The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/30/2001 - Regular Agenda - Parks Board***Minutes*** City of College Station Parks and recreation Advisory Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 7:00 pm 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. Visitor's Present: Al Benavides, 1205 Village Drive Lisa Benavides, 1205 Village Drive Levi Peachey, 19119 Peach Creek Cut Off Charles Alin, 2803 Brothers Blvd. Samantha Rosin, 1201 Berkely Matthew Blake, 1112 Winecup Marshall Rowe, 1427 Stokes Eric Singleton, 4625 Greens Prairie Trail Chris Meyer, 9103 Waterford Andrew Meyer, 9103 Waterford Scott Meyer, 9103 Waterford PJ Armstrong, 2600 Quail Hollow Sam Winn, 1402 Village Drive Charles Bryant, 5471 Timberline Drive Jessica Ledesma, 124 Ridge Loop Phillip Latham, 201 Highlands Street Dean Perry, 2913 S. Pueblo Court Samuel Urso, 1005 Laredo Holly Huffman, Eagle Street Michael Pird, Carmel Place David Robinson, 1019 Murifield Village Jerrel Thomas, 3301 Bahia Derek Wedel (no address given) Chris Farrell, 1803 Leona Chris Chalman, 2323 Trace Meadows John Hall, 2321 Trace Meadows Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Visitor's Present Chase Sanford, (address not readable) Ryan Doyal, 2701 Longmire Drive, #706 Erica Bogan, 2200 Lobo Raymond Vogel, 2200 Lobo Robert Cogburn, 1402 Caudill Jason Arechiga, 117 Sunset Drive David Worley, 3819 Stony Creek Cadie Archer, 806 Southern Hills Court Amy Fairhurst, 1302 Haley Place Tracy Borsnek, (address not readable) David M. Watson, 1013 Winding Road Peter Watson, 1013 Winding Road Lindsey Moffitt, 4610 Colonial Soni Stallings, 1205 Guadalupe Tracy Klusaeck, 801 Llano David Wellman, PO Box 132 John Fife, 3005 Bluestem Aaron Loveless, 3001 Coronado Drive Sam Price, 1200 Walfon Drive Christy Elmendarf, 11121 N. Dowling Road Noelle Koenig, 6018 Augusta Circle Charlie Doucet, 2409 B. Pedernales Garrett House, 2604 Clearwood Court Katherine Core, 1809 C. Woodsman Andrew Hajash, 6422 Barnwood John Hajash, 6422 Barnwood Lindsey Rearick, 2100 Fairfax Court Page I of 8 Net Nuttin, 2912 Normand Drive Will Mefferd, 1107 Ashburn Avenue Jonathan Jensen, 2903 Durango Court Derek Reed, 4905 Ingellwood Court Jason Odine, 908 North Avenue Chris Marshall, 2906 Wood Meadow Michael Proctor, 3917 Hawk Owl Cove Misty Callaham, 207 Augsburg Court, Chris Vanlandingham, 2323 Trace Meadows Jerod Hugghins, 312 Dunn Jimmy Scales, 9200 Brookwater Circle Janet Dale, 3130 Norton Lane Liza Martinez, 409 Live Oak Gerald Mitchell, 1112 Winecup Susan Blake, 1112 Winecup Dakota Diehl, 2101 Barak Lane Quinten Parmer, 4400 Green Valley Cindy Sabesta, 302 Glade Michell Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Michael Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Michael Roe, 3307 Westchester James Stanislaw, 1101 Westover Peter Lammesti, 1502 Dominik Jessica Hardison, 602 Coachlight Court Mary Gail Buck, 1207 Westover Robert Malinak, 1114 Airline Vincent Perry, 2913 Pueblo Court South Todd Holbrook, 3620 Vienna Mark Rodgers Jr., 1115 Paintbrush Prudence Morris, 1606 Una Keith Arzac, 2011 Angelina Rodrigo Arzac, 2011 Angelina Ekhi Arzac, 2011 Angelina Barbara Rees, 4905 Inglewood Mike Jones, 1606 Una Justin Goss, 3523 Graz Austin Orand, 2321 Trace Meadows Matt Fisher, 126 Dunn Craig Joyer, 2321 Trace Meadows Josh Ralls, 1020 Puryear Drive Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina 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 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 David Barker, 4013 State Hwy. 6 South Scott Barrs, 407 Boyett, Apt. G. Kyle Mcbrethy, 3415 Mustang Lane Jesse Torres, 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 Cody Dale, 3130 Norton Lane Jack Collins, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Joe Williams, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937 John Barker, 4413 Texas Avenue South Page 2 of 8 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. 