HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/2007 - Regular Agenda Packet - Parks Board1
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
1. Call to order.
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING — RESCHEDULED
7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center
1015 Colgate • College Station, Texas
2. Pardon and possible action concerning requests for absences of members.
3. Hear visitors.
4. Consideration, possible action, and discussion of minutes from the:
Summit Crossing Site Tour on August 10, 2007; and
Regular Meeting of August 17, 2007.
5. Introduction of new Greenways Program Manager, Gregg Lancaster.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding City Council Strategic Plan - Terry
Childers, Deputy City Manager.
7. Consideration, possible action, and discussion regarding a request for a public skate park
Tamara Keese
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the possible design concept by the
developer for The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek - Park Zone 3
9. Discussion, possible action, and consideration regarding Board member appointments to fill
vacancies on subcommittees.
10. Discussion and consideration of possible 2007-08 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board goals to
be approved at the October 2007 regular meeting.
11. Presentation, possible action and discussion concerning the current Capital Improvement
Program:
• Current Capital Improvement and Park Land Dedication Project Lists
• Dedications of Less than Three Acres: University Commons Apartments, Phase III - Park
Zone 3
12. Report, possible action and discussion concerning Board Goals, Departmental Goals and
Objectives.
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made at least 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.00v.
13. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Board Member may
inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual
information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a
proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
• Patriot Day Ceremony - Tuesday, September 11th at 6:00 p.m., American Pavilion in Veterans
Park and Athletic Complex
■ Next Regular Meeting - October 9, 2007, Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center
14. Adjourn.
Notice is hereby given that a Regular, meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of College Station, Texas will be
held on the 12rh day of September, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center
1015 Colgate in College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this the day of , 2007, at p.m.
City of College Station, Texas
8 Y.
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of the City
of College Station, Texas is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on
the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas and on the City's website, www. cstx. Gov. The
Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on
at and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the
scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time:
by
Dated this day of .2007
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
BY.
STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF BRAZOS )
Subscribed and swom to before me on this the day of 2007.
Notary Public — Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:
(*- tl PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
REGULAR MEETING — RESCHEDULED
7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center
1015 Colgate • College Station, Texas
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Pamela Springfield, Staff
Assistant; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Terry Childers, Deputy City Manager; Kelly
Kelbly, Recreation Supervisor — Youth Services; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent
Members Present: Jodi Warner, Chair; Kathleen Ireland; Joan Perry; Billy Hart; Jody Ford; Shawn
Rhodes; Gary Thomas; Wayne Williams
Members Absent: Gary Erwin
Visitors Present: Tamara Keese; Jennifer Earl, Mary Sanders, Kara Schoenemann, Morgan Murgia,
Brett and Lezlie Shirley, Walker Thompson; Avery Keese; Cory McWhorter; Drew Genk; Jake Shirley;
Daryl Taylor; Bruce Armstrong; Travis Payne; Zachery Batten; Matt Sanders; Matt Robinson; Tyler
Dollars; Jesse Stephens; Jacob Vandayburn; Oliver Heck
1. Call to order. Jodi Warner, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with a quorum
present.
2. Pardon and possible action concerninq requests for absences of members. Gary Erwin had
submitted a request for absence. Jody Ford moved to accept the request as submitted. Kathleen
Ireland seconded the motion and the vote was called. All were in favor and the absence was
excused.
3. Hear visitors. Hearing none, this item was closed.
4. Consideration, possible action, and discussion of minutes from the Summit Crossina Site
Tour on Auqust 10, 2007: and Reqular Meeting of Auaust 17. 2007. Shawn Rhodes moved to
approve the minutes from the Summit Crossing Site Tour and the regular meeting in August.
Gary Thomas seconded the motion and the vote was called. All were in favor and the minutes
from the two meetings were approved.
5. Introduction of new Greenways Proaram Manaaer. Greaq Lancaster. Ric explained that
Gregg Lancaster had resigned to accept another job offer that he had received. The job had been
reposted. Hearing no further discussion, this item was closed.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion reaardina Citv Council Strategic Plan — Terry
Childers, Deputy Citv Manager. Terry Childers presented the City Council's Strategic Plan to
the board. Discussion followed. This was an informational item only and no action was required.
7. Consideration, possible action, and discussion reaardina a reauest for a public skate
park ~ Tamara Keese. Ms. Keese made a plea to the board regarding the need for a skate park
where the kids could have a safe, legal, place to skate. She was forming a committee that would
be willing to do fundraising and what was necessary to get a park built, which they would like to
locate near the EXIT Teen Center. She provided handouts for the board and staff. Steve
explained the process to the guests present and stated that, ultimately, council and the voters
would be the ones to approve the funds for a park. Discussion followed. The board asked staff to
come back with some of the information that had been gathered the first time that the topic of a
skateboard park had been addressed, along with City Council's decision. Hearing no further
discussion, this item was closed.
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regardinq the possible design concept by
the developer for The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek - Park Zone 3., The developer had failed to
bring forth a design concept in time for the meeting. Hearing no discussion this item was closed.
9. Discussion, possible action, and consideration reqardinq Board member appointments to
fill vacancies on subcommittees to replace outgoing members.
Fees Subcommittee: Jody Ford
Planning & Zoning Joint Subcommittee: This committee is no longer in existence.
Recreation Park and Open Space Master Plan Subcommittee: Wayne Williams, Shawn Rhodes
Gary Thomas moved to approve the appointments made to the subcommittees, replacing the two
members whose terms had expired. Joan Perry seconded the motion and the vote was called.
All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
10. Discussion and consideration of possible 2007-08 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,
aoals to be approved at the October 9. 2007 regular meeting. The process to formulate the
goals for 2008 would begin at the October meeting. The board agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m. on
October 9". The goals would then be brought back to the board at the November meeting for
approval. Hearing no further discussion, this item was closed.
11. Presentation, possible action and discussion concerning the current Capital Improvement
Program:
• Current Capital Improvement and Park Land Dedication Proiect Lists. Updated lists had been
included in the board members' packets. The Adamson Lagoon bath house bid had come in
over budget and would be re -bid in 2008. This was an informational item only.
• Dedications of Less than Three Acres - University Commons Apartments. Phase III in Park
Zone 3: Normally these dedications would be approved administratively, but in this case the
board needed to make a recommendation to Planning & Zoning because the developer wanted
to pay the development fee and dedicate land (approximately twice of what he would be
required to dedicate), which would be added to the greenway in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor.
The Master Plan for Wolf Pen Creek shows a trail at this location and this piece of property
would be needed for that to happen. Staff was recommending acceptance of the dedication.
Jody Ford moved to accept the land dedication as recommended. Kathleen Ireland seconded
and the vote was called. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
12. Report, possible action and discussion concerning Board Goals, Departmental Goals and
Objectives. Updated lists had been included in the members' packets. Hearing no discussion
this item was closed.
13. Presentation, possible action. and discussion on future agenda items: A Board Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation
shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
• Fees Subcommittee Meeting - Will meet either the first or second week in October
• Next Regular Meeting - October 9, 2007, Wolf Pen Creek Hospitality Center; to begin at
5:30 p.m. for discussion regarding board goals prior to the regular meeting, which begins
at 7 p.m.
■ An issue regarding youth and competitive groups vying for soccer field use for practices, needs
to be addressed and direction needs to be received before this becomes a major issue.
14. Adiourn. Kathleen Ireland moved to adjourn the meeting and Billy Hart seconded the motion.
The vote was called. All were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
/Vam& )q Ft--1 L
Council Strategic Plan
Briefing and Update
September 11, 2007
Council Strategic Plan
• Critical element of MPS
• Provides strategic direction
• Establishes desired outcomes
• Identifies strategic issues
Council Strategic Plan
Briefing Objectives
• To review Council adopted strategic plan
• To outline next steps
• To respond to questions
Management Planning System
a
5trotegic Business Plan
Financial Forecast
Capital Plan
Operating Budget
Evaluation
Strategic Plan
Organization of Plan
— Built around our Mission and Vision
—Council policy direction and comprehensive
plan concepts
— Identifies 8 Strategic Issues
— Identifies Policy Initiatives to address
Strategic Issues
Strategic Issues
8 Strategic Issues
— City wide safety and security
— Effective communications
— Growing sustainable revenues
— Exceptional multi -modal mobility
— Sustainable quality workforce
— Exceptional infrastructure and core services
— Diverse growing economy
— Destination place to live and work
Strategic Plan
• Council identified programs, tasks, and
actions to be included in sta ff developed
Strategic Business Plans
• Strategic Business Plans will be developed
at program / division level
• Address the 8 Strategic Issues and Policy
Initiatives
• Presented to Council (February 2008)
Council Strategic Plan
• Questions
• Comments
2
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Strategic Plan 2007-2012
Excellence is more than a goal in the City of College Station — it is the standard. Basic
to that concept is the strategic manner in which the City views its planning and
operations. One of the primary roles of the City Council is to set direction and establish
realistic benchmarks for the municipal organization to achieve the desired future of
College Station based on community input and expectations.
Quality of life is the City's paramount consideration. The strategic planning process
requires decision makers to focus, in a highly strategic manner, on those resources,
talents and abilities to achieve desired results which ultimately shape the character of
the City of College Station.
The Strategic Plan document is an essential tool to allow the City Council and city staff
to effectively develop and deliver a shared vision, mission, strategic issues, and policy
initiatives which must be addressed to ensure College Station continues to deliver
superior services for a rapidly growing population.
Mission Statement
ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF COLLEGE STATION, HOME OF TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, WE
WILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE AND ADVANCE THE COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
Community Vision Statement
College Station, the proud home of Texas A&M University and the heart of the Brazos
Valley, will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge -based community which promotes the
highest quality of life by ...
— enhancing and protecting neighborhoods in a diverse community where residents
are safe, protected from adverse impacts, well maintained and actively revitalized;
— increasing sensitive development and management of the built and natural
environment;
expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural
environment;
— supporting well planned, smart and sustainable growth;
valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources;
developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities,
infrastructure and services which ensure our city is cohesive and well connected;
and
Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 1
STRATEGIC PLAN
— positioning College Station for both short- and long-term economic prosperity by
expanding, strengthening and diversifying economic and education resources.
College Station will remain among the friendliest and most responsive of communities
and a demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and
celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will forever be a place where Texas and the world
come to learn.
City of College Station Core Values
To promote:
• The health, safety, and general well being of the community
• Excellence in customer service
• Fiscal responsibility
• Involvement and participation of the citizenry
• Collaboration and cooperation
• Regionalism: be active member of the Brazos Valley community and beyond
• Activities that promote municipal empowerment
Organizational Values
• Respect everyone
• Deliver excellent service
• Risk, Create, Innovate
• Be one city, one team
• Be personally responsible
• Do the right thing — act with integrity and honesty
• Have fun
Using the community vision, mission statement, and values as a spring board, the
College Station City Council has set the strategic direction for the city government
through development of seven Strategic Issues and supporting Policy Initiatives. The
Strategic Plan focuses organizational resources and identifies those intentional actions to
be undertaken by city government to achieve the desired outcomes.
Citywide Safety & Security
Safety and security of College Station citizens is imperative. We want to ensure all
citizens and visitors to the community feel safe while enjoying the quality of life offered
by College Station.
Policy Initiatives
• We will invest in our public safety infrastructure to provide consistent and high
quality public safety services.
Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 2
STRATEGIC PLAN
We will benchmark our public safety services with other communities similar to
College Station to insure we are setting the pace at a national level.
Effective Communications
Effective two-way communications with both internal and external audiences is
essential to the continued success of the many programs and services offered by the City
of College Station. Utilizing a variety of media and technology, we will strive to market
our services, communicate our mission and values, engage our citizens in the decisions
of city government while telling the College Station story to our elected officials,
employees, citizens, community partners, and others nationwide.
