dale, 3130 Norton Lane Matt Fisher, 126 Dunn Jack Collins, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Craig Joyer, 2321 Trace Meadows Joe Williams, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Josh Ralls, 1020 Puryear Drive Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937 Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina John Barker, 4413 Texas Avenue South Joe Rodriguez, 903 Montclair Michael Stewart, 508 Shire Drive Jennifer Smith, 12467 N. Dowling Meagan Lenard, 6603 Serenity Circle Carla Barker, 4013 State Hwy. 6 South David Barker, 4013 State Hwy. 6 South Scott Bans, 407 Boyett, Apt. G. Kyle Mcbrethy, 3415 Mustang Lane Jesse Tones, 3404 Shire Drive J.R. Torres, 3404 Shire Drive Susan Meadors, 2713 Brothers Jon Meadors, 2713 Brothers Jeromy Benavides, 1205 Village Drive P.J. Stone, 1207 Westover Street Jason Logan, 6556 Olympia Buddy Road Blake Carroll, 703 Concho Josh Brown, 609 Yorkshire Drive 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pardon - Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: There were no requests for absences submitted, and no pardons were made. 3. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the possible installation of a roller hockey and/or skateboard rink at an existing College Station park: Steve Beachy took the floor. He thanked everyone for attending the public hearing, introduced the Parks and Recreation Department staff, and turned the floor over to Eric Ploeger. Eric took the floor and showed a PowerPoint presentation pertaining to the various aspects of and options for roller hockey rinks and skateboard parks. The presentation also suggested several potential sites to put such a facility (see attachment). Wolf Pen Creek was the recommended site by Parks and Recreation Department staff, due to the fact that: • It is on the College Station Bike Loop; • It has parking, open space, and restrooms; • Utilization of a roller hockey rink and/or skate park would probably not interfere with other activities at the Amphitheater. 20 Eric stated that one hurdle might be that any changes to the Wolf Pen Creek area would have to be reviewed by the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board. He went on to say that if Wolf Pen Creek is chosen, the Parks and Recreation Department staff recommend that the park have Open Skate, and that Texas Municipal League Insurance cover risk. Eric opened the floor to the Board for questions. Chris Barzilla asked if the facility would be fenced off or left open to the public if Open Skate were chosen. Eric replied that it could be done either way, but the facility would most likely be Open Skate. John Nichols asked if the facility would be lighted. Eric stated that the decision would probably have to be made after a location is chosen. He went on to say that lighting is an option, but the Development Services Department, the Design Review Board, as well as residents in the neighborhood surrounding the chosen park would have to have input. Chris opened the floor to the public hearing. Mary Gail Buck - Ms. Buck stated that on Thursday nights, high school kids get together on the basketball courts at Southwood Valley Athletic Park and set up ramps. She would prefer that the facility be at Southwood Valley Athletic Park instead of at Wolf Pen Creek-or Central Park, due to the close proximity to the hospital. She went on to say that she has been to skate parks and has seen some terrible accidents. Ms. Buck stated that because of the Teen Center, kids are already at Southwood Valley Athletic Park. She requested that the facility also be open to BMX bikers as well. John Barker— Mr. Barker stated that he feels that the Open Skate is a good option. He said that Wolf Pen Creek and Southwood Valley Athletic Park are both good locations for the facility. Times of use should be between sunrise and 11:00 p.m., and there should be a push timer to light the facility. He went on to say that he is a BMX biker, and he would like the facility to be open to BMX bikers as well. Chris asked if the ramps used for skateboarding and inline skates are the same ramps that are used by BMX bikers. Mr. Barker responded that they are. Chris asked if there would be a problem mixing skaters and bikers in the same facility. Mr. Barker responded that it would not be a problem. He went on to say that different sized ramps would have to be built to accommodate all levels of skill (beginners to advanced). John C. asked how this could be accomplished. Mr. Barker suggested not building ramps over twelve-feet tall. He recommended building three or six-foot tall ramps, and making them 20-feet wide. John C. asked Mr. Barker where he currently skated. Mr. Barker responded that he currently skates on the stairs and handrails at Texas A&M University. John Fife — Mr. Fife stated that a skate park would accommodate several different styles of sports and pointed out that a roller hockey rink would only support one style. 21 Jon Turton asked for a show of hands from the citizens in the audience who were in favor of a skate park (the majority of the audience raised their hands). Jon then asked for a show of hands who were in favor of a roller hockey rink (few hands were raised). Jason Andrew (name/address not on visitor list) — Mr. Andrew, a student at Texas A&M University, asked about the planning of the facility. He stated that he has encountered cracks on the surface at the skating facility in Bryan, which makes it difficult to skate. He was also against a fenced rink because he has friends that have rammed and broken their fingers on them. John N. asked Mr. Andrew if he had any preferences to a location. Mr. Andrew stated that any location would be okay with him. He went on to say that he would highly recommend push button lighting. Chris asked if there is a wait to use the Bryan facility. Mr. Andrew responded that there is a network of players that decide times of play. He went on to say that this network helps to incorporate the neighborhood. David Barker — Mr. Barker stated that his family has acreage off of Rock Prairie Road. Four years ago, he built some dirt ramps for his son, John. He went on to say that people of all ages have seen the ramps from the road and come by and use them. He said that all of the age groups appear to get along together. Mr. Barker and his wife are concerned about the liability and have had the players sign waivers. He said that the facility needs to be designed to accommodate all age groups, beginners trhough advanced. John C. asked what has kept his son interested in the sport for so long. Mr. Barker responded that it is the challenge of the sport. David Worley — Mr. Worley and thirteen of his coworkers at Universal Computer Systems, signed a petition in favor of an inline hockey rink as opposed to a skate park (see attachment). He stated that the major limitation to the rink in Bryan is the distance from College Station. Currently, he and his friends are using the basketball court at Shenandoah Park due to the close proximity and the fencing there. Mr. Worley stated that roller hockey is a unique sport, and that there is a desire for it in College Station. He is also in favor of lighting at the facility. Sam Price — Mr. Price stated that if there were to be a skate park, it would bring another culture into College Station. He believes that a skate park should be built due to the fact that College Station has a lot of over-eighteen establishments, and this park would be good for the younger crowd. Mr. Price went on to say that parking would not be a problem, due to the fact that a lot of the skaters and bikers don't own cars. Scott and Andrew Meyer— The Meyer's stated that they had submitted a petition (on file) with approximately 70 signatures on it for a skate park. The Meyer's feel that there shouldn't be roller hockey rink because people would have to wait to use it. If a skate park were built, it could be used by a lot of people at the same time. 22 David Watson (name/address not on visitor list)— Mr. Watson would like to have a skate park and a roller hockey rink. He said that lighting is important, especially in the summer when kids sometimes play until midnight. He suggested having people sign release forms to reduce liability. Mike Jones— Mr. Jones stated that he has watched trends, and it seems like skateboarding is becoming more popular. He feels that it would be beneficial to the community to have a place for kids that are on the verge of being excluded from other activities where they can feel good about themselves. PJ Armstrong— Mr. Armstrong suggested that if such a facility is built, to have a separate day for skateboarding, roller blading, and BMXing for safety purposes. Levi Peachey — Mr. Peachey said that he is a supporter of a skate park. He has been involved in skateboarding for approximately seven years, and stated that there has never really been a place where people can go and skate, or just sit back and watch others skate. He suggested having a step-up system for ramps by putting smaller ramps in one section, and working up to the larger