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 Page 3 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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. Page 4 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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 Page S of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 "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 what certifications a pro would need. Mr. Allen could not address the question in terms 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 Fork 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 Carro 11— 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 Page 6 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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. Page 7 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Jeromy Benavides - Mr. Benavides gave a web site for information: www.bestofaustin.com/irr. Quinten Parmer — Mr. farmer 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.dexskg.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. Page 8 of Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 ***Minutes*** City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 7:00 pm 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. Visitor's Present: Al Benavides, 1205 Village Drive '07'7 8+0 Lisa Benavides, 1205 Village Drive '77 $+0 Levi Peachey, 19119 Peach Creek Cut 0-08*� Charles Alin, 2803 Brothers Blvd. -1 7 8 4-5— Samantha Rosin, 1201 Berkely- -7 8 f 0 Matthew Blake, 1112 Winecup,-,) Y+9 Marshall Rowe, 1427 Stokes '7 3 4-5� Eric Singleton, 4625 Greens Prairie Trail '?-7 3 +-r' Chris Meyer, 9103 Waterford , � -7 a Andrew Meyer, 9103 Waterford Scott Meyer, 9103 Waterford PJ Armstrong, 2600 Quail Hollow -VSO.'X- Sam Winn, 1402 Village Drive - -7 73 +1 Charles Bryant, 5471 Timberline Drive 4,5- Jessica Ledesma, 124 Ridge Loop '"? *� Phillip Latham, 201 Highlands Street -?) �*'o Dean Perry, 2913 S. Pueblo Court -77PL6- Samuel Urso, 1005 Laredo -7`18 4-S otI'LL &I -lolly Huffman, Eagle Street lcA "- Miehael-Pikd-, Carmel Place David Robinson, 1019 Murifield Village Jerrel Thomas, 3301 Bahia Derek Wedel (no address given), Chris Farrell, 1803 Leona 7 6 +0 6t�rvr,'3 Chris Chalman, 2323 Trace Meadows John Hall, 2321 Trace Meadows , Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek-, Visitor's Present Cnot readable),). Chase Nantord, (address I ---------I — 1- — I- - - 6 Ryan Doyal, 2701 Longmire Drive, #706 -7 �g + EriciaBogan, 2200 Lobo —1,4.--7-,80'7 Raymond Vogel, 2200 Loboro Robert Cogburn, 1402 Caudill y 84-0 Jason Arechiga, 117 Sunset Drive _q - -7 8 0 :5 David Worley, 3819 Stony Creek 7-7,a4-S Cadie Archer, 806 Southern Hills Court -7 -">,P 4.5- Amy Fairhurst, 1302 Haley Place 94�" Tracy Borsnek, (address not readable David M. Watson, W-1- 3-Winding Road 7 - -78 4-0 Peter Watson, 1013 Winding Road Lindsey Moffitt, 4610 Colonial -7';15*45�' Soffl Stallings, 1205 Guadalupe -77 Tracy Klusaeck, 801 Llano a David Wellman, PO Box 132 ")"7 jf 6 6 John Fife, 3005 Bluestein -7 4-� Aaron Loveless, 3001 Coronado Drive '-7-1' '> "¢S Sam Price, 1200 Walton Drive --?'-> 8 4-cl Christy Elmendarf, 11121 N. Dowling Road '77 Noelle Koenig, 6018 Augusta Circle 9 4s- Charlie Doucet, 2409 B. Pedernales 9 4-5- Garrett House, 2604 Clearwood Court -?->8457 Katherine Core, 1809 C. Woodsman -7--7.040 Andrew Haj ash, 6422 Barnwood JohriHajash,6422Bamwood Lindsey Rearick, 2 100 Fairfax Court - 7 8 4S- Page I of Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Net Nuttin, 2912 Normand Drive �-7 2+5' Will Mefferd, 1107 Ashburn Avenue ) 7 8 ¢O Jonathan, Jensen, 2903 Durango Court -r; s�S Derek Reed, 4905 Ingellwood Court -"8415 Jason Odine, 908 North Avenue -�) -7 T,?DA Chris Marshall, 2906 Wood Meadow`s -7790:k Michael Proctor, 3917 Hawk Owl Cove '�7$45 Misty Callaham, 207 Augsburg Court, 77$q-s Chris Vanlandingham, 2323 Trace Meadows Jerod Hugghins, 312 Dunn -)> SO Jimmy Scales, 9200 Brookwater Circle 7�-m Janet Dale, 3130 Norton Lane -77 84-- Liza Martinez, 409 Live Oak 7- 24o Gerald Mitchell, 1112 Winecup --� -77g4's Susan Blake, 1112 Winecup ____1 Dakota Diehl, 2101 Barak Lane Quinten Parmer, 4400 Green Valley Cindy Sabesta, 302 Glade �7840 Michell Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Michael Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Michael Roe, 3307 Westchester 470-4-s James Stanislaw, 1101 Westover -> > g 4 a Peter Lammesti, 1502 Dominik'�fl Jessica Hardison, 602 