Policy Initiatives
• We will implement a communication strategy which continually informs our
citizens about the city government.
• We will market the City of College Station as a superior service provider.
• Cultivate citizen trust by fostering and practicing open, accountable and
responsible government
Growing sustainable revenue sources balanced with needs
The ability of College Station to finance quality services, meet demands of growing our
infrastructure and provide for the quality of life quotient for the community, requires
fiscal soundness and growing our revenue sources. We will adhere to sound business
practices which obtain true value for dollars spent, diversify our revenue sources
through identification of innovative revenue strategies, and implement financial policies
which protect city resources.
Policy Initiatives
• We will develop innovative income strategies to diversify and strengthen income
base
We will re-evaluate and update financial policies to ensure they continually meet
our needs as a city government
• We will continually improve business practices to ensure we achieve the best
value for dollars invested
Exceptional multi -modal mobility
The rapid growth of College Station is impacting our ability to provide an efficient
public and private transportation network to ensure mobility and safety to our citizens.
Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 3
STRATEGIC PLAN
Development of an efficient multi -modal transportation system is needed to promote a
healthy local economy and support the community's quality of life.
Policy Initiatives
• We will develop an integrated transportation plan which supports the
development of College Station in consideration of its land use and
transportation needs.
• We will implement our transportation plans on a prioritized basis to improve
our overall transportation network and support development of the community.
• We will improve operational efficiency of our existing transportation network by
implementing state of the art transportation management programs and systems.
• We will lobby for state & federal transportation funds to continually improve our
transportation systems
Sustainable quality city workforce
Our employees are our most valued asset. We want to ensure the City of College Station
work environment is exceptional while encouraging innovation and creativity. We want
to be able to attract the best and brightest and retain highly competent individuals who
serve the citizens of College Station.
Policy Initiatives
• We will aggressively create a work environment which attracts and retains
quality employees
Exceptional infrastructure and core services
Our core mission is the delivery of exceptional services to our citizens. Our
infrastructure is the backbone of our service delivery system and we will continually
make prudent investments to grow and maintain all infrastructure to support our
delivery of services. We will expect our core services to be to of the highest quality. We
expect our services to our customer to be focused, timely and cost effective.
Policy Initiatives
• We want to ensure our infrastructure is well maintained and expands to meet the
needs of our citizens and various city services
We want core city services to be customer focused, cost effective and of the
highest quality.
Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 4
STRATEGIC PLAN
Diverse growing economy
We want to promote through effective policies and programs the continued growth and
diversification of our economy. We will provide leadership to encourage the
diversification of our economy while actively collaborating with our community
partners to produce economic benefit to all citizens.
Policy Initiatives
• We will develop and implement specific plans to enhance and diversify our tax
base.
• We will develop and implement plans which promote redevelopment of
strategic areas of College Station.
• We will actively seek economic development opportunities and partnerships
which position College Station as a national center for bio-technology.
• We will enhance tourism with the development of needed infrastructure to
support the tourism segment of our economy.
Destination place to live and work
We want College Station to be a destination city which attracts visitors, residents,
businesses, and investment. In promoting and maintaining a high quality of life, we
want to be a community which provides diverse opportunities for work, entertainment,
livable neighborhoods, and business development. We want College Station to be
among the best coot places to live in the United Sates.
Policy Initiatives
• We will invest in infrastructure and programs which creates a sense of place
for College Station citizens
We will systematically identify and invest in those programs and activities
which promotes College Station as a cool place to live, work, and play
• We will promote comprehensive planning and management of growth to
ensure College Station remains a highly livable city driven by quality of life.
Final Working Draft August 12, 2007 Page 5
City of College Station
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
List of Subcommittees/Board Liaisons
Fiscal Year 2006-07
By -Laws Subcommittee
Comprehensive Plan Update Advisory Committee
.......................................... Gary Erwin, Kathleen Ireland (Alternate)
Fees
................................... Gary Erwin, Kathleen Ireland,
Park Naming
...........................................................Gary Erwin, Kathleen Ireland
Planning & Zoning Joint Subcommittee
................................ Gary Thomas, Kathleen Ireland,
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan
............. Harry GFe , Gary Thomas, Kathleen Ireland, 3ehn GFen9pten
Veterans Park & Athletic Complex, Phase II
.................................. I.............................. Jodi Warner, Gary Erwin
(John Nichols, ex-officio member)
Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee
................................................. Jodi Warner, Joan Perry (Alternate)
OlRoard/SubcommitteeslList of Subcommittee 2006-07
COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
2007 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
These goals and objectives are established in support of the City Council strategic issues and
strategic plan. Board priorities are indicated in parenthesis.
STRATEGIC ISSUE #1: SUSTAINABLE GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN COLLEGE
STATION
A. UPDATE THE COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Council priority A+)
0 Complete the Parkland Dedication Ordinance Revision (1)
To City Council on September 13, 2007
Q Prioritize parkland dedication funds expenditures (1)
March 6, 2007 meeting
Q Develop proposal for acquiring neighborhood park land in advance of development; ETJ included in
revised ordinance
■ Complete the update of the Recreation, Park and Open Space Master Plan
In progress
B. DEVELOP A 3 YEAR ANNEXATION PLAN (Council priority B)
❑ Incorporate potential park sites at the time of annexation (3)
C�1 Become proactive by acquiring park land in advance of development & reimburse by dedication funds
(advanced funding) (3)
STRATEGIC ISSUE #3: ECONOMIC`` DEVELOPMENT AND FISCAL WTALITITY
A. INITIATE A MARKET STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW TOURISM VENUES
❑ Explore the feasibility of a minor league baseball facility
On Hold
0 Explore the feasibility of a water park (2, 3)
Science Park concept presented
B. CONTINUE TO PROMOTE PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IN WOLF PEN CREEK TIF
■ Design and implement Wolf Pen Creek water feature (3)
0 Implement Wolf Pen Creek corridor programs and operations
STRATEGIC ISSUE #5: QUALITY OF LIFE
A. DEVELOP FUNDING, SUPPORT & RESOURCES FOR REGIONAL PARK (1, 2)
0 Letter of support delivered to Senator Ogden (Nov 20, 2006)
0 Resolution of support for Texas Recreation & Park Account approved by Council (Dec 14, 2006)
B. OVERSEE THE COMPLETION OF PARKLAND DEDICATION PROJECTS (1)
0 Begin acquisition and planning for a Northgate Park (ZONE 1) (1, 3)
■ Complete construction of University Park (ZONE 2)
Design complete - to be bid in fall 2007
■ Complete construction of Crompton Park, Phase II (ZONE 7) (2)
Design complete - to be bid in fall 2007
■ Complete construction of Edelweiss Gartens Park (ZONE 10)
Design complete - to be bid in fall 2007
0 Complete drainage and shade improvements at Pebble Creek Park (ZONE 11) (2)
C. OVERSEE A COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR PARKS
0 Make progress on planned neighborhood parks (1)
0 Complete Oaks Park design and renovation w/Community Development Funds (ZONE 2) (2)
❑ Improve Lick Creek Park signage (2)
0 Complete design for a new Forestry Shop (3)
❑ Support neighborhood park development and improvements (2)
❑ New Parks Planning (3)
0 Complete the Cemetery Master Plan (1) (Council Priority A+)
Approved by Council February 1, 2007
0 Complete the conceptual plan for a proposed senior citizen facility. (Council Priority A+)
Approved by Council January 2007
Complete improvements at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (3)
■ Determine need for additional facilities (skate parks, improved dog parks, new sports facilities) (3)
0 Develop implementation plan to address the findings of the 2005 Needs Assessment Report (2)
0 Develop recommendations for a new five year capital improvement program
D. TRANSFER GREENWAYS PROGRAM FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO PARKS & REC
0 Implement the transfer of the greenways program to PARD (1, 2)
0 Fast track hiring of Greenways Coordinator and update the position responsibilities (2)
Gregg Lancaster hired effective September 1, 2007
0 Establish the budget for the greenways program within the Parks & Recreation Department
❑ Update Greenways Master Plan (2) -- ON HOLD
E. TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBRARY SERVICES TO PARKS AND REC
0 Complete the transfer of Library responsibilities to PARD (2)
0 Assist with the development of a long range plan for library services
F. OVERSEE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
0 Earthkind Rose Demonstration Project at Steeplechase Park (ZONE 5)
❑ Additional landscape improvements at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (ZONE 2)
0 Ask College Station Utilities to determine their interest for potential "Greening the City" (1)
❑ Seek support to implement the Urban Forest Management Plan (3)
STRATEGIC ISSUE #6: COMMUNICATIONS WITH CITIZENS
A. DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM
■ Develop an aggressive internal and external communications plan (Council priority A) (1)
0 Apply for NRPA Departmental Accreditation (2)
B. IMPROVE DAILY COMMUNICATIONS WITH CITIZENS
■ Complete the implementation of RecWare on-line registration (1)
Installation component scheduled for week of March 5th
0 Implement the Park PALS program for all neighborhood parks (2)
0 Conduct three neighborhood park 'open house" events in Spring, 2007
Gabbard Park Block Party - April 4, 2007 at 5:00 p.m.
Steeplechase Park Open House - April 11, 5:30 p.m.
Oaks Park Open House - April 18, 2007
❑ Conduct three neighborhood park 'open House" events in Fall, 2007 — ON HOLD
❑ Host the annual International Scholars Picnic at Veterans Park American Pavilion
October 4, 2007
Revised September 5, 2007 ❑ Not Complete (1) - Board Priority I
Approved by Board January 9, 2007 0 Complete (2) - Board Priority 2
■ Work In Progress (3) - Board Priority 3
2
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & PARK LAND DEDICATION PROJECTS FY `07
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
Capital Improvement Projects
Central Park Shoo Renovation
I
I
I
Pendipa
Pete
$200.000
GOB'03
Crescent Pointe Park Development
I Under Construction
Pete
I
S81 000
D=Innar
Forestry Shop
Under Construction
Ric
I PK0520
$779.000
r; Q.i ng'
Gabbard Improvements
Under Construction
David
I PK0704
$140,000
CQ$G
I 7/07
Lincoln Additional Parking
Under Construction
Ric
PK0702 I
$99,000
QOG
7/07
Pending Construction
Oaks Basketball HB Court & Cover
I Contract
I
navid
131<0706LUIUM
I cnaG
10107
Oaks ts
In Design I
David
Q
Pebble Creek Drainage Improvements
uction
Under Construction
Rc
PK06116
$50 000
GF'07 CSIISD Funds
6/07
University Park Development
In Qesian
David
PK04
000
I GF '07
1 107
Veterans Phasa II
Under Construction
I
Ric
PK0501
S5.500.000
I GOB'03
5/07
Veterans Park Phase It A
Out to Bid
I
Ric
PK0501
50.000
�I GOB '03
8/07
Woodland Hills Park Development
In Design I
Pete
I PK0523 1
Summary
$315 000
I CF '07
CIP
Pending/On Hold
1
In Design
I
4
Out to Bid / Re -Bid
I
2
Bids Received
I
0
Pending Design Contract
I
0
Pending Construction Contract
2
No Status
0
Under Construction
I
6
Public Hearing Scheduled
0
Park Land Dedication Projects
In Design David I PK0410 1 I Zone 2 1 2/08 1 1 1
Steeplechase Small Dog Area
On Hold I
David
I
Zone 5
( `
•
Ij
I+
Ij
Southwest
On Hold I
I
• 1
Pending Construction
Crom ton Phase II
Contract
Pete
PK0712
I
$204,991
Zone 7 1/O8
I
•
Emerald Forest Park Improvements
In Design I
David
PK0713
$44,500
Zone 8
•
Woodland Hills Development
In Design
Pete
PK0523 I
$34,000
Zone 9 5/08
• 0r ,474
Edelweiss Gartens Development
In Design
Pete
PK0613
$366,000
I Zone 10 2/08
Southern Oaks Trails
On Hold
Pending Construction
Nantucket Cove Development Contract Pete $57.756 Zone 12 11/07
1 �
I - lntergenerational Project
Out to Bid / Re -Bid
0
Bids Received
I 0
Pranrlinn rnn%'n%r}Inn r:nn}rnrt
Pending Design Contract
0
Under Construction
0
Under Contract
I 0
Public Hearing
0
O:/Projects/CIP/CIP & Park Land Ded Project List doc Page 2
Parks & Recreation Department
Goals & Objectives FY2007
(Not Prioritized)
• Implementation of City Council Strategic Issues • Leisure Programs
• Cooperative Efforts • Special Projects
■ Implementation of the UP Program ■ Continuation of Staff Development
ImPlementation of Citv Council Strateak Issues
Q✓ Develop Alternative Revenue Sources — A+
Proposal submitted on November 1, 2006; Concession proposal approved.
r-71 Develop Cemetery Master Plan N A+
Design contract signed; site tour completed; visioning process November 2006; preliminary plan complete and
�✓
presentation to Council on March 1, 2007
Cemetery Phase I Plan N A+
Design contract approved April 2007; Council updated August 6, 2007
Complete and bid Cemetery Phase I construction documents N A+
Cemetery Marketing and Licensing N A+
Request for Proposals scope of work developed; Marketing plan bid opened May 315t; to Council for approval in
July 2007 and contract signed.