ones to accommodate all skill levels. Jon T. asked Mr. Peachey what maintenance problems he has encountered in other parks. Mr. Peachey responded that the only problems that he has seen have been with the rotting or damaged ramps. Jon T. asked what the chances of getting people to wear helmets in an unsupervised park would be. Mr. Peachey thinks that if a sign were posted requesting helmets, people would be respectful and probably wear them. Chris Marshall — Mr. Marshall stated that the City of College Station needs to seek input from skaters and bikers concerning the design of the facility. David Barker—Mr. Barker said that his son has had several accidents, and from a liability standpoint, he is in favor of kids wearing helmets up to the age of eighteen years old. Jeromy Benavides — Mr. Benavides said that he was got kicked off of, and suspended from the Texas A&M University campus for skateboarding. He feels that a skate park would be a good alternative to the campus. Mr. Benavides thinks that having a pro shop at the facility is also a good way for the City to recoup some of the construction costs. Samantha Rosin - Ms. Rosin stated that she is in favor of a skate park, but wouldn't mind having a roller hockey rink as well. She suggested that if the facility is going to be Open Skate, it be "skate at your own risk" and it should be optional for people to wear helmets. She also suggested having separate days for skateboarding, rollerblading, and BMXing. William Allen (name/address not on visitor list) — Mr. Allen is a member of the Brazos Valley Cyclists. He would like access to the facility to be primarily through bikeways. He thinks that a pro shop is a good idea, and feels that a pro should be on site to supervise the facility and to teach others. He also suggested that the facility address multi needs (skateboarding, rollerblading, and BMXing), or have different sites for different needs. Chris B. asked how the City could find a pro. William suggested that the City could post the position, visit competitions, put an ad in the newspaper, or ask around. Chris asked 23 what certifications a pro would need. Mr. Allen could not address the question in tei,ns of skateboarding, but pointed out that in order for cyclists to compete in various events, they have to join the national organization and pay a special fee. P.J. Stone - Mr. Stone said that his mother recently took six hours out of her day to take him and some friends to a skateboard park out of town. He stated that he too, had been kicked off of the Texas A&M University campus for skateboarding. He thinks that a local skate park is a good idea, so that kids don't have to travel out of town to hang out with their friends. He stated that he has visited a skate facility in New York where it is a rule for people to wear helmets and the police often drive by the facility to ensure that the rules are being followed. Mr. Stone stated that he wears a helmet and feels that helmets should be required. Levi Peachey — Mr. Peachey thinks that the City wants a cost-effective facility, and that hiring a pro would defeat that purpose. He went on to say that he doesn't feel that the City needs to hire someone to be an instructor when people can learn from each other. Jason Logan— Mr. Logan said that his mother has given up her weekends to take him and some of his friends to a facility near Austin to go skating. Mr. Logan goes to the Texas A&M University Recreation Center, and has talked to people that have expressed an interest in skateboarding, rollerblading, and BMXing. He feels that a skate park would be beneficial in introducing people to, and helping them learn these sports. Mr. Logan said that he has never seen trouble between skaters and bikers, and he feels that a pro shop is a good idea. Blake Carroll —Mr. Carroll is in favor of a skate park. His parents also drive him and his friends out of town and long distances to take them to skate parks. He is also in favor of wearing helmets, but does not feel that it is necessary to hire a pro, because he has learned how to skate from his friends within a year. Mr. Carroll recommended lighting the facility as well. Charles Bryant — Mr. Bryant said that a lot of people won't let their children skateboard because there is not an area set up for it. He feels that a skate park would introduce a lot of people to the sport. He said that along with building ramps, there needs to be grinding areas as well. Josh Brown— Mr. Brown said that he is in favor of a skate park. He has been riding bikes and skateboarding for a number of years, and has traveled out-of-town to private and public facilities to skate. He said that a skate park would give some people in the community a place to go, and feels that people from surrounding cities would use the facility as well. Mr. Brown suggested charging a small surcharge fee. He also feels that a pro shop is a good idea, because there aren't that many places that sell skating supplies near by (supplies usually have to be mail ordered). Bill Davis asked what the cost is to skate at a private park. Mr. Brown responded that it usually costs $10, or some pay a membership fee. 24 Garrett House - Mr. House is concerned that the layout of the facility is going to be too small. He said that when the City builds the facility, there would be more people skating on it than ever suspected, and that the facility should be built in a way to make room for expansion after it is built. He stated that the area between the pavilion and the Teen Center at Southwood Valley Athletic Park is too small. He also said that smaller ramps need to be built away from the bigger ramps. He went on to say that the City tends to build facilities that are too small for the younger population (ages twelve to seventeen years). John C. asked Mr. Garrett if there is a model sized park that the Board should be looking at. Mr. House suggested that the Board look into privately owned Mansfield and Eisenburg skate parks, and city owned skate parks in Georgetown and Tyler. Mary Gail Buck—Ms. Buck stated that the City should get something put in place as soon as possible because kids don't want to have to wait. She went on to say that something small could be built to get started, then added on to at a later time. Dakota Diehl—He stated that if the facility that is built were as big as the kids want, they would bring their own props and build on to it themselves. Ekhi Arzac — Mr. Arzac stated that lighting the facility is a good idea and also offered to donate a half pipe from his backyard. Jason Logan - Mr. Logan had concerns about the design of the facility. He stated that the City could start small, but make room for expansion. He also said that the City should consider designing the facility so that the players aren't facing the sun. Marshall Rowe - Mr. Rowe feels that helmets should not be required. He has been skateboarding for two years, and has not had any serious injuries. He also feels that Southwood Valley Athletic Park would be a good place to put the facility due to the close proximity to the Teen Center. John Fife — Mr. Fife said that skaters would appreciate any sized facility right now. He also offered to help build the facility. Charles Bryant - Mr. Bryant suggested finding a way to build the facility in the area behind the Teen Center. Carla Barker - Ms. Barker said that the growth of the facility is a big issue and feels that a lot of people would come to skate from out of town. She is concerned about supervision rules for safety purposes, because serious accidents can happen. She is also concerned that the ramps be built with safety in mind. Ms. Barker feels that refreshments should be made available, possibly at a pro shop. Jeromy Benavides - Mr. Benavides gave a web site for information: www.bestofaustin.com/irr. 25 Quinten Parmer— Mr. Parmer stated that there is a bond among skaters. He pointed out that there is already a roller hockey rink in Bryan, and feels that the City of College Station should build a skate park. Aaron Loveless—Mr. Loveless stated that he is good at rollerblading, but right now, there is no place to go skate and learn new tricks. He suggested having supervision at the facility and having that person rent out helmets to ensure safety. He said that the City really needs a skate park because College Station is a college-centered town, and there is not much for the younger generation to do. Blake Carroll — Mr. Carroll suggested looking at two skate parks on the south side of Houston. Mary Gail Buck — Ms. Buck believes that supervision is important, and there should be access to a telephone at the facility. She suggested operating the facilities in a manner similar to the public pools, where the City charges an admission or membership fee and several staff members work at the facility during operation hours. She also suggested fencing the facility off to keep people from entering it after hours. One citizen stated that www.dexsk8.com is another web site that the Board could look at for additional information. Janet Dale - Ms. Dale is a mother of a skateboarder. She said that a lot of people consider skateboarding as a fad, but it has been around for a long time. She went on to say that building such a facility would have a positive economic impact. She is in favor of supervision for safety and liability purposes, and feels that lighting the facility is very necessary. She said that 10,000 feet would be the minimum size for a facility. Chris thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. He said that the Board would love to build both a roller hockey rink and a skateboard park, but due to finances, may only be able to build one or the other. He went on to say that the input presented during the meeting would be brought back to the Board for consideration at another meeting. Jon T. asked if there were a way for the citizens to track the progress of this project. Laura Wood stated that she would set up a web site that would be updated as events happen. Steve stated that the Parks and Recreation Department could also post notices at the parks and on the public access channel. 4. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. 26 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station,Texas 77840 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon—Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of October 9,2001. 5. Report,discussion,and possible action concerning the public release draft of the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO). 6. Presentation,discussion,and possible action regarding park land dedication requirements for the Westfield addition. 7. Report,discussion,and possible action concerning skate parks. 8. Discussion, consideration,and possible appointment of members to the Conference Center Advisory Committee, 9. Report,discussion,and possible action concerning the parkland dedication checklist and detention/retention pond criteria. 10. Discussion,consideration, and possible action concerning the possibility of putting batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park. 11. Discussion,consideration,and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: A Vision Statement#3,Strategy#4a(Develop and Urban Forestry Plan)and A Vision Statement#4(Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities), A Strategy#1 (Performing Arts Center); A Strategy#2(Parks Maintenance Standards); A Strategy#3 (Intergenerational Parks); A Strategy#4(Comprehensive Parks Planning); F Strategy#5(Comprehensive Leisure Programs); A Strategy#6(Enhance Cultural Opportunities Through Existing Art Program); A Strategy#7(Connect Greenways);and A Strategy#8(Improve Communication between Boards) 12. Consent items: —Capital Improvement Project Report. Next meeting date and agenda. 13. Adjourn. 27 The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or(TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. 28 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station,Texas 77840 7:00 p.m. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Grace Calbert, Conference Center Supervisor; Jane Kee, City Planner; Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner. Board Members Present: Glen Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Don Allison; Bill Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Jon Turton; Laura Wood(Alternate). Board Member Absent: John Nichols, Chairman. Visitors: Ben Miller, 2001 Holleman Drive W., #914, College Station, Texas Cristen Ratcliff, 800 Marion Pugh, #807, College Station, Texas Jonathan McLavey, Hart Hall on TAMU Campus, College Station, Texas Teresa Runcaw, Eppright Hall on TAMU Campus, College Station, Texas Zach Knight, 2002 Longmire Court, #4D, College Station, Texas 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Glen Davis made a motion to appoint Glenn Schroeder as Acting Chairman of the meeting. Bill Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke during this item. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Bill made a motion to accept the absence of John Nichols as excused. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of October 9, 2001: Don Allison made a motion to approve the minutes from October 9, 2001. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the public release draft of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Steve Beachy said that the UDO is a comprehensive project that the City has been working on for over a year. He added that there is a public release draft available and that staff is looking for input from citizens and appointed board and committee members. This item was put on the agenda to solicit written comments from the Board that will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission during their workshop meeting on November 29,2001, at 5:30 p.m. 29 Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel took the floor. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman had requested to have one or two members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board present to discuss the Board's comments during the workshop meeting. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chairman John Nichols had previously stated that he would be able to attend the meeting. Glen D. also volunteered to attend. Sabine reviewed a PowerPoint presentation concerning the information that the UDO covers. She explained that the public review period would be from November 5, 2001, to January 30, 2002. She also went over the expected timeline for the UDO adoption (see attached PowerPoint Presentation). Sabine discussed some of the highlights of the UDO. One highlight was the section pertaining to Open Space. She added that greenways currently are not addressed in the City's ordinances, and feels that the section pertaining to open space will help address them. The open space requirement would not just include the dedication of recreational land, but would also include an actual minimum amount of open space requirement for every residential development, that will most likely be used for passive recreation, retention, and detention. By making this open space requirement an element of designing subdivisions, the City would improve its ability to make linkages between subdivisions and to implement the City's Greenways Master Plan. Bill is concerned that if open space becomes a requirement, developers may wish to build on smaller plats so that they will not have to develop as much land. He asked if the requirement would apply to the development of small lots or units. Sabine replied that the UDO draft currently states that if the lots are residential, the open space requirement will apply. Glen D. asked if developers would have the option of paying a fee in lieu of the open space requirement. Sabine replied that currently there is not a provision in the UDO that would allow a fee in lieu of the open space requirement. Bill asked if the open space requirement would require that there be public access to the dedication. Sabine replied that currently there is not a requirement. Glenn S. asked if there would be a standard for the type or quality of land that could be dedicated to the city through the open space requirement. Steve added that there would need to be policy guidelines on acceptance of open space, and further definition of what the open space requirement is intended to do. In summary of the above, in reference to Article 7, Section 7.4a(Open Space Criteria) of the UDO, the Board showed concern that there is no provision to allow for those developments with a small number of lots or units. They felt that there should be some kind of thought process to establish a minimum size development for the open space requirement, as well as to provide further definition of an open space. Steve pointed out that the Park Land Dedication Ordinance revisions that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approved on October 9, 2001, had not been incorporated into the UDO draft under Article 8, Section 8.5 (Park Land Dedication). Jane Kee stated that the revisions were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission during their meeting on November 8, 2001, and would be incorporated in the UDO. She added that 30 the UDO Consultant and the City's legal staff have advised that the Park Land Dedication fees be approved by a separate resolution in order to keep them separate from the UDO. That way, if the fees need to be updated, the UDO would not have to be amended. Steve also pointed out that the recent policy information pertaining to the acceptance of detention/retention facilities should also be incorporated into the UDO. In summary, the Board would like for all of the current elements of the revised Park Land Dedication Ordinance that the Planning and Zoning Commission passed to be included in the UDO. Steve referred to Article 7, Section 7.3 (Sign Regulations). He noted that city parks were not specifically listed in the regulations, and asked what flag and sign regulations would apply to park development. In summary, the Board feels that there should be better explanation in the UDO of how these regulations will pertain to park development. The Board was in consensus on the above. Kris Lehde will put the Board's comments into draft format for the Board to review prior to the joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 29, 2001. No motion was made on this item. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding park land dedication requirements for the Westfield addition: Steve said that this item is a follow-up on previous action that the Board took regarding the Westfield Village Subdivision. At the October 9, 2001, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting,the Board had approved 4.299 acres as the park land dedication for two (2) tracts of land: the original Westfield Subdivision, Phases I through IV, and a tract of land adjacent and to the south. In addition to the motion, the Board had asked to review the developer's (Randy French) plat for connectivity and accessibility between the two (2) tracts before it was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pete Vanecek reviewed a checklist that staff had prepared, and also showed a site map that included the original park land dedication, as well as the 5.9-acre proposed plat between the two tracts of land. Steve asked the Board to keep in mind that Mr. French is not requesting to dedicate the 5.9-acre plat of land as a public park; he is only showing, as the Board had requested, the accessibility between the two (2) tracts of land that had been dedicated. After some discussion, Bill D. made a motion to only approve the access plan as presented, not to recommend that the plat become public park land at any point in the future. The motion was also contingent upon the expectation that there will be sidewalks and accessibility as presented in the plan. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning skate parks: Steve stated that this item is a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council Strategic Issue. Recreation Superintendent, Peter Lamont, has been given the responsibility of implementing this issue. Steve referred to the draft report that was included in the Board packets (Skate Park Feasibility Study Draft Report). He added that the report had also been given to the City Manager's Office, as well as to the Risk Management, Legal, 31 Budget, and Fiscal Services Departments for review. The final report will be presented to the City Council on December 20, 2001. Peter Lamont stated that the report was based upon research from national organizations and magazines, and also from a survey conducted within cities in Texas that have municipally owned and operated skate parks. Peter reviewed the report with the Board. The City currently has $162,000 planned for the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a skating facility. These funds are to be raised by issuing certificates of obligation in fiscal year 2003. The approximate cost to construct a facility would be anywhere from $279,400 (for a 15,000 SF facility)to$357,500 (for a 20,000 SF facility). Jon T. suggested constructing the park now with the $162,000 budget, and working with the community to build what they want. He added that any additional cost could be a barrier to getting the park constructed. Steve responded that the original $162,000 budget was established for the construction of a roller hockey rink based upon what it cost the City of Bryan to build their facilities. The public hearing that was held on January 30, 2001, revealed that the community was in favor of constructing a skate park, rather than a roller hockey rink. Steve added that the feasibility report recommends funding the additional amount of the project through future capital improvement funds. Glen D. suggested constructing the facility in two (2) phases by using the budgeted $162,000 for the first phase, and expanding the facility using future capital improvement funding for the second phase. He added that a 15,000 square foot facility could be constructed in the first phase. The cost would include concrete, professional fees, fencing, signage, lighting, and benches. Any remaining funds from this phase could be used to purchase equipment. The facility could be constructed in such a manner that additional footage and amenities could be added during the second phase of the project. Glenn Schroeder suggested constructing a 10,000-12,000 square foot facility during the first phase, rather than a 15,000 square foot facility. This would minimize the cost of the concrete, and provide flexibility to purchase more equipment and/or amenities. Steve pointed out that the $162,000 would not be available until fiscal year 2003. Bill suggested trying to accelerate the project by going to the Council and asking for the $162,000 prior to fiscal year 2003. Glenn S. pointed out the fact that the budget for Fiscal Year 2002 had already been approved. To get additional funding now would require Council to amend the budget. He added that the Board could ask that Council issue certificates of obligation. Glen D. made a motion recommending constructing the facility in two phases, the first being the construction of a 10,000 SF facility, and using$162,000 issued from certificates of obligation requested by staff of the City Council, and the second being the construction of an additional 10,000 square feet(to total a 20,000 SF facility) using future capital improvement funds. The motion included a recommendation to direct staff to come up with cost alternates and a timeline to construct a 10,000 SF, 15,000 SF, and 20,000 SF facility. Jon T. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 32 Steve stated that the report would be amended to include the Board's recommendations, along with feedback from City staff, and would be brought back to the Board during their regular meeting on December 11, 2001. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of members to the Conference Center Advisory Committee: Jon T. made a motion to appoint Glenda Ellredge and reappoint Fran Lamb to the Conference Center Advisory Committee. Don Allison seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Park Land Dedication checklist and detention/retention pond criteria: Steve said that staff had been directed to develop a checklist that developers would be required to fill out for proposed park land dedication. The checklist would then be distributed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to their meetings, in order to provide more information on the dedication being presented. Staff had also been directed to develop criteria for the acceptance of detention/retention ponds. The criteria states that detention/retention ponds will not be accepted as part of the required park land dedication, but only in addition to required dedication. This change to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance would require that the detention or retention pond design would have to be approved by City staff and meet the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's policy concerning detention/retention area design. Glen D. made a motion to accept the park land dedication checklist and the detention/retention pond criteria. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glen D. recommended that staff distribute the park land dedication checklist prior to the meetings. That would give the Board time to visit the proposed site if they wished. Steve stated that there are times when the developer may not have the dedication information until right before the meeting. He added that the Planning and Zoning Commission meets twice a month, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board only meets once a month, so at times, it puts a crunch on the developers to get their information submitted. Glen D. recommended that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board move to two meetings a month in order to coordinate with the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting schedule. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the possibility of putting batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park: Steve said that this is a follow-up item. Staff had previously been directed to come up with cost estimates for putting batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park. Steve referred to a site map of the park. He said that staff has come up with preliminary cost estimates, but have not done an analysis of the site in order to determine specific locations for these amenities. However, one idea would be to put them in the area that is located between the tennis courts and the parking lot, adjacent to the softball fields. He added that it is important to ensure that the placement of these amenities does not cause problems for park users. Larry Farnsworth asked what funding source would be used for the project. Steve replied that the project is currently not budgeted for. He added that there might be the 33 possibility of researching whether park land dedication funds could be used to purchase the backstops. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: Steve said that the Department is on schedule with all of the strategic issues that they are responsible for. > Vision Statement #3, Strategy #4a (Develop an Urban Forestry Plan): There was no discussion on this item. ➢ Vision Statement#4(Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities): ➢ Strategy#1 (Performing Arts Center): There was no discussion on this item. A Strategy #2 (Parks Maintenance Standards): The first quarterly report will be submitted to the Board prior to January 1, 2002. ➢ Strategy #3 (Intergenerational Parks): Intergenerational amenities are being incorporated into existing and future capital improvement projects. ➢ Strategy #4 (Comprehensive Parks Planning): This issue relates to updating the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. The Department has started the initial review of the plan, and will try to incorporate different components of the plan for discussion on future agendas. ➢ Strategy#5(Comprehensive Leisure Programs): This issue has two components. 1.) Skate Park Feasibility Study: The findings of this study will be presented to the City Council on December 20, 2001. 2.) Senior Facility Feasibility Study: There is a student group from Texas A&M University working on this study. They will present their initial findings to the City Council on December 6, 2001. A final report with recommendations will be taken to the Council for consideration in January. ➢ Strategy #6 (Enhance Cultural Opportunities through Existing Art Program): There was no discussion on this item. ➢ Strategy#7 (Connect Greenways): There was no discussion on this item. ➢ Strategy #8 (Improve Communication between Boards): There was no discussion on this item. 12. Consent items: Capital Improvement Project Report: - Jon T. asked what the status was on Madeley Park. Steve said that there had been a neighborhood meeting held, with representatives from Bryan and College Station Parks and Recreation Departments in attendance (see attached letter from neighborhood meeting). There is potential to do a joint project with the City of Bryan for access to this park. - Glen D. asked for an update on Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Steve said that the groundbreaking for the Phase 1 construction of the park and the Veterans Memorial project was held on November 12, 2001. He added that the City Council had directed staff to find alternate funding sources to provide six soccer fields. The contracts have been signed and construction for Phase I will start soon. 34 - Glen D. asked what the status is on resurfacing the Jack and Dorothy Miller jogging tract. Steve said that it was suggested that the resurfacing be done with an interlocal agreement between the City of College Station, the College Station Independent School District, and the Parent/Teacher Organization. - Larry asked what the timeline was for the Board to give their input for the next Capital Improvement Program. Steve responded that staff had turned in their initial project list that day, and he wasn't sure at what point the City would be soliciting recommendations from the Board. Glen D. asked to see a list of what the Department has submitted at the December meeting. — Next meeting date and agenda: There will be a special joint meeting between the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Thursday, December 6, 2001, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. The Board recommended that the following items be discussed at the meeting: Next Capital Improvement Program; - Skate Park; - Board Goals and Objectives; Previous topics presented to the City Council (May 10, 2001); The Board's acceptance of the changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance and the Unified Development Ordinance Public Release Draft; and The status of the strategic issues pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Department. Kris will e-mail this information electronically to the Board prior to the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board would be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Park Conference Room. Glen Davis recommended that the following items be included on the meeting agenda: - Review of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Goals and Objectives; and - Consideration of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board moving to two (2) meetings a month. Glen also requested that the Capital Improvement report be moved to the top of future agendas. 13. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. 35 Appendix B Skate Park Survey and Summary Results 36 City of College Station Skateboard Park Survey Is your parked staffed during hours of operation? Yes No If not, is it gated? Yes No What are your hours of operation? Is safety equipment required? Yes No If yes, what type (please circle all that apply) Helmets Kneepads Wristgaurds Other Is there a City Ordinance requiring these items? Yes No Did the local youth help with the design and layout? Yes No How did you solicit/facilitate their input? When was your facility built? How much did your facility cost to build? What type of construction was used? What is your annual operating cost? Is your facility lighted? Yes No May I have a contact name and phone number? May I schedule a visit to your facility? Yes No Please return to: Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent, P.O. Box 9960, College Station, TX 77842 or fax 979-764-3737 Skatepark Survey Results 37 Four cities were identified as having city operated skateparks. The cities were Abilene, Temple, Tyler and Waco. A survey was sent to each city and then returned . The results of this survey are below. Is you park staffed during hours of operation? Yes 1 No 3 If not is it gated Yes 2 No 1 Is Safety equipment required Yes 1 No 3 (one recommended) If yes, what type Helmets, Kneepads, Elbow pads Is there a City ordinance requiring these items Yes 0 No 4 Did local youth help with design and layout Yes 4 No 0 How did you solicit/facilitate their input: Input was gained through public hearings, and one on one meetings between the youth and the staffs When was your facility built 1998 1 1999 1 2001 2 How much did your facility cost to build Low $13,900 High $240,000 What type of construction was used In ground 1 Ramps 3 What is your annual operating cost The facility that was staffed gave an operating cost of$28,380, the three unstaffed facilities either listed no operating cost (2) or stated Very Minimal (1) Is the facility lighted Yes 3 No 1 May I schedule a visit to your facility Yes 4 No 0 38 Appendix C Safety Equipment Survey 39 Quick Survey regarding Safety Gear,Enforcement and Injuries at Skate Parks(mostly unsupervised) Stephen J.Mead,CPRP,Recreation Division Manager San Clemente Beaches,Parks and Recreation 7127101 T�.���t t�.4tt, t i � '— �!t*'it:n ��t;Y t "�--�iFQ s�a� � 1 x� 'F' Mli t t s�. �a�s� E �"'=�,'si,,s N/A ..,. i ,. ' -�-a r3 1 Knee Helmet Pads Pabds 1 II1111111111111 nk <30 <60 <90 '1111'®11®®<10 OUT OF CALIFORNIA 1111.111M1111111MOMININSIM IMINIIIMINIIIIIII I=INIMIIIIIMMIMIIMMIIIINNIONIIIMII 1t e• 111i1111=11111011ENIIIIIIIIII■INIIMIE1111•11111011MINIIIIIIMINIIIM■ IIMIMININIMIIIN Littleton.CO JoAnn Gould JoAnnGc•_•ss•rd-or• ___MIII_MillIlIl■ IIII-MEIIIIIMIMI_--IIIII_IMEIMI__MIIIal__ : - • •- (+ `-y=• chanson -.osw:.0or-us MIIMIIMIIIMMMINIGIIM■IIIIIMIIIIMMIIIIIIIMMINEN11111•1111111■MIllIMINNIMIIIM +Iloughby,OH IMMIMME bkatzc.• I• •h• ohlo-com ___EIMI=MIN MIN.113111.=_--11111_111111111___IIIEI_ f .. - = .. scop 'C. ofNewport.com =El=IIIIIMIIMIIMIIIIIIIIUM■IIIIMIE]IIIMIIIIIIIIIIMIMI INIIIIMPINNI ■=III=MINIM' Oregon City.OR LIMEEMIIII do:'•e•cf.or .on .or.us ___MINIIIIMMIII■IIN 111111•111111•11_IIINIMIIIII_jIIIIIM___Ell MI/ j —TFtatSOC•aol-eem MallIMEM--IIII—■-IM11111110_1111/_--111_111E1■_111E__- I Toni Robinson Trobinsonci.••.honolulu.hi-us ___��M�■�MI�]�� �-�_���___- •.• [ jrZEIMOIckelmi:+ iO3-net ©MIIIIMIIIIIMINMIIIIIII■MIMillIN©MIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIMINI■ INGEN111•11•1111•1 •Lit of -IifomiaTotak— ©©M-11•1—■-1111M-IIILI_---_MEM©®©MINUM _ —__�M��■�����������■����� - 949-4703061 MIIIIIIMIIIMIIIIIIIIIM=IMIIIIIiIIMIUMMIMIMNI■N1111111111111INIIIMIIIMIIIIN MIIIIIIIMINKI■MMIIIMMIIIIIIMI EMIZEIMIIIIIIIII 949-707_2600 MIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIMMIIIIIIMMINIUMINIMMINIIIIIIIMIMMIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMIIIIIIIIIMIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMINEIMI Hunti •ton Beach.CA =11111111101•1111111111—Mil=1■WIII_-_M—_-_ IIIIM_IIM__- EraMMIMI Dick Guthrie 909-399.5493 1111110.11111.111MOMME_ � — _�-_ ■ IMMNM_MIN__ININI__ 2:111=1111111M Al Martin 909-599-7312 11•111i/i/MIliIM-IM-■IIIIIM _--11113--=_•111111__MIE1_- BillA•uirre 909-596.6700 MIE1111111111=1-_11110—■- IM_-=1_--M_ME1111_11111M__- Cam Brendel 760-639.6,521111111101111101111•11EINIII■11111110 MUM Mil 11111111•111111111MIIIE1■111111111111111MIMIM Oceanside Ju• Barz 760-435-5041 11=11111111111MINI—IMOEll■MINEIMINIM_111111_11M_IIIMMINO__—_ MZMIIMIIIIIIIIII=CM oft ..ci.corona.ca us =illiIIIIM--IIII -■-IIIM_-M_-_-IIIMMIE1■_11111E1_MEIN -•mho Cucamonga E=1.11• a e '.rancho-cucamon_a.ca.us 111=111•1111111E1111=1111101111111■111 ©_IIIIIIM_IIII-M_11110111_©__- Rules are.