Coachlight Court "7W 45 Mary Gail Buck, 1207 Westover `7 -78 *b Robert Malinak, 1114 Airline 7 � 8` -'- Vincent Perry, 2913 Pueblo Court South "ef'7840 Todd Holbrook, 3620 Vienna 7� 8 Mark Rodgers Jr., 1115 Pamtb h » g 4-5- Prudence Morris, 1606 Una 7 S 913 Keith Arzac, 2011 Angelina --� Rodrigo Arzac, 2011 Angelina j Ekhi Arzac, 2011 Angelina -1 Barbara Rees, 4905 Inglewood -7 � Mike Jones, 1606 Una - 4 -1-7803 Justin Goss, 3523 Graz — -r) gg-S Austin�Orand, 2321 Trace Meadows -)' I? Matt Fisher, 126 Dunn 77 8 ° f Craig Joyer, 2321 Trace Meadows - -719 9- 5 Josh Ralls, 1020 Puryear Drive - -7YR `fib Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina � " ? 40 Joe Rodriguez, 903 Montclair -17$ 4`° Michael Stewart, 508 Shire Drive -7�845 Jennifer Smith, 12467 N. Dowling -7*18 45 Meagan Lenard, 6603 Serenity Circle - ? Carla Barker, 4013 State Hwy. 6 South 7'7a+,5 David Barker, 4013 State Hwy. 6 S th '7� 2 fs Scott Barrs, 407 Boyett, Apt. G. 80 Kyle Mcbrethy, 3415 Mustang Lane '7 7 8 f S Jesse Torres, 3404 Shire Drive J.R. Torres, 3404 Shire Drive -� Susan Meadors, 2713 Brothers Jon Meadors, 2713 Brothers .J Jeromy Benavides, 1205 Village Drive P.J. Stone, 1207 Westover Street�8 ¢O Jason Logan, 6556 Olympia Buddy Road 7-* �S Blake Carroll, 703 Concho "�S- Josh Brown, 609 Yorkshire Drive -7 -7 S 9-S Cody Dale, 3130 Norton Lane Jack Collins, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Joe Williams, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937 -- '�7 7 8 John Barker, 4413 Texas Avenue South / 7 8 4.5 Page 2 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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 Page 3 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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. Page 4 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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 Page 5 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 "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 what certifications a pro would need. Mr. Allen could not address the question in terms 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 Carro I I — 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 Page 6 of Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 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. 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. Page 7 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Jeromy Benavides - Mr. Benavides gave a web site for information: www.bestofaustin.com/iff. 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. Page 8 of 8 Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting/Public Hearing Tuesday, January 30, 2001 17 -„L u •:Y it .:r3--' - .'t __ � t° �ry =:�' :.:-:.:.+ •.� ��. :} ti,'.]'i'...-..� "Y� :l t% 3 'r•l�. ��, �f.� t�ti� itj ;.1 t,. ,�,'' ` �l'` 1� _ 't•. ,'t 1 'I� iJ '~ Ft• fr''i ',L ✓."i fi` {, .-._ ...__.� �7 .I'� i5„]..,r ire.-....� I J� / ~� L.,.. J f � t �,f/ I �% ",�- j�. 7'°J� ..x ten too s *.•.;) a J T-" - t`.4 `"•-- 9.:'✓ � '1V >f .� : , ti. f ✓; .., y.-`• t,..r-' 4 - t u '-.�-'�� l �.`- ,r Jt• /`� r.. `, •. `jam,_ -- '"-" r`� �'� ..o i v VI t1 � ", ,F A' V,�' ..' -) �' z �3 i� y ♦r V, t, '- "•� �V.'' `"' j' �� ;: �I 1r♦ (�= k ir• V1 :a t) •-�L��,,� ... V:s1^ `�� r` i�� IT �t V =�,, 'C.=' \: ... ' _"_ v i�` ...... A:v^•^:,. 'b �'S.^" _-._--- � ''`., ' 't."' .. v .._.., 'lam C.v• , > '',! YW 1�,� - '_- ,jtl•«..� ..a.,. - 'q - ,'" p° i% i� tit• 1�i ^'.`;�' '=� E' t :� ',1 ( 4i at_ i i1 Ism ° ac..,'_ "' / ,y' 13 � j '• �°';"� Y 1' ,�, i '14 1. M, __ :� ) .. ;f' :S -.- +',,`._...%• t� ..� � - �, �� a,.- .. �`:�, � i'�-�� '� �f :1 4, rn v ,5' ,'� ,'t x ` � _ ,.k � tAt�''�� t''. - �'� 1t .t�r,� 1 � `�'}'1� �'F,1 �. tj �.1 t • � ''� �J j � i ✓ � �-1 , i �L , •,• �• t ?.�� is �t, � 7, ��. �4 '� ,t +� ��: '''�°Y.: �,= %" _ �, ti`tj � ��' � y x \ •y� �` ; ti�i� ;',� t� � � � �:. � ._ `"--. t. ��:... --�' � t� �.-r '�' t a >j� t '`,", _.' f� ; . � ,..;� ,J�~ �' .E �i., ?M t' 11 �4� `�ti, J rij�~ �� `� _ 'r �� Y' f� 4•� � �� 'I ��r „\, �`�..'.:. . � yy , - .i 1.' .' =,V :,, � '� \. -\,• , �. 'i r " i,`.'` �\,, .,.,� k .... i'' i 1'' r ,9 ""�'"''`-..�.....-""' 'L'l I( ,> �'',i..,> ,� ,�' i{ � ') {, ,L" .'i y `'J' �'�• ,: `J .