Cemetery Rules and Regulations created N A+
[71 Begin Cemetery Option Sales N A+
Sales options began on July 2nd
Establish Cemetery Space Prices N A+
Parks Portion of the Comprehensive Plan (Parks Master Plan Updated) N A
Executive Summary through Section III reviewed and updated December 2006; Meeting with consultant on
February 22, 2007 to discuss Park Land Dedication issues; Developer Focus Group regarding Park Land Dedication
held on August 8, 2007
[71 Senior Committee report to Council on Conceptual Design on January 11, 2007 N A
Succession Planning N C
Four superintendents attended; HR provided list of retirement eligible employees
Director Position Replacement Process N C
Advance notice given to Management in December 2006; retirement date December 31, 2007
Cooaerative Efforts
F; Support Brazos Valley Senior Games
Games held the weekend of April 19th - 22nd 2007.
Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 1 of 5
Continue to support Grimes County Regional Park efforts
Project on hold pending appraisal from TMPA; letter of support sent to Senator Steve Ogden November 2006;
tour with Grimes County Commissioner's Court on June 14, 2007
Complete the update of the CSISD Joint Use Agreement
Final draft prepared and reviewed by Legal. Reviewed by CSISD and proposed changes forwarded to City's
Legal Department in August, 2007
F7 Complete improvements at Pebble Creek Park
Shade covers complete December 2006; ILA for drainage approved Jan 2007; project bid awarded by CSISD.
F71 CSISD collaborative efforts on future CIP projects
Meeting held November 8, 2006.
Q✓ Continue implementation of Veterans Memorial master plan
Trails grant request prepared for memorial pathway and submitted to TPWD May 2006; Trail grant approved.
�✓ Implement Park PALS (Park Advocacy, Leadership, Service) Program
r-71 Complete the transfer of Library responsibilities to PARD
Assigned to David Gerling; transfer complete.
Preparation for Kid's Klub 20th Anniversary Celebration of Lights on After School
October 2007
[771Assist Bryan ISD Swim Team operation
Host Annual International Scholars Picnic at Veterans Park American Pavilion
Scheduled for Thursday, October 4, 2007.
Host Special Olympics Events
Scheduled for October 2007.
Implementation of the CIP Program
❑✓ FY 2007 CIP Projects
Ongoing. Monthly report given to Board. FY 2007 list distributed.
❑✓ FY 2007 Park Land Dedication Projects
Ongoing. Monthly report given to Board.
'- Design Wolf Pen Creek water feature
Oversight Committee meeting quarterly; design is on hold. Science Park concept presented July 17, 2007
❑✓ Design new Forestry Shop
Design complete
�✓ Bid out new Forestry Shop
Out to bid; bid opening May 3rd; bid award to Council May 24th
Begin operations at new Forestry Shop
311eallocate and redesign Central Park Maintenance Shop
On Hold
Q Engineering and design of Adamson Pool Bathhouse
Design contract with Arkitex Studio in place; design is in progress
0 Determine operation costs for proposed new parks
Edelweiss Gartens N On Hold
Nantucket Cove N In Design
Woodland Hills N Public Hearings held March 7t`' and April 10th; in design
University Parks N On Hold
Cost estimates prepared November 2006 and submitted
Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 2 of 5
F71 Determine when proposed new parks should be built
Edelweiss Gartens N In Design
Nantucket Cove N Design Complete
Woodland Hills N Public Hearings held March 7th, April loth, May 15th Concept presented; in
design
University Park N Design Complete; to be bid Fall 2007
Completion of Crompton Park Phase II
Construction of trail extensions complete; Phase II in design
Complete Oaks Park Renovation
Design complete and out to bid
Leisure Proarams
Determine priority of service for provision of leisure programs.
Q 25th Anniversary of Public Pool Trout Fish Out at Adamson Lagoon
Held February 9-11, 2007
Get web -based information database for teens up and running
Fall 2007
Reinstate the Teen Advisory Board
✓S ecial Proiects
Continued implementation of Park Maintenance Standards
Ongoing — First quarter report to Board February 2007; 2„ d quarter to Board April 23rd; third quarter to Board
in August 2007
El Park Land Dedication Ordinance Revision
Joint meeting with Planning & Zoning held February 9, 2007; On hold pending Comprehensive Plan
Q Investigation of UV systems for city pools.
F71 Determine role of PARD in public health issues
Planning Health Fair; Life Trail Exercise Equipment installed
Implement RecWare on-line registration
In progress - working with CS MIS and Active Community Solutions. Expected to be functional by Fall 2007.
Update library book check-out system at the Larry Ringer Library.
In progress
F7jHost 25th Annual Texas Public Pool Council
Held the week of January 8, 2007.
Implement Junior Trail Ranger Program at Wolf Pen Creek.
Grant requested from Brazos Valley Junior League
Q Implement the operation of new facilities at Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater.
Support services building completed and turned over from contractor; second building
turnover pending
Implement the Wolf Pen Creek Trail Interpretive Program
Signage has been installed
Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 3 of 5
F71 Implement the operation of new facilities at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex
F71 Implement the operation of new facilities at WA Tarrow Splash Park
[71 Host ASA tournaments
June 2007 14U State; Girl's Fast Pitch State - July 2007, 18U National
Q✓ Review and finalize Concessions Operations proposal
Proposal approved February 2007; Concessions Supervisor position filled.
Q✓ Implement the transfer of the Greenways Program to PARD
The position has been posted.
Continuation of Staff Develooment
F71 Attend Supervisory Academy N September - November 2007
Amanda Putz, Scott Deffendoll, Melvin Lange graduated.
F71 Attend 2007 Management Academy N February 19 - 23, 2007
�✓ Attend 2007 Emergency Management Academy N February 7 - March 28, 2007
Melvin Lange, Bruce Ray and Cameron Park graduated.
�✓ Attend Arbor Master Training 2007 (Irving, TX December 8 & 9, 2006)
Curtis Schoessow, Daniel Tice, Bryce Bloodworth
�✓ Attend the 2006, 13th Annual Southeast Texas Grounds Maintenance Conference
Thirteen Parks Operations and Forestry division members attended the conference on October 26, 2006
Coordinate prepare for and attend 2007 TRAPS Regional Workshop
F71 Attend 2006/2007 Texas Turfgrass Conference
First conference in December 11-13, 2006 N Scott Hooks
El Attend 2007 Trends in Recreational Facilities Conference
On Hold
12 Attend the 2007 College Station Leadership Institute N May 151h -17th
Peter Lamont scheduled; training cancelled.
FlAttend Community of Respect training
Peter Lamont, Grace Vrooman, Charles Harris
�✓ Investigate feasibility of NRPA Departmental Accreditation
Assigned to Geri Marsh. Application submitted by May 18, 2007; Site visit by CAPRA week of June 25th 2007;
September accreditation decision pending
�✓ Attend 2006 NRPA Annual Congress
Steve Beachy and Ric Ploeger in October 2006.
�✓ Attend Licensed Irrigator continuing education class in January 12-13, 2007
Pete Vanecek, Ross Albrecht
Q Attend Landscape Architect's Conference in April 2007
Pete Vanecek & David Wood
�✓ Attend the National After School Conference for Elementary and Middle Schools
Lance Jackson and Jana Church attended.
Attend the 2006 Texas Trails Conference in Grapevine, Texas
Scott Hooks and Sheila Walker attended November 2-4, 2006
Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 4 of 5
FX Participate in the State Hurricane Exercise April 30 - May 5, 2007
City not included in statewide exercise
F✓ Attend the Texas Recreation and Park Society Conference N February 2007
Steve Beachy, Geri Marsh, Peter Lamont
�/ Item Complete
,,= Pending%On Hold
X Item will not 4e done
Updated: September 5, 2007 Page 5 of 5
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Project Review Checklist
Date Received:
August 7, 2007
Park Zone:
3
Current Zone Balance:
$65,642
Project Location:
950 Colgate Street
Name of Development:
University Commons Apartments
Phase:
III
Applicant:
Charles Laningham - JMC
Address:
13140 Colt Road, Suite 220-LB22
City/State/Zip:
Dallas, TX 75240
Phone Number/Fax:
Fax Number:
E-mail:
Engineer/Planner:
Municipal Development Group (MDG)
Address:
2551 Texas Avenue South
City/StateZip:
College Station, TX 77840
Phone Number/Fax:
979/693-5359 Fax Number:
E-Mail:
REQUIRED COMPLIANCE
Section 10-B-1: Land Dedication
Single Family Dwelling Units:
Multi -Family Dwelling Units: 42
Total Land Requirement: .336 Acres
Proposed Dedication: .68
Section 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land
Has the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? No
Land Fee:
Single Family Fee ($198/dwelling unit):
Multi -Family Fee ($160/dwelling unit): N/A
Total Acquisition Fee: N/A
Section 10-13-3: Park Development Fee
Single Family Fee ($358/dwelling unit): $292 x 42 = $12,264
Multi -family Fee ($292/dwelling unit):
Total Fee Amounts:
Total Single Family Fee ($556/dwelling Unit):
Multi -Family Fee ($452/dwelling Unit):
Section 10-13-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee
Required development cost:
Staff review date and comment:
Parks Board review and decision:
Section 10-13-5: Minimum Park Size
Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? Yes
If yes, staff recommends:
Section 10-13-7: Prior Park Acquisition
Yes, Wolf Pen Creek Park
Is there an existing park that can serve the proposed development? and lower trails
If yes, staff recommends: Acceptance of the property.
Section 10-E: Comprehensive Plan
Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan?
Comments:
Section 10-F: Additional Information
1. Island in the 100-year floodplain? Yes Percentage:
a. Detention/Retention? No Size:
Meets Board Policy?
Acreage in floodplain:
.68 Percentage:
Acreage in detention:
Percentage:
Acreage in greenways:
68 Percentage:
Comments:
Section 10-F (of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance)
10-F. 1 Any land dedication to the City under this section must be suitable for park and
recreation uses. Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain or may be
considered "floodable" even though not in a federally regulated floodplain as long as, due
to its elevation, it is suitable for park improvements.