• •recommending safety•ear even when no ordinance exists __m.... _■m....g.n`_-mm__gu____.. Appendix D Chapter 75 Civil Practices and Remedies Code Limitation of Landowners' Liability 41 CHAPTER 75. LIMITATION OF LANDOWNERS' LIABILITY § 75.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Agricultural land" means land that is located in this state and that is suitable for: (A) use in production of plants and fruits grown for human or animal consumption, or plants grown for the production of fibers, floriculture, viticulture, horticulture, or planting seed; (B) forestry and the growing of trees for the purpose of rendering those trees into lumber, fiber, or other items used for industrial, commercial, or personal consumption; or (C) domestic or native farm or ranch animals kept for use or profit. (2) "Premises" includes land, roads, water, watercourse, private ways, and buildings, structures, machinery, and equipment attached to or located on the land, road, water, watercourse, or private way. (3) "Recreation" means an activity such as: (A) hunting; (B) fishing; (C) swimming; (D) boating; (E) camping; (F) picnicking; (G) hiking; (H) pleasure driving; (I) nature study, including bird-watching; (J) cave exploration; (K) waterskiing and other water sports; or (L) any other activity associated with enjoying nature or the outdoors. (4) "Governmental unit" has the meaning assigned by Section 101.001. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 62, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 736, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 75.002. Liability Limited (a) An owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land: (1) does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land; and (2) is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except for wilful or wanton acts or gross negligence by the owner, lessee, or other occupant of agricultural land. (b) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land gives permission to another or invites another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not: (1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose; (2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is extended a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or (3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is extended. 42 (c) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property other than agricultural land gives permission to another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not: (1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose; (2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or (3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted. (d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not limit the liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who has been grossly negligent or has acted with malicious intent or in bad faith. (e) In this section, "recreation" means, in addition to its meaning under Section 75.001, the following activities only if the activities take place inside a facility owned, operated, or maintained by a municipality: (1) hockey and in-line hockey; and (2) skating, in-line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, and roller-blading. (f) Subsection (e) limits the liability of a municipality only for those damages arising directly from a recreational activity described in Subsection (e) but does not limit the liability of a municipality for gross negligence or acts conducted in bad faith or with malicious intent. (g) Any municipality that owns, operates, or maintains a facility in which the recreational activities described in Subsection (e) are conducted shall post and maintain a clearly readable sign in a clearly visible location on or near the building. The sign shall contain the following warning language: WARNING TEXAS LAW(CHAPTER 75, CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE) LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A MUNICIPALITY THAT OWNS, OPERATES, OR MAINTAINS A FACILITY IN WHICH HOCKEY, IN-LINE HOCKEY, SKATING, IN- LINE SKATING, ROLLER-SKATING, SKATEBOARDING, OR ROLLER-BLADING ARE CONDUCTED FOR DAMAGES ARISING DIRECTLY FROM SUCH RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 62, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 734, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. § 75.003. Application and Effect of Chapter (a) This chapter does not relieve any owner, lessee, or occupant of real property of any liability that would otherwise exist for deliberate, wilful, or malicious injury to a person or to property. (b) This chapter does not affect the doctrine of attractive nuisance, except that the doctrine may not be the basis for liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land for any injury to a trespasser over the age of 16 years. (c) Except for a governmental unit, this chapter applies only to an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who: (1) does not charge for entry to the premises; 43 (2) charges for entry to the premises, but whose total charges collected in the previous calendar year for all recreational use of the entire premises of the owner, lessee, or occupant are not more than: (A) twice the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises for the previous calendar year; or (B) four times the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises for the previous calendar year, in the case of agricultural land; or (3) has liability insurance coverage in effect on an act or omission described by Section 75.004(a) and in the amounts equal to or greater than those provided by that section. (d) This chapter does not create any liability. (e) Except as otherwise provided, this chapter applies to a governmental unit. (f) This chapter does not waive sovereign immunity. (g) To the extent that this chapter limits the liability of a governmental unit under circumstances in which the governmental unit would be liable under Chapter 101, this chapter controls. (h) In the case of agricultural land, an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who does not charge for entry to the premises because the individuals entering the premises for recreation are invited social guests satisfies the requirement of Subsection (c)(1). Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 832, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 62, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 75.004. Limitation on Monetary Damages for Private Landowners (a) Subject to Subsection (b), the liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land used for recreational purposes for an act or omission by the owner, lessee, or occupant relating to the premises that results in damages to a person who has entered the premises is limited to a maximum amount of$500,000 for each person and $1 million for each single occurrence of bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property. In the case of agricultural land, the total liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant for a single occurrence is limited to $1 million, and the liability also is subject to the limits for each single occurrence of bodily injury or death and each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property stated in this subsection. (b) This section applies only to an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land used for recreational purposes who has liability insurance coverage in effect on an act or omission described by Subsection (a) and in the amounts equal to or greater than those provided by Subsection (a). The coverage may be provided under a contract of insurance or other plan of insurance authorized by statute. The limit of liability insurance coverage applicable with respect to agricultural land may be a combined single limit in the amount of$1 million for each single occurrence. (c) This section does not affect the liability of an insurer or insurance plan in an action under Article 21.21, Insurance Code, or an action for bad faith conduct, breach of fiduciary duty, or negligent failure to settle a claim. (d) This section does not apply to a governmental unit. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 3, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. 