�i k�„I ,:�'' �#i' ''1' ''� .h it '.tYa ,� ',, -. .s. .. ��j� j r� Qll�� ii t"�; �� _ .; 'ti , i S 9 11 t' n "�T', tz...' .. ,%i !� i'�,...,' 'r � C:�L-- �-� r - :% • "-..-._._. �. ....%' ;t, r? r \ !�� 4 f,� ':Fi�7 �� i Ji!!,•Yr: J�f /�: ,... v,� 'y;A'U`'a_„', :... '3 E L__, yl. ,•t y.�.ta ter~. " ,' ` 03 d ,"�,' _ - *� ..'] t .t `' f,, �, '"' `"'^� +• j' €; - ',+.."' - ors "_ `.._ ,,.- ``•."J' �z , ^ /;. 1� r;, it �� ee�: *�'y,_- r( � .; 4;' _) � .: � t ,'I I � 'ti �� 'mPl� _ J - r, Ali r i! �r { :I t i' t�-`•"„`' !�. ( T,i i ` .':1' `^",,i ': 4� _ � Al!. �t., r�i ly."--' :,` �� `,A• � �.:>' !" "J '.,ri, - JI::... r+' -.. ... .. '♦ 1 �j ,.. � l .'� �~_} 1;:� ... :,L j .:.y� Ft, �i,%6 �� ti��y,� �,�L�•!_ ':v y... .. �-„- "�,-�l'I a"..v' r�'�`=`�..:_i •,� tt �js � 193'� 1` "M1I `�lr'+�ur �'� •��a'� t%i ^' •'�'/t,�.f. p,+ J�,S;t r rao-m'f•� k��'�� _ �,�r'`j4.� �'r';y�Jri tL�^' ry"�5>.�1f•,�`� t�� N Yf� ��`�,. '.4 11 •'. -. . 'J '�� t, , v£ w ,., ,,,. tJ 'L { i'�•,- � '-_. ,� � a' �•. ��' env .� � o�t^''�z:�'".: _ } v _:.J`}'' t�, `k�'�-.... --�.r .. _, t T � _. r (i `+2i-.a, 17 •L r{ lava C4-u¢,le-vow', I ts C11- t?cp C 5 . S4 f) QA V� 6 , ae', � eve'te, es 5km ra;,"P oalc qkmnacs 6�,a,rbc &vre� r �rr Kc&iAeA(\e Corp, CIA Uj- 944r(k nyw4 6 V Tl �,L6 001 D, -6,a, o P, 6-0 GO Zc409 13 Pedounwi6g C.,S. 17 �Ieqs- ,�ft& -2-6oq 0,-6,s77V�5 2-0 116-7 &hxjrv) 4J c c, u �7% (q 0 2163 77�4c,,� n")( Cove -A-V - I's %12- VU14M TA M o\ V??u f-,rooKJQ-r-(r Cr.. C, S, 7,- �l(I- -nTtTp— , I' ) a U -d6A� tm - C-s, 1�.�, n�a�-ham c��e � mc�--V-c trAd �51 Old p Loa)r� lly, C-k\, AJ (0-0 2 (-CCLC- jCcJ3oj7 f(kC7 v lln&-n k � -To id A. 36.?-o vs � C\� �" p� n 1-incws�. - -A A Cra ss �0`6 'dY\OA�CACkkC `llIH-D —77� f5 { qS- _ 6 I iC., Y3 va� \?Kd leb �,Ur V�6x Sq 3 7 79r f C 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. U 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. 13 I", Mi llll u t e s • V' City ®f College Station 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. 14 Visitor's Present: Al Benavides, 1205 Village Drive Lisa Benavides, 1205 Village Drive Levi Peachey, 19119 Peach Creek Cut Off Charles Ahn, 2803 Brothers Blvd. Samantha Rosin, 1201 Berkely Matthew Blake, 1112 Winecup Marshall Rowe, 1427 Stokes Eric Singleton, 4625 Greens Prairie Trail Chris Meyer, 9103 Waterford Andrew Meyer, 9103 Waterford Scott Meyer, 9103 Waterford PJ Armstrong, 2600 Quail Hollow Sam Winn, 1402 Village Drive Charles Bryant, 5471 Timberline Drive Jessica Ledesma, 124 Ridge Loop Phillip Latham, 201 Highlands Street Dean Perry, 2913 S. Pueblo Court Samuel Urso, 1005 Laredo Holly Huffman, Eagle Street Michael Pird, Carmel Place David Robinson, 1019 Murifield Village Jerrel Thomas, 3301 Bahia Derek Wedel (no address given) Chris Farrell, 1803 Leona Chris Chalman, 2323 Trace Meadows John Hall, 2321 Trace Meadows Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek Chase Sanford, (address not readable) Ryan Doyal, 2701 Longmire Drive, #706 Erica Bogan, 2200 Lobo Raymond Vogel, 2200 Lobo Robert Cogburn, 1402 Caudill Jason Arechiga, 117 Sunset Drive David Worley, 3819 Stony Creek Cadie Archer, 806 Southern Hills Court Amy Fairhurst, 1302 Haley Place Tracy Borsnek, (address not readable) David M. Watson, 1013 Winding Road Peter Watson, 1013 Winding Road Lindsey Moffitt, 4610 Colonial Soni Stallings, 1205 Guadalupe Tracy Klusaeck,801 Llano David Wellman, PO Box 132 John Fife, 3005 Bluestein Aaron Loveless, 3001 Coronado Drive Sam Price, 1200 Walfon Drive Christy Elmendarf, 11121 N. Dowling Road Noelle Koenig, 6018 Augusta Circle Charlie Doucet, 2409 B. Pedernales Garrett House, 2604 Clearwood Court Katherine Core, 1809 C. Woodsman Andrew Hajash, 6422 Barnwood John Hajash, 6422 Barnwood Lindsey Rearick, 2100 Fairfax Court Net Nuttin, 2912 Normand Drive Will Mefferd, 1107 Ashburn Avenue Jonathan Jensen, 2903 Durango Court Derek Reed, 4905 Ingellwood Court Jason Odine, 908 North Avenue Chris Marshall, 2906 Wood Meadow Michael Proctor, 3917 Hawk Owl Cove Misty Callaham, 207 Augsburg Court, Chris Vanlandingham, 2323 Trace Meadows Jerod Hugghins, 312 Dunn Jimmy Scales, 9200 Brookwater Circle Janet Dale, 3130 Norton Lane Liza Martinez, 409 Live Oak