(a) Neighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the
greatest number of users.
Comments: Close to apartment complex (existing University Commons).
(b) Neighborhood park sites should be located so that users are not required to cross arterial
roadways to access them.
Comments: Next to Wolf Pen Creek Park and trail system.
(c) Sites should not be severely sloped or have unusual topography which would render the land
unusable for organized recreational activities.
Comments: Most is fairly flat.
(d) Sites should have existing trees or other scenic elements.
Comments: Wooded
(e) Detention/retention areas will not be accepted as part of the required dedication, but may be
accepted in addition to the required dedication. If accepted as part of the park, the
detention/retention area design must be approved by the City staff and must meet specific
parks specifications.
Comments: None
10-F. 2 Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area
development, enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety, and minimize
conflict with adjacent land uses. The following guidelines should be used in designing
parks and adjacent development:
(a) Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to greenways and/or schools
in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co -development of new sites.
Comments: in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor
(b) A proposed subdivision adjacent to a park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access
to the park from other area subdivisions. Street and greenway connections to existing or
future adjoining subdivisions may be required to provide reasonable access to parks.
Comments:
(c) Where a non-residential use must directly abut a park, the use must be separated by a
screening wall or fence and landscaping. Access points to the park may be allowed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission if a public benefit is established.
Comments:
(d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of a park should abut a
public street. In all cases, the City shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city
parks.
Comments: Close to an existing parking lot.
(e) Streets abutting a park shall be built in accordance with the thoroughfare plan and the
standards of this ordinance; however, the City may require any residential street built adjacent
to a park to be constructed to collector width to ensure access and prevent traffic congestion.
The developer may request oversize participation in such an instance.
Comments:
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends acceptance of the .68 acres.
Section 10-G: Approval:
The board voted unanimously at the September 12, 2007
regular meeting to accept the .68-acre land dedication, to
become a part of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor lower
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: trails area.
Planning & Zoning Commission:
City Council:
.... . .....
........ . .
0
ICI
Oq+1
li a
A,,
z
aq
/ �4 i I I I i -- � � f 8 �,.
All,
I
CD
/*
T
(A)
MAI
Z=
z
SITE PLAN 1-5— WAIL
FOR
--1
UNIVERSITY COMMONS PHASE Ill URVEYOPSPLAN ENGINEERS. IVERS CONSULTANTS, MANAGERS
LOT 15 R-1 BLOCK B, EASTMARK PHASE 11 RESUBDIMSION
a PR—SIONAL SDR— AND IS
Mm" Of A, W a
-Tw — S-1 %!= JIXD M U� IN lAl0X 0H IN P I —OUT THE
�IX ST—, —S I �XPKSSIDD IIIINT— CONSENT 0I` MUNIOPAL DE—WMENT WWP
IS DIi—NG IS C-71) AS a PROJECT D—
College Station Senior Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting
Monday, August 27, 2007
College Station Teen Center
1520 Rock Prairie Rd.
10:00am
MINUTES
Members Present: Joyce Davis, Rick Heaney, Edgar Jones, Robert Meyer, Neal Nutall,
Donald Pirwitz, Raymond Reed, Colleen Risinger, Jean Roberts, Ron Silvia and Yvonne
Stevens
Members Absent: E.E. Burns, Dorothy Hernandez, Jack Hernandez, Laura Holmes,
Doreen Todd and Joanna Yeager
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director, Parks and Recreation and Marci Rodgers, Senior
Services Coordinator
I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 10:10am by Robert Meyer,
Chairman
II. Hear visitors No visitors
III. Welcome and introduction of new member Robert Meyer welcomed new
member Ron Silvia and members introduced themselves.
IV. Approval of minutes from regular meeting on July 30, 2007 Rick Heaney made
the motion to approve the minutes from the July 30, 2007 meeting. Ray Reed
seconded the motion. The motion passed.
V. Discussion, consideration and possible action on future Capital Improvement
Program and Senior Center Project with Steve Beachy, Director, Parks and
Recreation Department Steve Beachy discussed the process the city undergoes
when a bond election is being considered. Steve explained that a proposed
schedule for a possible November 2008 election will be presented to the City
Council in September or October, 2007. Ray Reed made the motion that the Senior
Advisory Committee continue to identify the facility as a Senior Center and show
an example of multi -use programming for the building. Joyce Davis seconded the
motion. The motion was approved.
VI. Discussion, consideration and possible action on Sub -Committees
■ Members/Chair
SENIOR CENTER SUB -COMMITTEE
Chair: Rick Heaney
Members: Ray Reed, Rick Heaney, Joanna Yeager, Neal Nutall, Edgar Jones and
Ron Silvia
PROGRAM SUB -COMMITTEE
Chair: Don Pirwitz
Members: Joyce Davis, Laura Holmes and Yvonne Stevens
LONG RANGE PLANNING SUB -COMMITTEE
Chair: Ray Reed
Members: Doreen Todd, Jean Roberts, Colleen Risinger
■ Meeting dates and times
The sub -committees were asked to meet prior to the next Senior Advisory
Committee regular meeting.
VII. Discussion, consideration and possible action on Senior Services Coordinator
report regarding upcoming programs and events. (report attached)
VIII. Presentation, discussion and possible action on future agenda items: A
Committee Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been
given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing
policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place
the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
■ Sub -committee reports
IX. Next meeting: Monday, September 24, 2007
X. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 11:25am
Senior Services Coordinator Report
August 2007
Month: July 2007
Event/Class
Enrollment/
Location
Attendance
Free Comp. Class
14
Center for Regional Services
Friday Bridge
30/24
Teen Center
42
12/22
Teen Center
Exploring History Lunch
151
Conference Center
Aggie Wrangler Dance Class
0
Conference Center
Senior Advisory Committee
13
Teen Center
Lincoln Center Senior Program
203
Lincoln Center
Total Programs Offered: 7
Total: 469
Total conducted: 6
Current population estimate for College Station: 85,121
For September:
September 4- Registration begins for Xtra Education Classes
September 4 - Senior World Passport Program -Colombia
All sessions start at 10:00am and are held at the EXIT Teen Center. Discover the Country of
Colombia on Tuesday, September 4th. Enjoy samples of food and receive a passport to be
stamped for each session you attend
September 5 - Computer Club for Seniors
The Club meets the first Wednesday of the month from 9:OOam-10:30am at the Carter Creek
Training room located at 2200 North Forest Parkway in College Station. The topic for
Wednesday, September 5th is "Trouble Shooting and Helpful Tips" presented by Bob Cohen.
September 7 & 21 - Friday Bridge
September 13 - Senior World Passport Program -Bahrain
All sessions start at 10:00am and are held at the EXIT Teen Center located at 1520 Rock Prairie
Road. Discover the Country of Bahrain on Thursday, September 13th. Enjoy samples of food
and receive a passport to be stamped for each session you attend.
September 13 & 27- Let's Play 42!
September 18 - Senior World Passport Program - Libya
All sessions start at I0:00am and are held at the EXIT Teen Center located at 1520 Rock Prairie
Road. Discover the Country of Libya on Tuesday, September 18th. Enjoy samples of food and
receive a passport to be stamped for each session you attend.
September 19- Exploring History Lunch Lecture Series
The topic on Wednesday, is the "Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" presented by Don Powell. Lunch is
by reservation only and is served at 11:30am. Donations are appreciated. Please call 764-3491
to make your reservation by Friday, September 14, 2007.
September 24- Computer Classes for Seniors
Classes offered:
■ Computers 101, This class consists of 6 sessions and meets on Monday and Wednesday
mornings. This is a beginner computer class designed for seniors.
■ Email Workshop, this 2 day workshop will teach you how to set-up and manage email.
■ Internet Workshop, this 2 day workshop will teach you how to navigate the World Wide
Web.
September 27 - Fall Senior Dance
Please join us at the College Station Conference Center, 1300 George Bush Dr. from 7:OOpm-
9:30pm for a Fall Dance. The cost is $5.00/person. No pre -registration required. Refreshments
and door prizes will be given away. Hear your favorite tunes from DJ, Tom Byer. The dance is
sponsored by the College Station Parks and Recreation Department Senior Services and St.
Joseph Gold Medallion Club.
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
ABSENCE REQUEST FORM
FOR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICERS
I will not be in attendance at the C) Q _ 1
meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for the reason(s) specified:
Name Date Rec'd Reason
UTZ�t
Requests for Absence must be submitted to the Parks Staff Assistant at 764-3474 prior to the
meeting date.
Page 1 of 1
Pam Springfield - Pardon
From:
To:
Date: 9/10/2007 8:32 AM
Subject: Pardon
Pam,
Sorry for the request for a pardon, but I have to fly to Little Rock on Wed. to attend a funeral.
Thanks
Gary
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
file://CADocuments and Settings\pspringfield\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\46E5012B... 9/10/2007
•
R�
a►tEB�pcp
2
?WHY DO WE NEED A SKATEPARK?
1, If Your city doesn't have a skate park, then your city be-
comes a skate park.
2. F KOMOTE5 A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE, the kids are in the,
game, not on the couch playing it.
5. A skate park can attract skateboarding tourists if cie-
signed to CIO 50.
4. Skate parks support vibrant, healthy communities,juc-it
like many other athletic facilities.
5. We need to provide a place for kids who aren't at-
tracted to traditional team sports to express them-
selves in an individual and athletic manner,
6. Most importantly, these kids need a safe place to
sk
ate and they do not need to feel their passion of this
recreation is criminal, this has got to end. Why would
anyone want to make a child feel bad about something
they love so very much?
WE NEED A SKATE PARK IN
COLLEGE 5TATION, TEXA5,1.1.1,1,11,1,1,!,1
q1Y15 s ;ate Boardnolmlo alw"Ent
WALKER
"Why is skateboarding
important to me.. ?...The
same reason that football
is important to aggies, its
our way of life, and we
love it"
XAVIER
"Skateboarding is important to
me because it gives me a sense of
pride in what I do"
,,,
Af
PLI
COLT
boarding is
rtant to me because it
ine doing something
than vandalizing the
or doing drugs, it
me out of trouble. if
t a skatepark it will
AS away from skating
,wn and messing up
that we cant skate."
DUSTIN
Aeboarding isn't a sport for youngpunks and vandals,
a lifestyle of kids trying something that can make feel
(come and wanted by society. Even though we can't
iteboard almost anywere in this town anymore because
Abe label people put on us. 95% of us are good kids who
ike good grades and stay out of trouble, the other 5% are
acctual punks who are causing the real trouble.
deboarding or not those kids make a bad name for us."
Aaron
"I enjoy ating a whole lot!"
JAKE
"I have
loved it
since I
was four
years
old!"
Jameson
"Skating
is cool!"
Although skateboarding has received much mainstream credi-
bility in recent years, thousands of communities have yet to
provide skaters with a place to legally practice their sport of
choice. As a result, many adults still regard skaters as disre-
spectful troublemakers. Business owners chase them away. City
officials pass ordinances to impede them. Police give them tick-
ets. Shrouded in stigma and with few resources to overcome it,
many skaters still grow up feeling disenfranchised, and the in-
stitutionalized image of skaters as delinquents becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy.
MID YOU KNOW PAGE?
• Skateboarding i5 currently the 6th largest Sport in the United
States?
Skateboarding is a $ 50 million a month bu5ine55, with yearly Sales for
2000 estimated at over $ 800 million.
• A 1999 Harris Interactive Survey showed that kids 6-17 rated the
X-Game5 second only to the Olympics in Sports they enjoyed watching
most. The Super Bowl came in third.
Douglaso Elementary 5chool in Boulder, Colorado, developed a school
Skateboarding curriculum for gym class?