44 Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 45 Appendix E Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool Public Skating Facility Guidelines 46 GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC SKATING FACILITIES (SKATEBOARDING/ROLLERBLADING) INTRODUCTION Skateboarding and aggressive in-line skating continue to be a rapidly growing enjoyment or sport activity in the United States. Because skating is often performed on city streets, sidewalks and other public and private places, the activity has caught the attention of many local government officials. Some communities are looking into the possibility of creating parks designed for aggressive skating. Such parks are intended to provide a place for skaters to go and limit the problems of skaters on streets, sidewalks and other areas intended for pedestrians or automobiles. The following is intended as a loss prevention guideline for skateboarding and aggressive in-line skating facilities. Skateboards that are used for enjoyment or sport are made of wood, aluminum, plastic or fiberglass and are usually used in the street or a specialized arena. It is not uncommon to find skateboarding and in-line. Skating occurring at one facility. Therefore, the term "skating" will be frequently used in these guidelines as most of the points addressed could apply to each of these activities. The increased popularity of skating brings the potential for increased exposure for accidents. The following paragraph from the Consumer Product Safety Commission states: "Because there is an element of risk in the sport itself, even optimal conditions would not completely preclude accidental injury. An experienced skateboarder wearing full protective equipment and riding a well-engineered and maintained skateboard in a carefully controlled environment is still at risk for injury or death. The probability may be-reduced, but cannot be completely eliminated." In addition, a Consumer Product Safety Commission NEISS Hospital Report-revealed the following: • One third of the victims were skating for less than one week. The majority of these were injured the first time they tried skating. • Two out of every five injured persons occurred while using a borrowed skateboard. • The most frequently injured were within the 10 to 14 year old age group, who suffered 45% of the injuries. • Fractures were the most common type of injury, accounting for about one-third of all injuries. Over half of all injuries were to the lower arm or leg. 47 • Five percent of the injured persons were admitted for hospital in-patient treatment. • One out of every three accidents occurred when skaters struck irregularities in the riding surface. • One out of every four involved skaters who lost their balance. • Slightly over 1% of the injuries were attributed directly to the product. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The skating facility should be designed and constructed with a priority commitment to reducing the risk of injury to spectators and users and to reduce the liability exposure to the local government. The purpose of the skating facility,park, ramp, or "area" should be to give skaters a safer alternative to skating on streets, sidewalks, and in parking lots. If the goal of the skate park is to reduce skating in other public areas, the local government should consider enacting ordinances that ban skating in other places and involve the skaters in the design of the park so they will utilize the facility. Consideration should be given to providing handrails, intermediate rails, side rails and/or toeboards for those pieces of equipment that have platforms. If kickboards and/or steps are provided, these should be painted in a contrasting color to help alert visitors of potential trip and fall hazards. Once larger ramps or pieces of equipment are in their permanent positions, consideration should be given to anchoring these pieces in place. Bolt extensions should be limited to no more than two threads and covered with an acorn- style bolt nut. Equipment should be arranged so that it does not interfere with other skating and/or rollerblading activities and/or maneuvers. The joining of skating equipment should only be done where recommended by the manufacturer. Joining of grindrails should be discouraged due to potential gaps between the grindrails, unevenness of the pieces and the possibility of catching any skateboard or rollerblade wheel in the gap which may increase the likelihood of injury. Prior to installation, it is a good idea to forward drawings and/or specifications of pieces of equipment that are being considered to the TML-IRP Loss Prevention Department. Copies of construction specifications should be provided where possible. The ideal location for a facility is in a park with access to restrooms, telephone, drinking fountains and shade. The facility should be well-lit and highly visible to city personnel such as police or parks employees. Take into consideration skaters' differing abilities. The facility should be divided into areas designated for beginners and more experienced skaters. Structures such as ramps 3 feet or less in height are generally safer than taller ramps. The manufacturer or designer should be able to assist with creating a park that will have different areas for different 48 skating abilities. Skateboard runs should be clearly labeled as to degree of difficulty. Children younger than 10 years of age should not be allowed in the skate park. (The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under 5 not use skateboards. Children 5 to 9 years old can suffer severe head and neck injuries.) Consult with manufacturers about age limits. There are generally three types of skateboarding structures. HALF-PIPE STRUCTURES This equipment is shaped like a "U" and can range from 2 - IO feet high. A half pipe 4 feet or higher is considered advanced equipment and designed for experienced skaters. Since large ramps are not appropriate for beginning skaters, the average park should not implement large advanced ramps. BOWL STRUCTU RES These structures can be described as a large empty swimming pool with rounded edges and moguls contained inside of it. The bowls are generally I constructed of concrete, asphalt or a stand alone fiberglass, flume-type bowl. STREET SKATING STRUCTURES These are pieces of equipment that reflect obstacles found on public streets and sidewalks. Examples of such pieces are rails, pyramid and fun box. PEOPLE Employees should be trained regarding all safety rules and procedures, operational procedures, management requirements, etc. AJI training and orientation given to skating area employees should be documented and retained on file. An adequate emergency plan should be developed for the skating operation and should be appropriately communicated to all employees. Employees should be certified in a first aid course from a nationally recognized agency such as Red Cross or National Safety Council and an appropriate first aid kit should be readily available on site. Appropriate police and ambulance phone numbers, as well as ready access to a telephone, should be maintained. If the facility is attended by employees, the skating facility supervisors (employees) should be stationed such that the entire area may be viewed and monitored. Facility personnel should have sufficient knowledge of skating and in-line skating to enable a review and determination of a skater's skill level, before permitting use of the facility. The number of people allowed in the area should be limited to minimize injuries resulting from collisions. The Facility Director or whoever is in charge should determine the patron limit based upon the size of the skating area, the number of employees on duty, seasonal demand, etc. This will help insure a safe management ratio between supervisors 49 and users. Unsupervised facilities should consider patrols by entity personnel and carefully consider signage so that rules are followed. Skating also requires good balance and body control skills. Many of the young skaters have not developed these skills and do not react quickly enough to prevent injury. It is important for supervisors to review and train skaters how to fall in case of an accident. This brief review course with skaters helps them reduce their chances of being injured. The following is a list of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's recommended failing techniques: • If you are losing your balance, crouch down so that you will not have so far to fall. • In a fall, the idea is to land on the fleshiest part of your body. • If you fall, try to roll, rather than absorb the force with your elbows. • Even though it may be difficult during a fall, try to relax your body, rather than go stiff. A complete accident report should be filed by employees following any accident or injury occurring at the skating facility. If there is no supervisor, there should be a person prepared to investigate and report on accidents. This documentation should include: 1. the date 2. the time of day 3. the injured person's name, address and phone number 4. the name of the injured person's parent or guardian, if a minor child S. the names and phone numbers of any witnesses 6. a complete description of the events and circumstances surrounding the accident or injury 7. the cause of the accident corrective actions felt necessary that may prevent reoccurrence. All incident and accident reports should be kept on file. EQUIPMENT 50 There should be a documented daily visual check of the facility by the employees on duty for any visible hazards or repair needs. (Irregular riding surfaces accounted for over one- third of skateboarding injuries according to CPSC study.) There should be a complete documented inspection performed by the maintenance supervisor