Gerald Mitchell, 1112 Winecup, Susan Blake, 1112 Winecup Dakota Diehl, 2101 Barak Lane Quinten Parmer, 4400 Green Valley Cindy Sabesta, 302 Glade Michell Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Michael Clyde, 3107 Lodgepole Drive Michael Roe, 3307 Westchester James Stanislaw, 1101 Westover Peter Lammesti, 1502 Dominik Jessica Hardison, 602 Coachlight Court Mary Gail Buck, 1207 Westover Robert Malinak, 1114 Airline Vincent Perry, 2913 Pueblo Court South Todd Holbrook, 3620 Vienna Mark Rodgers Jr., 1115 Paintbrush Prudence Morris, 1606 Una Keith Arzac, 2011 Angelina Rodrigo Arzac, 2011 Angelina Visitor's Present Ekhi Arzac, 2011 Angelina 15 Barbara Rees, 4905 Inglewood Mike Jones, 1606 Una Justin Goss, 3523 Graz Austin Orand, 2321 Trace Meadows Matt Fisher, 126 Dunn Craig Joyer, 2321 Trace Meadows Josh Ralls, 1020 Puryear Drive Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina 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 Barrs, 407 Boyett, Apt. G. Kyle Mcbrethy, 3415 Mustang Lane Jesse Torres, 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 Cody Dale, 3130 Norton Lane Jack Collins, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Joe Williams, 1209 B. Webb Hollow Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937 John Barker, 4413 Texas Avenue South 1. Call to order- The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 20 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; 16 • Utilization of a roller hockey rink and/or skate park would probably not interfere with other activities at the Amphitheater. 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. 17 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. 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. 18 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. 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. 19 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 what certifications a pro would need. Mr. Allen could not address the question in terms 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 20 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. 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. 21 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. 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. 22 4. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. 23 I - ."ill "ID)v ii , November 1, 2001 Background Operations Design and Construction Maintenance Financial Impact Location Liability Recommendations References 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 Appendix A - College Station Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Agenda and Minutes, January 30, 2001 Appendix B - Skate park Survey and Summary results Appendix C - Safety Equipment Survey Appendix D - Chapter 75 Civil Practices and Remedies Code Limitation of Landowners' Liability Appendix E - Texas Municipal League Intergovermental Risk Pool Public Skating Facility Guidelines i 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 1 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. 2 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... "' 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 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, 3 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 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."; Temple built their park for $40,000 on an existing tennis court complex with ramps purchased from Ramptech. 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. 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 1 10,000 S.F. 45,000 2001 Abilene 2 12,000 S.F. 240,000 2001 1 Constructed on an existing tennis court slab 2 Abilene has a poured in place concrete facility. M 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."', or other unsafe conditions. 