Most Skateboarding accidents occur when Skaters are
first learning the Sport (the first week) the other part i5 when Skaters
are in unsafe environments (cars and uneven Surfaces such as the
5treet5).
• Compared to other popular Sports like football and basketball, skate-
boarding has far fewer annual injuries per thousand participants
(Basketball-224; Baseball- 1 16; Soccer- 62, 5kateboarding-20. ac-
cording to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance 5y5tem, a division
of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commi55ion
• When you Google Skateboard Parks you get 1,990,000 options.
• There is an International Society of Skateboarding Moms?
• Thio park will act a5 a Strong magnet for athleticism beyond your
imagination.
• Skateboarding iS a furnace for calorie burning, the obesity rate in
5kateboarding i5 zero! (when they love it more than video
games) WOW, and I am not kidding!
After =
50METHING TO THINK ABOUT
Skateboarding is an activity that is prac-
ticed by millions ofyoung people across the
country, they represent every ethnicity and
span the economic spectrum. To suggest
that skateboa rders are a bad element is to suggest
that youth in general are bad.
This sport is character building, these kids have to wait
their turn to do their tricks, while waiting for their turn,
they watch and cheer for their peers who finally nail a
jump after unwavering perseverance. These kids are the
most polite people I have ever meant!
These children may not be the ones paying taxes, but
they are shaping our future. If they are let down too
many times, then they will not get the opportunity to
prove that they are worthy enough to be heard and
believed in enough to show their gift of inspiring you to
sit on the sidelines and watch in awe of their athletic
ability and artistic skills, in a safe ,fun and legal
environment.
Contact Sheet:
Tamara Keese
tamjam5680hotmail.com
(979) 268-2029 home
(979) 324-2409 cell
Committee will be formed and the
contacts will be added for now any
que5tion5 pl ea5e don't hesitate to call or
email me.
s
Statement of Qualifications
Skate Park Design Services
soup, IN.
.Landscape Architecture
.Urban Design
. Skate Park Planning & Design
.Construction Administration
SITE Design Group, Inc. thanks you for the opportunity to provide our Statement of Qualifications for your
future skatepark project. Designing asuccessful facility requiresthe servicesof acarefully selected team
of experienced skatepark consultants. SITEDesgn Group, Inc. and our resources consist of cohesive
team of skate park designers, landscape architects, pro skateboarders, park planners, construction
managers and specialty contractors who possess the requisite skills and experience to successfully
complete your project on time and on budget.
Weare pleasedto have received national recognition from municipalities, top skaters and the media for
our attention in determining the needs of the users and surrounding community, and in the skill of
designing creative, cost -sensitive parkfacilities. Our innovative designs, including our new skateplazas
are rapidly winning world-wide attention for providing skate -able facilities that complement the
surrounding urban landscape. Weare confident that with our team'sextensive knowledge in design and
construction of skateparkfacilities,we can provide the best product with duecareand diligence.
I realizeyou are in the beginning stages of development for your project but would like to make myself
available as a resource for any information you might need along the way. Should you have any
questions, I can be reached at our Carlsbad, CA headquarters @ 877-734-7275 or via e-mail at
mrm@sitedesigngroup.com.
Sincerely,
Michael R. McIntyre RLA
President
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION i - Firm Overview
SECTION 2 - Philosophy & Approach
SECTION 3 - Typical Project Schedule
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
SECTION I FIRM OVERVIEW
S1140, M-11,11''
PRINCIPAL:
Michael R. McIntyre, RLA, ASIA
mrm ®sltedesig ngroup.com
LOCATION:
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
COflsbod, CA 92010
(i) 877.734.7275
[fl 760.918.1702
WEB ADDRESS:
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Firm Overviews
SITE Design Group, Inc. is a consulting
firm specializing in Skate Park Planning,
Design and Development, providing serv-
ices to clients throughout the United
States, Europe, and Asia. SITE Design
Group, Inc. was created to achieve the
goal of designing the most progressive
facilities with integrated site planning solu-
tions, and meeting the needs of our
clients and their community. Our profes-
sionally recognized, award winning skate
park designs throughout the United States
and abroad exemplify our ability to under-
stand the complexities of public and pri-
vate skate park development, regardless
of location.
SITE Design Group, Inc. (SDG) embraces a visionary, small -team management strategy, striving to provide a level of
personalized service. We dedicate one person to oversee each and every phase of a project, and assign key person-
nel with relevant experience gained on similar projects to address your planning needs. Through utilization of state-
of-the-art technology and attention to detail, we deliver a cohesive, focused effort over the course of the project.
SECTION2
PHILOSOPHY
&
AP"OROAI
a`
47
4-
r i
Carlsbad, CA office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Corlsbod, CA 92010
[f] 877.734.7275
[fi 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Skate Park Philosophy
The design philosophy of SITE Design Group is to
create a user-friendly quality facility that applies to
various skill levels and is exciting to the skate park
users. The key element to launching a successful
skate park project is community involvement. The
users are involved in the review of all generated
design concepts to insure a community -based design.
It is our intention to continue working with any estab-
lished focus group to maintain the continuity of the
original interest groups. Our designs are unique
through site integration. Skate parks can be visually
spectacular, primarily created through the arcs, tan-
gents and grade differences. Our skate park designs
are intended to provide an inviting setting to be
enjoyed by not only by the skaters, but also the pub-
lic/spectators.
Approach
SITE Design Group, Inc. establishes well-defined
schedules for meetings, tasks and design products.
Timely meetings with our design team and the City
representatives will be regularly scheduled to review
concepts, costs and progress. Prior to the start of the
project, a master schedule will be developed to define
all pertinent tasks, sub -tasks, duration, milestones,
meetings and submittals. This process will ensure the
client and SITE Design Group's design team under-
stands the project scope and associated task dura-
tion.
5•s R w ,
It will be our commitment to the project that the
required parties/resources remain informed, the proj-
ect schedule is designed to ensure a quality product,
estimates are accurate and delivery is on time. All
internal schedules for the project will have resource
names associated with the project tasks prior to the
start of the project.
Design Guidelines
SDG will continue its efforts evaluating oppi
and constraints for the skate park and its rel
to the other park amenities. We will provtc
information justifying the space allocation t
theme, budget, circulation, parking, lighting,
and safety as a minimum. T0ls creates a
design approach, especlaowhitettong
skate park users and ,desin tears! ,
Philosophy and Approach
User involvement
The success of the park will be credited to the active
participation of the park users. It is crucial to establish
an effective process and obtain design consensus
throughout. SDG understands the importance of
receiving additional input from users who have
achieved professional status in skateboarding and in -
line skating outside of the community. Their input
ensures that the design brings functional concepts from
around the world, as well as receives approval from the
professional skaters.
Technology
SDG is committed to providing the latest thinking and
technology to skate park design. We have a proven
success record using AutoCAD for construction docu-
ments and Intergraph "inroads" for modeling, anima-
tion, slope analysis, volume calculations, quantity sur-
vey, cut and fill balance, coordinate geometry, calcula-
tion reports, and more.
Research
SITE Design Group constantly researches information
to design better skate parks through failure analysis of
past constructed public facilities built. We understand
what it will take to create a structurally sound skate park
that will stand the test of time, and not inhibit the user
experience. We understand all the methodologies and
techniques that need to be applied during the construc-
tion process to make this park better built than any
other public facility.
• -
The proposed design and budget will be extremely real-
istic. SDG is currently working on cost estimates for
several skate parks similar to what your City proposes.
We stay in constant contact with contractors throughout
the process for up-to-date cost information to ensure
that there are no surprises or cost assumptions. All our
area take -off inf6rmati6n,is extremely accurate includ-
ing our computer modeling that takes tnto consideration
total surface areas, specialty materials and earth work
Catou)ations.
Construction Process._
SDGstresses the importance of being an integral part ;
of the,construction process. Design documents'canpot ''
Substitute for field coordination and requirements r
s aping a quality facility: We help shape the cq ce t:in
Otte flelfrom quality concrete finish samples tra��ion
templates for perfectly trawied, radii steel coj*' j seta.
track guides and much more. s ,
SECTIONTYPICAL PROJECTSCHEDOLE
Typical Project Schedule
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
1
TASK 1.0 PROGRAMMING & CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
5 days
Mon 3/28/05
2
1.1 Issue Skate Park Data Sheet to Client
1 day
Mon 3/28/05
3
1.2 Data Collection
1 day
Tue 3/29/05
4
1.3 Conceptual Layouts
2 days
Wed 3/30/05
5
1.4 Project Kick -Off Mtg#1 & Public Mtg #1
1 day
Fri 4/1/05
6
Milestone - Task 1.0 Complete
0 days
Fri 4/1/05
7
TASK 2.0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
13 days
Mon 4/4105
$
2.1 Skate Park Conceptual Layout Plan
2 days
Mon 4/4/05
9
2.2 Project Specific Web Site
1 day
Wed 4/6/05
10
2.3 Skate Park Schematic Design/Master Plan
3 days
Thu 4/7/05
11
2.4 Project Meeting #2
1 day
Tue 4/12/05
..... ._.._............
12
.. _ .
2.5 Develop Preferred Skate Park Master Plan
5 days
Wed 4/13/05
2.6 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Skate Park
1 day
Wed 4/20/05
14
Milestone - Task 2.0 Complete
0 days
Wed 4/20/05
15
TASK 3.0 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT - 60%
18 days
Thu 4/21105
16
3.1 Project Mtg. #3 - DD Coordination - Ph. Conference
1 day
Thu 4/21/05
_..._.._ ..............
17
3.2 Materials Research
2 days
Fri 4/22/05
18
3.3 Prepare Base Information
2 days
Fri 4/22/05
19
3.4 Site Plan
3 days
Tue 4/26/05
20
3.5 Preliminary Skate Park Materials Reference Plan
3 days
Tue 4/26/05
21—
3.6 Preliminary Skate Park Layout Plan
3 days
Tue 4/26/05
22
3.7 Axon Plan
3 days
Tue 4/26/05
23
3.8 Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan Coordination
2 days
Tue 4/26/05
Task
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Mar 27, ' : Apr 10, '0 Apr 24, '0 May 8, '0 May 22, ' : Jun 5,
Finish S T€M F:T:S W S T M,F T'SiWS`T-M F:TS=
Fri 4/1/05 ^P
Mon 3/28/05 .L
Tue 3/29/05
Thu 3/31 /05
Fri 4/1/05
Fri 4/1/05 �° 411
Wed 4120105
Tue 4/5/05
Wed 4/6/05
Mon 4/11/05
Tue 4/12/05
Tue 4/19/05
Wed 4/20/05
Wed 4/20/05 Ono
Mon 5/16/05
Thu 4/21 /05 ,
Mon 4/25/05 ;
Mon 4/25/05
Thu 4/28/05 —
Thu 4/28/05 ` ►[] i
Thu 4/28/05 ►[]
Thu 4/28/05]
Wed 4/27/05
Rolled Up Task I I
Rolled Up Milestone 0
Rolled Up Progress
Split
External Tasks
Project Summary
Group By Summary
Typical Project Schedule
m
Task Name |
oumuuo /
Start
z+
| 3.9 General Lighting Plan Guidelines
1 day
Tue4/2G/O5
--db--|
3.10 Saoiono/Profi|aP|an
3dayo
Tua4/2G/05
u«
� 3.11Preliminary Landscape & Irrigation Plan
3daya
Thu4/21/D5
--��-�
3.12G096Construction Details
3doyo
Tue4/3G/O6
z»
| 3.13GO96Specifications
3dmyo
Tua4/2G/O6
u»
| 3.14Preliminary Statement ufProbable Construction Ccw
1day
Fh4/2B/OG
-30-1
3.15GO96Client Submittal
1doy
yWonS/2/OS
m
! 3.1GGO96Client Review
10dnyn
Tua5/3/O5
--�a-�
Milestone ' Task '1OComplete
Ocoys
&YoS/1G/US
--33
|TASK 4`O-CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 9OY&0^100%
21 days
TueSh7/0G
34
4.1Design Team Meeting #4-ODOverview &Coordinsd
1doy
TueS/17/OS
—35--
42 / O96Constnuction Documents
5 days
VVed5/18/O5
36
4.3 QU% Statement ofProbable Construction Cost
5 days
Wed 5/1805
—37—
4,49b%Gpacificationn
6doyo
VVed5/18/O5
»«
4.4B0Y6C|iendReview
10dayo
VVed5/25/O6
a»
l 4.5 1OUY6Construction Documents
5dayo
VVedG/8/O5
--�«-
-�
4.G1OO96Specifications
6dayo
VVadG/8/U5
Milestone - Task 4.00omplete
Odayu
TuoG/14/O5
42—
TASK 5'0-BIDDING
31 days
TumG/i4/0G
5.1 Pre -Bid Conference
|
1day
VVedG/15/D5
**
1 S.2Bidding Questions/Clarifications
30doym
ThuG/1G/O5
—45�-7
Milestone -. ok6.00omp|ete
Odayo
TueG/1. S
ruok
nmmu Up Task I
Progress
Rolled »nMilestone
{/
m/leomno
Rolled upProgress
Summary
Split
Mar 27,' Apr nApr c+n May o.nMay
Finish
-oTm/F_r�svva/T �`F|T|ov�n r|wi�TTial
' ' '
Tue4/2G/O5
_._L��'
�Q
Thu4/28/O5;
K8on4/26/O5.