at least once monthly and more frequently as necessary. Included in all inspections should be any walking or standing surfaces, fencing steps, handrails, spectator areas, and/or any construction deficiencies. Perimeter areas such as sidewalks, parking areas, driveways, etc. should be inspected periodically for any deterioration that may contribute to trip and fall injuries. All maintenance and repair work should be documented as to the type of maintenance performed, the name of the employee pet-forming the work, and the date completed. Safety equipment should be worn at all times while using the facility. This equipment shall include, but is not limited to, the following: appropriate skateboard in good working condition, helmet, knee and elbow pads, wrist supports, and proper shoes. There is protective equipment currently being manufactured that will help reduce injuries. Additional equipment for consideration is specifically designed slip-resistant shoes, helmets, gloves, padded jackets, padded shorts, as well as padded hips, knees and elbows. The most important feature to look for in protective equipment is comfort, design and function. The equipment should not interfere with the skater's hearing, movement and/or vision. The skating facility supervisors (employees) should prohibit skaters from using the facility if their equipment is not deemed satisfactory. Shoes should be checked for dirt, rocks and debris prior to use. ENVIRONMENT Skating should be allowed only in designated areas. Loss prevention measures include: 1. The designated skating area should have one entrance. The entrance should be secured with a lock during all closed hours. 2. Rules and regulations, including hours of operation, should be posted in a conspicuous location. "No Parking" signs should be posted for areas that may affect the safety of participants and or visitors. Additional "Slow Down-Children at Play" signs should be considered if there are driveways and/or parking areas in close proximity to the skating facility. 3. The area should be designed according to appropriate safety standards. If open at night, the facility must be adequately fit. 4. All design specifications, assembly instructions, and maintenance/operations recommendations from the developer, engineer, and/or manufacturer should be retained on file. Certificates of insurance should be required from all third party individuals and reviewed annually. 51 5. Consideration should be given to fencing the facility. The fence should preferably be a type that cannot be climbed, such as rod iron or mesh type chain link that has 1-2 inch wide holes. A fence at least 6 feet in height is recommended. Fences may be higher. The fence should be located away from the edge of the skating surface to allow for a hazard free "fall zone" before reaching the fence. The park designer or equipment manufacturer may have recommendations. The fence should provide for adequate protection to spectators from flying boards, other debris and/or falling skaters, and should also help protect skaters from interference and distractions by spectators and passers by. OPERATIONS Well thought-out rules should be established, used and posted throughout the facility. If the facility is meant for both skating and rollerblading then signage, accident report forms, applications, waivers and other documents should have the wording for skating or include both aspects. Rules and regulations should also address procedures if inclement weather occurs (i.e., cold weather, rain, frozen puddles of water). Rules should include, but are not limited to, the following- • No bicycles (i.e., BMXS, etc.) alcohol or drugs are permitted in the facility; • All skaters should wear, at a minimum, safety equipment which includes elbow pads, knee pads, helmets and proper shoes; • Skaters should enter and exit designated areas one at a time; • Supervisors should develop rules prohibiting specific maneuvers that are deemed particularly hazardous for a skater's experience or age; (Consider limiting to skaters 10 years and up.) • A sign containing a warning of the hazards of skating should be posted at the entrance and throughout the facility. "This facility is used by both experienced and inexperienced skaters. Serious injury may result from being hit by a skateboard, failing or colliding. The City does not assume responsibility for injuries-SKATING IS AT YOUR OWN RISK." • Only one person per skateboard; • Complicated tricks require careful practice. Only at specifically designated areas and times will tricks be performed and only under the supervision of the facility managers and supervisors. 52 Please see attached sample skatepark rules. The park should retain the right to revoke skating privileges of participants who are rowdy or who otherwise do not abide by the rules. CONCLUSION If your local government is considering a skating facility, the most important areas are maintenance, safety inspections, supervision, protective gear, and rules/warning signs. TML-IRP should be notified prior to the opening of any skating facility for an explanation of the necessary special endorsement and cover-age cost. If your local government wants to set up a skating facility, we strongly recommend that you transfer your risk by the way of waivers or via a private contract. The transfer of risk to a contractor is a method by which a skating facility is managed and maintained through a lease with a private contractor. The private contractor indemnifies the local government for any negligence and places the local government on its insurance policy as an additional insured. Competitions should be restricted to sponsoring organizations that are able to provide separate insurance coverage and a contract holding the city harmless and indemnified. Texas House Bill 1058, enacted as of September 1. 1999, effectively shields municipalities from liability arising out of the use of skateboard and other recreational facilities, except for gross negligence and acts conducted in bad faith or with malicious intent. H.B. 1058 also requires cities to post a sign at each facility with the following specific language: Texas Law(Chapter 75, Civil Practices and Remedies Code) limits the liability of a municipality that owns, operates or maintains a facility in which hockey, in- line hockey, skating, in-line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding or rollerblading are conducted for damages arising directly from such recreational activities. Additional signage is recommended from a risk management perspective to warn and inform participants of rules and conditions of using the facility. (See Sample Skating Rules for additional information.) The above recommendations are made from a Loss Prevention perspective. Recommendations may not eliminate all risk exposure. However, implementation of recommendations may minimize the potential for accidents, injury or loss. Final skating facility policies and procedures should be reviewed by city management, risk management, and/or legal counsel to insure that the needs of your local government are met. 53 Sample Facility Regulations SKATEPARK RULES Hours of Operation: WARNING Texas Law (Chapter 75, Civil Practices and Remedies Code) limits the liability of a municipality that owns, operates, or maintains a facility in which hockey, in-line hockey, skating, in-line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, or rollerblading are conducted for damages arising directly from such recreational activities. Know your limits and abilities. You are responsible for your safety. This park is designed for ages 10 and up.* Only skaters will be allowed in skating area- all others must watch from behind fence. Proper safety equipment is required at all times- including proper shoes, helmets, knee and elbow pads, and wrist guards. No bicycles or personal ramps allowed in skating area. (Note: Some entities disallow roller skates. It is up to your facility to determine.) One skater on ramp or rail at a time.** One skater per skateboard. Skating allowed in authorized areas only. No personal ramps or rails are allowed. Skatepark will close if wet or raining. No alcohol, tobacco products or illegal substances allowed. No graffiti allowed. Park will be closed until graffiti is removed. Dispose of all trash property. No food or drink allowed in skating area. All other park rules and ordinances apply. Have fun, be safe, and respect your fellow skaters. *Ask the manufacturer of the equipment if there is a minimum age requirement. There may be an age limitation for each piece of equipment. If so, mark the equipment should be grouped accordingly. Possible markings could be like ski slope trails - green circle for beginners, blue diamond for intermediate, etc. The manufacturer and designer may have other ideas. **More than one skater may be able to wait on the platform. Check with the manufacturer on this and all other recommended number of users. Check with park designer and manufacturer on suggested rules as well. Infractions of the above rules may result in loss of skating privileges. 54