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 5 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. I have developed the following budget based on estimates previously done by Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, and an estimate of the cost per square foot for the equipment based on the latest purchase, in Waco. 15,000 Square feet Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft $ 82,500.00 Equipment $ 90,000.00 Professional Fees $ 18,000.00 Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft. $ 7,500.00 Signage $ 2,000.00 Lighting $ 45,000.00 Benches (4) $ 6,000.00 Water Fountain (installed) $ 3,000.00 Subtotal $254,000.00 10% Contingency $ 25,400.00 Grand Total $279,400.00 1•II�IZ 7Y�'[i'F'S"�� $110,000.00 $130,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $325,000.00 $ 32,500.00 � (Cost of 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 G 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. VA 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%).s 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. It is recommend that a facility of at least 15,000 square feet. This 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 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. 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. LIABILITY The use of the recommendations made by the Texas Municipal League in the Public Skating Facility Guidelines, along with the protection 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 and operation of the facility. 6 FUNDING The construction of the recommended facility, is estimated to cost approximately $279,400. The current funding plan is to issue $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation in FY03 to build a skate facility. It is recommended that this project be included in a future Capital Improvement Program to insure adequate funding. Based upon the findings of this report, the current level of funding is inadequate to meet the anticipated demand for the facility. The CIP process is deemed to be the most appropriate method for project funding. 10 REFERENCES 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. Rankin, Matt, "City Skateparks are Not A Recipe For Disaster", P&R, July 1997. 11 Appendix A College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Agenda and Minutes, January 30, 2001 12 Appendix B Skate Park Survey and Summary Results 24 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 25 Skatepark Survey Results 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? If not is it gated Is Safety equipment required If yes, what type Is there a City ordinance requiring these items Did local youth help with design and layout 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 the facility lighted May I schedule a visit to your facility Yes 1 No 3 Yes 2 No 1 Yes 1 No 3 (one recommended) Helmets, Kneepads, Elbow pads Yes 0 No 4 Yes 4 No 0 Input was gained through public hearings, and one on one meetings between the youth and the staffs 1998 1 1999 1 2001 2 Low $13,900 High $240,000 In ground I Ramps 3 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) Yes 3 No 1 Yes 4 No 0 26 Appendix C Safety Equipment Survey 27 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 7/27/01 Knee Elbow or Helmet Pads Pads Yes No Yes No unk <30 <60 <90 Yes No Unk None <3 < 5 <10 OUT OF CALIFORNIA Reno, NV Jeff Mann Mann@ci.reno.nv.us 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Littleton, CO JoAnn Gould JoAnnG@ssprd.org 1 1 1 1 Lake Oswego, OR Colleen Hanson chanson @ci.oswego. or. us 1 1 1 1 1 Willoughby, OH Brian Katz bkatz@willoughbyohio.com 1 1 1 1 1 Newport, RI Susan Cooper scooper@Cityof Newport.com 1 1 1 1 Oregon City, OR Dee Craig dcraig@ci.oregon-city.or.us 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kenosha, WI TFlatso@aol.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Honolulu, HI Toni Robinson Trobinson@co.honolulu.hi.us 1 1 1 1 1 Crawfordsville, IN Cheryl Keim ckeim@wico.net I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Out of California Totals 4 3 3 9 1 8 8 9 2 3 2 1 1 CALIFORNIA ONLY San Clemente, CA Steve Mead mead@san-clemente.org I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mission Viejo, CA 949-470-3061 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Laguna Hills, CA 949-707-2600 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 714-536-5486 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Claremont, CA Dick Guthrie 909-399-5493 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 San Dimas Al Martin 909-599-7312 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Laverne