��
�_�
Thu4/2B/OS'
.
Thu4/28/O5
. .
Fh4/28/O5
!
�
Mon5/2/O5|.
i
K8on5/1G/0S|
�
K8on6MG/O6|
\
Tue6/14/06
Tue6U77O5�
|
Tua5/24/O5�
\
TueS/34/D5
( \
Tua5/24/O5|
�
TueG/7/O5i
\
Tue6/;4/OSi
�
Tue6/14/O6
i |
TuaGU4/U5/
/
'
! � l
Wed 7/27/05
Y�
�
VVwdGhS/O5\
�
'
Wed 7/27/05
�
TuaGM4/O5. �B
| External Tasks
Project Summary
MWA
79
qo4wAt
a
T
ALABAMA
41 ROCK'N ROLLERS SKATE PARK
m6%"v&LL &I
ARIZONA
15 SUSHMASTER SKATE PARK
a LAO&WfAb 15 FOXGLENN SKATE PARK
64A%swrl$j�1
16 YMCA SKATE PARK
,"%W,aff A7,
17 SUPERSTITION SHADOWS
18 X&;k;t="IN RANCH SK,PARK
I Noolf ARD" .0
19 PARADISE VALLEY MATE PARK
oltok-w *" 20 PECOS SKATE PARK
AWAMIJOL AP
21 TEMPE SPORTS COMPLEX
22 &;!D& SKATE PARK
*COOLM" AA
26 OTT FAMILY YMCA
25 =44E
quesom a 26 NOGALES SKATE PARK
040QMXS AXI
27 SNEDIGAR SPORTS COMPLEX
r--AtVLfPL Ail
22 FREESTONE SKATE PARK
eA' OEM, Aa
is Tat DIVINE EXTENSIONS SK. PARK
V-'� � Is GLENDALE SKATE PARK
fatz"oftE. Ap 66 ANTHEM SKATEPARK
Nlmv PAOM' SA SKYWAY CHURCH SKATE PARK
'V000YEAK AZ}
8
6 PEORIA SKATE PARK
fpcoobk 'm
'
CALIFORNIA W 'fa=- I
I EL DORADO SK PARY i
MLOORADDICA4
2 CHOWCHkLASK, PARK
a BERKELEY SKATE PARK
otmOxcAl
4 LIONS DEN SKATE PARK
AA"%W CA)
6 CLOVIS SKATE PARK
XIW^M
7 ETWES SKATE PARK
8 Gl ENDALE SttATE PARK
9 4=SO4E PARK
0:h-v. rW ,a ENCINITAS REDESIGN
11 =~ ei&tE PARK
FIENS
MMMX) 12 MEMORIAL SKATE PARK
lst��rk�i
CORONADO SKATE PARK
fcaRo"Dol CA)
14 BADLANDS SKATE PARK
23 DELANO SKATE PARK
a)umo CAI
24 BLAIR SKATE PARK
OM OAt
60 WARDLAW SKATE PARK
64 LATHROP SKATE PARK
91A""OR C+)
68 SOLINAS SKATE PAPK
m so ALGAMOLA" NORTE SKATE PARK
To ESCONDIDO SPORTS COMPLEX
#Eaooftmu.��
Ti SAWA CLARITA SKATE PARK
m%-cL'^T. C.;
72 BERRY PARK SKATE PARK
(m'CA
73 HAWK RESIDENCE
New" Z 74 VILLAGE 6 SKATE PARK
tCWAA V4TA, M
85 ORANGE COVE SKATE PARK
00R."wc— 4Al
87, PALM SPRINGS SKATE PARK
WAOASM.09 " 48 SAN FRANCISCO PIER 27 SK. PARK
(mm mA4 mw' "
11
MISSOURI
$7 HANNIBAL SKATE PARK
WAIllm" l 6 SPRINGFIELD SKATE PARK
fV•A kw'ELO M&
77 CREVE COUER SKATE PARK
CVAYMANI LANDS7
'K3 KANSAS CITY Ale PARK
65 GRAND CAYMAN SKATE PARK
.. A" Q "
T9 INDEPENDENCE SKATE PARK
COLORADO
MINNESOTA
42 SKSWAY SKATE PARK
43 DULUTH SKATE PARK
" -MA 7 48 BOULDER SKATE PARK
so RCICHESTFR SKATE PARK
'fto.M o'
47 AURORA WHEEL PARK
~Qjw W)
DELAWARE
NEVADA
III CAASCOW SKATE PARK
50 ANTHEM SKATE PARK
FLORIDA
NEW MEXiCO
3S ORLANDO SKATE PARK
s;xt— 1t1
44 LOS ALTOS SKATE PARK
HAWAII
44 CALVARY C'h'A`P'EL SKATE PARK
56 SALVATION ARMY SKATE PARK
46 T-A'a'S SC�K�A`T- `PWARK
WOAX'xt
Mw—
ILLINOIS
NEW YOR.'
37 WILSON SKATE PARK
82 LOWER MANIiATTAN SK, PARK
38 NORTHBROOK SKATE PARK
83 UPPER MAN.4ATTAN SK, PARK
39 SPRINGFIEL6 SKATE PARK
OHIO
KENTUCKY
48 HATHAWAY SKATE PARK
66 f0C"MONU!AATE PARK
49, KETTERING SKATE PARK
.Rlt—MKy.
'ACTTEROAL aHL
=4511111
7,
design group. inc.
SKATE "PARK ,OL,O*,C,A,T,l,O,*N—S
OKLAHOMA
31 RIVERFRONT SKATE PARK
UTAH
51 LOGAN SKATE PAW
:lom" "
OREGON
52 PARK CITY SKATE PARK
54 LINCOLN SKATE PARK
53 BOUNTIFUL SKATE PARK
" w �.-A m
55 REEDVILLE CREEK SKATE PARK
&-X"-. vYl
51 CLEARFIELD SKATE PARK
�Lv"-kp.
51 PARK
LAYTON S46
Mv— wn
SOUTH AFRICA
53 FAIRMONT SKATE PARK
36 TONY HAWK( WAVE HOUSE SKATE PARK
61 OAKLEY SKATE PARK
Rj
67 aLANG;RG SKATE PARK
TEXAS
28 CAROUNA SKATE PARK 28
VIRGINA
0 '�O
29 WILLIAM, SAM SKATE PARK 29
Wo ' '
40 tNAKEFIEtl) SKATE PARK
311 ABILENE SKATE PAW 30
A RTC
f-au-e' t
32 At LEN STATION 2 SKATE PARK 32
mLr% Tx'
33 KELLER SKATE PARK 33
WASHINGTON
MkLER'.'
34 MENARD SKATE PARK 34
tCMy[Sifke, Txr
61 MUVJLTEO YMCA SKATE PARK
75 BEAR BRANCH WHEEL FRIENDLY AREA
C&0001A TAi
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Sulte H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Alabama
Huntsville
• e
Apache Junction
Chandler
Coolidge
Flagstaff
Flagstaff
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Peoria
Phoenix
Phoenix
Prescott
Scottsdale
Tempe
Tucson
Tucson
Wickenburg
5 + • .F
Berkeley
Bolinas
Borrego Springs
Chino
Chula Vista
Chula Vista
Clovis
Coronado
Delano
El Dorado Hills
Encinitas
Encinitas
Escondido
Fresno
Glendale
Lake Forest
Lathrop
Ocean Beach
Orange Cove
Palm Springs
San Bernardino
San Francisco
Vallejo
Cayman Islands
List of Skate Park Projects
Insanity Skate Park
Superstition Shadows Skate Park
Snedigar Sports Complex
West Park Skate Park
Bushmaster Skate Park
Foxglenn Skate Park
Freestone Skate Park
Glendale Skate Park
Skyway Church Skate Park
Peoria Skate Park
Paradise Valley Skate Park
Phoenix 1st Divine Extensions Skate Park
Yavapai Skate Park
McDowell Mtn Ranch Skate Park
Skate Park at the Tempe Sports Complex
Campfire Skate Park
OTT Family YMCA Skate Park
Wickenburg Skate Park
Berkeley Skate Park
Mesa Skate Park
Badlands Skate Park
Ayala Skate Park
Veteran's Skate Park
Village Six Ledge Park
Letterman Skate Park
Coronado Skate Park
Delano Skate Park
El Dorado Hills Skate Park
Magdalena-Ecke YMCA Skate Park
City of Encinitas Skate Park
Escondido Sports Complex Skate Park
Lions Den Skate Park
Verdugo Skate Park
Etnies Skate Park
Lathrop Skate Park
Robb Field Skate Park
Orange Cove Skate Park
Palm Springs Skate Park
Blair Skate Park
San Francisco YMCA Pier 27 Skate Park'
Vallejo Skate Park
Design
Design
Design
Design/Build
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design/Build
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design/Build
Design
Design
Design
Design/Build
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design/$hotcrete
Design
Design
Design
Grand Cayman
Black Pearl Skate Park
Design/Build
Colorado
Boulder
Boulder Skate Park
Design
Denver
Aurora Wheel Park. �`
Design
La Junta
Sk8Way.Skate •Park
Design/Build ,?'
Delaware
4
Newcastle County
Ghksbol,$W4!?ark-
Design
FIorldai
Orlando
Orlando Skate'ParkDesign/Shotcrete'
Hawaii
Kamuela
Waimea -Salvation ArmySkatp.Park
Deslgri/Bui[d
Additional parts Information
can be found at:
www.sitOdisigngroup.com
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[fi 760,918,1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
List of Skate Parr Projects
Chicago
Wilson Skate Park
Design
Northbrook
Northbrook Skate Park
Design
Springfield
Springfield Skate Park
Design/Build
Kentucky
Richmond
Richmond Skate Park
Design
Minnesota
Duluth
Duluth Skate Park
Design
Missouri
Hannibal
Hannibal Skate Park
Design/Assist Build
Kansas City
Kansas City Skate Park
Design
Maryland Heights
Creve Coeur Lake Memorial Skate Park
Design
Nevada
Henderson
Anthem Skate Park
Design/Build
New Mexico
Albuquerque
Calvary Chapel Skate Park
Design
Albuquerque
Los Altos Skate Park
Design
Taos
Taos Skate Park
Design
Ohio
Garfield Heights
Hathaway Skate Park
Design
Kettering
DC Shoes / Kettering Skate Park
Design
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
Riverfront Skate Park
Design
Oregon
Forest Grove
Lincoln Park Skate Park
Design
Hillsboro
Reedville Creek Skate Park
Design
South Africa
Durban
Wave House
Design/Build
Texas
Abilene
Allen
Abilene Skate Park
Design
El Paso
Alien Station II Skate Park
Design/Build
Galveston
Carolina Skate Park
Design
Ingleside
Menard Skate Park
Design
Keller
Ingleside Skate Park
Design%Build
Midland
Keller Skate Park
Design
`
Pearland
William Sam Memorial Skate Park
Design
The Woodlands
Pearland-Copp g in erarrilJy YM
Bear Branch Wheel
: Design
g
Design
JR472
Bountiful
Bountiful`Sk to Park
Design
Clearfield
Clearfielci,Sk6te Park
Design
Layton
Dayton Ska[e Bark
Design/Build
Logan
oganSkate.PatkDesign
Oakley
Oakley Skate Park
Dfiesign/Bul ,
Park Cityd
Park ity,Skate Park
Deslon
Salt Lake City'
Fairmont Skate Park y:.v
,Design,
WashingtIon
Mukilteo.
Y, Aof`Snohomish Mukilte4Family
Design
Branch Skate Park'
� r
Additional pack Information "
can be found. at:
W W W.sitgOesigngroup.com
SECTION 5 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE s ;.
LOCATION
CITY: Kettering
STATE: Ohio
SITE STATS
SIZE: 27,000 square feet
TYPE:Inground Concrete
BUDGET: $500,000
CONTACT
Mary Beth Thaman
Director of Parks, Recreation
& Cultural Arts
City of Kettering, OH
937/296-2454
ovsh5 N G9fi'o-kY.. P,
Carlsbad, CA Oflico
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Kettering Skate Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE Design Group, Inc. is currently working with the
City and Residents of Kettering, Pro -Skater Rob Dyrdek
and DC Shoes in designing the first ever plaza style
skatepark. This project brings the urban flavor back to
the skaters in an environment which provides "legal to
ride" street obstacles such as ledges, planters, bench-
es, stairs and railings, while simultaneously providing
the community with a beautifully landscaped plaza.
Relevant Experience
Relevant Experience
LOCATION
CITY: Lake Forest
STATE: California
SITE STATS
SIZE: 40,000 square feet
TYPE:Inground Concrete
BUDGET: $650,000
CONTACT
Mark Waters
Sole Technology
(949) 900-2726
�n:�ust �� sarsfaa�, S�trc.
Carlsbad, CA Ofll
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(p 877.734.7275
If) 760.918.1702
www.sitedesig ngrou p.co m
LOCATION
CITY: Boulder
STATE: Colorado
SITE STATS
SIZE: 17,000 square feet
TYPE:Inground Concrete
BUDGET: $400,000
CONTACT
Maureen Spitzer
Parks & Recreation
City of Boulder
(303) 413-7227
av`
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Boulder Skate Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
Mr. McIntyre was the designer for the City of Boulder's
second skate park project. The tasks included several
public meetings with the skate park users, conceptual
design, design development and preparation of con-
struction documents. The skate park and site improve-
ment design and costs were unanimously approved by
the City Council. An eventful grand opening was held
November 18, 2000 with a large turnout of local skaters
and spectators.
Relevant Experience
LOCATION
CITY: Lake Forest
STATE: California
SITE STATS
SIZE: 40,000 square feet
TYPE: Inground Concrete
BUDGET: $650,000
CONTACT
Mark Waters
Sole Technology
(949) 900-2726
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave, West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[fl 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Etnles Skate Park
i
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE Design Group, Inc. worked with skate apparel company Sole Technology
and their sponsored pro -athletes in designing a 38,000 square foot skatepark in
' Lake Forest, CA. Cited by Thrasher Magazine as "the best bet in Southern
' California" and a "concrete paradise" by Transworld Skateboarding Magazine,
' the Etnies Skatepark is comprised of 50% transitional and 50% street terrain.
£ The park consists of a clover bowl, a peanut bowl with traditional pool tile and
coping, a vast transition flow course, and a linear -style street course complete
I with rails, stairs, gaps and ledges. The park opened Feb 2004 and continues to
f receive great reviews from the skate community at large.
i
E , 1
E «w
{
{
E
�
1
..^w'WYilpl'9]
� II
{
i
I
{
III
{
Z
M�
i
{
S
i
4
1
E
E
t
i
i
ti
{
{
E
{
{
1
i
i
{
v �
£
i
W
{
i
«�
�?P.'.''.
.•t
Relevant Experience
LOCATION
CITY: Chicago
STATE: Illinois
SITE STATS
SIZE: 21,647 square feet
TYPE: Inground Concrete
BUDGET: $850000
CONTACT
Mitch Glass
Chicago Parks District
(312) 742-4694
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t) 877.734.7275
if] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Relevant Experience
Wilson Skate Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE Design Group, Inc. worked with CM@Risk, ESD Construction, Inc. on the Wilson Skate Park in Chicago, IL. SDG
conducted several skate park focus group meetings with the community as well as several design workshops with the
user groups. The meetings provided general consensus regarding skatepark design and resulted in a final design
which consists of both transitional as well as street terrain, thus accomodating both styles of riders in the Chicago area.
In addition to conceptual and schematic design, SDG performed design development, construction documents and con-
struction observation for the project.
LOCATION
CITY: Aurora
STATE: Colorado
SITE STATS
SKATEPARK SIZE: 20,000 scift
TYPE: Combination
ENTIRE PARK BUDGET: $2,200,000
CONTACT
Jack Cooper
City of Aurora
(303) 739-7160
"A a vs,:9 , F. FNts .
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www ,Oedesigngrou p.co m
Aurora Wheel Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE Design Group, Inc., the Prime Consultant devel-
oped a "Wheel Park" concept for the City of Aurora,
Colorado. The Wheel Park is situated on a 15-acre
park site and includes an 20,000 sq. ft. skate park, six
(3) In -Line Hockey Rinks, a NBL Bicycle Motocross,
track and all supporting park infrastructure. SDG per-
formed Design through Construction Documents as
well as Construction Observation. The project further
+ _*
entailed the coordination of all sub -consultants includ-
ing civil, electrical, and structural engineers.The Wheel
Park was part of a featured tour during the 2001
National Recreation and Parks Association Conference
in Denver, Colorado.Po
.
Relevant Experience
LOCATION
CITY: Orlando
STATE: Florida
SITE STATS
SKATEPARK SIZE: 25,900 soft
TYPE: Inground Concrete
PROJECT BUDGET: 1.6 million
CONTACT
Byron Lastrapes
Rhodes & Brito Architects
(407[ 648-7288
Ghi:. ts;:,bd WWLSt."" MIMI
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[tl 877.734.7275
[fl 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Relevant Experience
Orlando Skate Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
SDG worked with Rhodes and Brito Architects on the Orlando Skate Park project. SDG performed conceptual and
schematic design, design development, construction documents and construction observation for the park. SDG's con-
struction site visits ensured quality control for the large and complex skate park which has rapidly become a destina-
tion point for skaters across the United States. The Orlando Park consists of a beginner's street area, a multi -skill level
flow course and and advanced level pool. The overall flow terrain ranges from 5' to 11' deep, changing in elevation
several times on both the deck and flat bottom. The flow course additionally features a spine with a transfer ledge, 90
and 45 degree hips and deep corner pockets. The design also consists of a street plaza which will be built during Phase
II construction of the park.
LOCATION
CITY: Durban
COUNTRY: South Africa
SITE STATS
SIZE: 56,000 square feet
TYPE: Combination
BUDGET: Undisclosed
CONTACT
Tom Lochtefeld
Waveloch
(858)454-1777
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Wavehouse Skate Park
Gateway Shopping Center funded by Old Mutual
Insurance of South Africa, decided to add a major
"youth anchor" to the shopping mall as a critical compo-
nent to its success.
Waveloch, Inc. of San Diego, California was contracted
to develop the "WAVE HOUSE" concept that included a
wave machine, Tony Hawk Signature Skate Park,
restaurant, retail shop, music, and contest venues.
SITE Design Group, Inc. was contracted for planning,
design, development and operational procedures for
the skate park.
Relevant Experience
tr
,
•
LOCATION
CITY: Huntsville
STATE: Alabama
SITE STATS
SIZE: 27,000 square feet
TYPE: Inground Concrete
BUDGET: 380,000
CONTACT
Pam Forlow
General Manager
Insanity Skate Park
(256) 721-0000
Carlsbad, CA OHtco
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t) 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Insanity Skate Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
Insanity Skate Park is a 30,000 sq. ft. world -class
extreme skatepark for skateboarding and aggressive
inline skating. Drop in on the 12' half pipe, surfaced in
Skatelite Pro, or skate the intense concrete street
course that runs the entire length of the park.
Skaters can carve lines in the 9' deep concrete bowl
with coping and a 6' lead in! Street skaters will be
stoked over the 3 large fun boxes, grind rails, and over
45 above ground ramps including back-to-back mini
vert ramps.
Relevant Experience
Y
p
y
LOCATION
CITY: Lathrop
STATE: California
SITE STATS
SIZE: 7,440 square feet
TYPE: Inground Concrete
BUDGET: M,000
CONTACT
Ann Wall
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Lathrop
(209) 249-1717
t
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[f) 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
F
Relevant Experience
Lathrop Sk8Park
£
r PROJECT SUMMARY
G SITE Design Group, Inc. worked with the City of Lathrop in developing and designing a 7,500 square foot custom
above -ground skatepark facility. SITE Design Group, Inc. worked with the City and Community, providing program-
ming, conceptual and schematic design services. During this phase of development, SITE conducted two public
meetings and design workshops as well as provided an interactive web -site for community feedback. Upon
reach-ing design consensus, SITE continued with design development and the preparation of construction documents.
The park opened August 14th, 2004.
£
SITE received the following coorespondence from the City: "Thanks for the great design... our skaters and skaters
£ from other towns say its one of the best to be found I" Gabe Goulart, City of Lathrop
r
{
s
#
#
{
#
{
#
i
i
{
i
i
1
i
i
t
i
t
LOCATION
CITY: Escondido
STATE: California
SITE STATS
SIZE: 19,320 square feet
TYPE: Adove Ground
BUDGET: $430,000
CONTACT
Peter Ritchie
Community Services Director
Escondido Sports Complex
(760) 839-5426
v d:.5:R4ciati 00 2.3[.Xa d, iN«,
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t) 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Escondido Sports Complex Skate Park
PROJECT SUMMARY
The City of Escondido hired SITE Design Group, Inc.
to renovate the City's existing skatepark in Kit Carson
Park. As the park will accomodate boards, blades and
bikes, all three user groups participated in the design
workshops led by Michael McIntyre. The new park
will be constructed out of phenolic, a weather-proof,
paper based resin, as opposed to the former composi-
tion of metal and concrete. Completion is expected in
2005.
r
LOCATION
CITY: Chandler
STATE: Arizona
SITE STATS
SIZE: 34,000 square feet
TYPE: Inground Concrete
BUDGET: $300,000
CONTACT
Mickey Ohland
City of Chandler
Community Services Department
(480) 782-2743
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Loker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[t] 877.734.7275
[f] 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Snedigar Sports Complex
r
i
PROJECT SUMMARY
Michael McIntyre worked with the City of Chandler on a
feasibility study for designing and constructing the city's
first public skate park, meeting the needs of skate-
boarders and in -line skaters. The issues of research
included: liability, costs, operations, user definitions,
required amenities and opportunities for private/public
partnership, and site selection. This feasibility process
r
included public participation, work sessions with user
groups, site analysis, and the development of design
concepts. Mr. McIntyre, Project Manager and Designer,
completed the conceptual design, design development
and construction documents for the 34,000 square foot
facility and integrated Community Park.