Bill Aguirre 909-596-8700 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vista Cathy Brendel 760-639-6152 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oceanside Judy Barz 760-435-5041 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Corona Jonathan Jones jonj@ci.corona.ca us 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rancho Cucamonga Pat Meyer pmayer@ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 California Totals 11 11 11 11 11 7 3 1 11 1 5 5 Overall Totals 15 14 14 I 20 12 15 3 1 20 3 8 7 . Rules are posted recommending safety gear even when no ordinance exixts Appendix D Chapter 75 Civil Practices and Remedies Code Limitation of Landowners' Liability NIM 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 al (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. (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, 71 st 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. 30 (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; (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. 31 (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. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 32 Appendix E Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool Public Skating Facility Guidelines 33 �) PUBLIC SKATING FACILITY GUIDELINES ME TML INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK POOL L055 PREVENTION DEPARTMENT 800/537-6655 April 2000 GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC SKATING FACILITIES (SKATEBOARDiNGIRO LLERBLAD ING) 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. a 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. ® Five percent of the injured persons were admitted for hospital in -patient tre2tment. • 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. G:VossVpnewsNskating hcitides.doc ! 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 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 hke a "U" and can range from 2 — 10 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. G:VossUpnewslskadng faciiides.doc 0 BOWL STRUCTURES These structures can bedescribed aszlarge empty swimming pool with rounded edges and moguls contained inside of it. The bnvv|s are generally constructed of concrete, asphalt ora stand alone fiberglass, flume -type 6ov,i o 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. G.\LP News\Skadng facificy guidefino.doc PEOPLE Employees should be trained regarding all safety rules and procedures, operational procedures, management requirements, etc. All 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 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 falling 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: 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 5. 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. GALP News\Skating facility guidelines.doc 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 performing 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. Skating should be allowed only in designated areas. Loss prevention measures include: I . 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 lit. 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. 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. GALF NewslSkadng facilicy guidelines.doc 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- 0 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, falling 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. 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. 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 coverage 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 roller-blading are conducted for damages arising directly from such recreational activities. Additional signage is recommended from a risk management G:U3 NewsSSkacing facility guideiines.doc �I 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. GALP News\Skating facility guidelines.doc 0 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 roller-blading 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 IQ 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 properly. 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. G:\LP NewslSkating facility guidelines.doc