Relevant Experience
SITE Design Group, Inc. performed construction observation services over a four -month period meeting a scheduled
March 4, 2000 grand opening.
was. ,quoted as
park pack in
2000: issue of
ring Magazine
dews by 3 time
Medalist Andy
LOCATION
COMMUNITY: Anthem Hills
STATE: Nevada
SITE STATS
SIZE: 25,0000 square feet
TYPE: Inground Concrete
SKATE PARK BUDGET: $350,000
IN -LINE HOCKEY: $Ia5,000
CONTACT
Michael Park
Project Manager
BRW (Prime Design Consultant)
(602) 648-2325
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
[tj 877.734.7275
[11760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Anthem Hills Skate Park & In -Line Hockey Facility
PROJECT SUMMARY
Del Webb's newest Anthem community in Henderson,
Nevada envisioned the need for a community skate park , .,1
and in -line hockey facility within the Anthem Hills
Community Park. Prime Consulting firm BRW, Inc., '
hired SITE Design Group, Inc. as both their Skate Park
and In -Line Hockey design consultant. The overall
design team consisted of the City of Henderson Parks.
and Recreation staff, Del Webb's Anthem team, local
engineers, and BRWs design team. Tasks included
Conceptual Design, Design Development, Construction �" r
r.
Documents and Construction Observation. The skate
park opened in Spring 2003 and continues to generate
postive feedback from the industry as well as skaters nation-wide. The success of this facility has prompted Del Webb
to hire SITE Design Group to develop a skate park facility for their new Anthem community in Phoenix, AZ.
TITLE
CEO/Principal
REGISTRATIONS
Arizona Landscape Architect
(#34186)
California Landscape Architect
(# 4096)
Utah Landscape Architect
(#5238119)
Licensed Contractor (CA#698979)
Certified Landscape Technician
in Construction (CLT#96595)
Irrigation (CLT#96617)
Maintenance (CLT#96604)
Certified Landscape Irrigation
Auditor (IA)
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science degree in
Landscape Architecture from
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo,
California, 1992
CONTACT INFO
EMAIL: mrm@ itedesigngroup.com
W,`,,., Wxm. Q,
Carlsbad, CA Office
2734 Laker Ave. West, Suite H
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(1) 877.734.7275
[f) 760.918.1702
www.sitedesigngroup.com
Company Bias
Michael R. McIntyre, RLA/ASLA
Michael McIntyre possesses the proven experience
and management qualifications to effectively coordinate
the various aspects of developing public and private
skate park facilities. His diverse experience in skate
park design and development, and history as a spon-
sored skateboarder, make him unique as a Landscape
Architect who designs quality skate facilities, while
maintaining his "grass roots" connection to the skate
community. In addition to designing municipal skate
parks in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado \,z
Nevada, Utah, Illinois, Texas, Michael also regularly
writes articles and gives lectures on professional skate
development.
Recent Accomplishments
Guest Designer/Builder for Monster Garage on the Discovery Channel 2003
NRPA 2000 Program Extreme Exhibit
Skate Park Planning and Design speaking engagements at the 1999 National Recreation and Parks Association
Congress in Nashville, Tennessee
Speaking at the 1999 Arizona Parks and Recreation Annual EducatioWConvention.
1999, 2000 ESPN-X Games Assistant
Best of Southern California -Ocean Beach Skate Park
1998 Best Public Skate Park -Flagstaff, Arizona by Thrasher Magazine Editor's Choice Awards
Chandler Skate Park "Leading the Pack in America", Thrasher rAa azine,
Guest Speaker at the Bay Cities Joint Power Insurance,Authddty, 2000,and 2001
=0
KANTEN RUSSELL Professional Skateboarder/ Designer/ PM
Kanten Russell, an integral team member of SITE
Design Group, Inc. brings a unique combination
working with communities developing functional
and technical skate park facilities. He is a
Professional Skateboarder, Designer possessing
several technical skills from surveying, Auto CAD
versions 2000-2006, Eagle Point and Auto Desk
LDD. He has extensive experience working on
several site and landscape plans requiring accu-
rate grading, drainage, horizontal control and
construction detailing. His technical knowledge of
site development, skateboarding, park design and
eager desire to work with communities formulat
ing the best parks for the budget is unsurpassed in
the action sports industry.
Kanten Russell has been involved in skateboard-
ing for over 20 years.
He has been a well known professional skate-
boarder for 12 years 1993-2005 and continues to
be a presence in the industry. Kanten has been
featured in many Magazines (including 4 covers),
videos, and newspapers interviews and articles.
Kanten has traveled all over the world on tours
doing demonstrations at skate parks in numerous
countries including the entire U.S., Canada,
Europe, Spain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand,
Japan, and even Tahiti. Kanten is well known for
going big down and across huge gaps but his
experience riding countless skate parks has given
him the perfect background for the community
process in formulating the best parks to date.
Prior to joining SITE Design Group, Inc., Kanten
had been working full time in the Land
Development field with the City of Chula Vista,
CA under Jose Gomez and acting City Engineer
Matt Little on multiple city improvement jobs that
included everything from the research of maps
and documents, to the surveying in the field,
drafting and calculating right-of-way deliverables
for the engineering and construction departments.
In addition, he worked with Hunsaker and
Associates, CA (an Engineering, Planning, and
Surveying firm) in the Mapping department where
has was responsible for drafting ALTA surveys,
Final Maps, and boundary determination for
numerous projects in southern California and
developments in Arizona. Kanten has a degree
and certification in Survey drafting technology from
Cuyamaca College, CA.
BRIAN MOORE
;Brian Moore has been in the skate park industry
� w �r � x a •
__ t
;for 10 years and has been advocating for public
skate parks for over 20-years. Growing up and
skating at a professional level with his peers
;allowed Brian to "visualize" the possibilities of
:laying out skate parks and creating innovative ,
;skate park products. His career in the skate-
boarding industry began with a reputable wood'
skate park design/build company where he quick-
ly worked his way up the ranks to becoming Vice
;President of the company. Brian's proven record
:of success at the highest levels in the skate -
,boarding industry includes the design and con-
struction of world championship event courses.
3
;As the skate park industry grew, Brian's career
;escalated. He became the National Sales
Manager for one of the countries largest skate
;park designer/fabricators. During his tenure, he
;streamlined a successful sales system that
allowed him to manage and work with sales
`groups representing the company's products
_
:worldwide
E
E
,From starting outwith a reputable wood skate
:park designer and builder then transitioning to a
;large steel skate park designer and fabricator,
allowed him to have vast experience in both con-
:struction fields. Now he is the newest member of
;SITE and will offer his expertise when designing
;new skate parks and will be able to suggestjust
which type of skate terrain would best be suitable
,for the skaters, bikers, community, and other fac-
tors that play a role when developing a skate
,park. Having immense knowledge of every differ-
ent type of skate park construction and terrain
;will continue to push SITE as one of the leading
:skate park designers in the world.
E
ERI C LEE
Y Eric Lee began his skate park oonstruction
career by building parks n the Pacific
Northwest.
E
He has skated for 20 years and has extensive
knowledge of skateboarding and skate park ter-
rain.
Coming from a construction philosophy, Eric
has worked on more than 25 turnkey concrete
skate parks and has been involved with many
design improvements. Eric has over 15
years of experience in construction and has
supervised crews in conjunction with local
General Contractors in 16 states. He is skilled
in all aspects of building, from site layout and
,
excavation to shotcrete and finishing.
E
Construction Experience
f Las Vegas NV Skatepark
La Junta, CO Skatepark
Layton, UT Skatepark
Oakley, UT Skatepark
Springfield, IL Skatepark
Coolidge, AZ Skatepark
Glendale, CA Skatepark
Palm Springs, CA Skatepark
Fontana, CA Skatepark
Uplands, CA Skatepark
Claremont Bowl, Mission Valley YMCA
Lincoln City, OR Skatepark
Islets, OR Skatepark
Newport, OR Skatepark
Lompoc, CA Skatepark
Edmand, OK Skatepark
Monrovia, CA Skatepark
j South Bend, IN Skatepark
Butter Bowl Seattle, WA Skatepark
Kamilioki, HI Skatepark Borrego
Springs, CA Skatepark Grand
Rapids, WI Skatepark Charles
County, MD Skatepark Laguna
Niguel, CA Skatepark
Placerville, CA Skatepark
Green Castle, IN Skatepark
E
t
E
,
E
,
F
,
E
F
t
i
,
i
y „fi��lr'd,„„,',q i' � „� �� i♦ i�+;": 'W�.d 6"-
r'Skate
ill'6i ; ,,',I '�'I,
_
AlbuquerquePark
Albuquerque, NM
City of Albuquerque
Barabara Taylor, C.I.P.
(505) 768-3849 $
300,000
35,000
X
Allen Station 11 Skate Park
Allen, TX
City of Allen
Sheila Condon
(713) 871-1414 $
550,000
35,000
X
Anthem Hills Skate Park
Henderson, NV
Del Webb
Michael Park
(602) 234-1591 $
350,000
25,000
X
Aurora Wheel Park
Aurora, CO
City of Aurora
Jack Cooper
(303) 739-7160 $
2,200,000
22,000
X
Bountiful Skate Park
Bountiful, LIT
City of Bountiful
Neal Jenkins
(801) 298-6220 $
420,000
26,600 X
Borrego Springs
Borrego Springs, CA
City of Borrego Springs
Jim Kelley -Markham
(619) 232-1580 $
350,000
26,000
X
Campfire Skate Park and Site Improvements
Tucson, AZ
Tucson Campfire
Chris Stagg
(520) 624-4355 $
350,000
22,000
X
Carolina Skate Park
El Paso, TX
City of El Paso
Tim Fulmer
(915) 541-4382�
$
402,000
25,000
X
Cayman Islands -Black Pearl Skate Park
Grand Cayman, BWI
Michael Bell
Michael Bell
(345) 947-0755
undisclosed
36,100
X
Chino Skate Park
Chino, CA
City of Chino
Mike Kolling
(909) 464-07681 $
550,000
28,000
X
Clovis Skate Park
Clovis, CA
City of Clovis
Allan Morgan
(559) 324-23621 $
350,000
28,000
X
Coronado Skate Park
Coronado, CA
City of Coronado
Eitan Aharoni
(619) 231-61001 $
300,000
25,000
X
Delano Skate Park
Delano, CA
City of Delano
Phil Newhouse
(661) 721-33351 $
600,000
23,300
X
Encinitas YMCA Skate Park
San Diego, CA
Magdalena Ecke YMCA
Garrett Bjornson
(760) 525-10651 $
1,500,000
40,000
X
Etnies-Lake Forest Skate Park
Lake Forest, CA
Sole Technologies, Inc.
Mark Waters
(949) 900-27261 $
550,000
40,000
X
Freestone Skate Park
Gilbert, AZ
City of Gilbert
Kenny Martin
(480) 503-62821 $
300,000
23,000
X
Kettering Skate Plaza
Kettering, OH
City of Kettering
Mary Beth Thaman
(937) 296-2454�
$
500,000
38,000
X
Lions Den Skate Park
Fresno, CA
City of Fresno
Ken Tigson
(559) 621-8706
$
550,000
30,000
X
Orange Cove
Orange Cove, CA
City of Orange Cove
Bill Little
(559) 626-5103
$
600,000
30,000
X
Orlando Skate Park @ Festival Park
Orlando, FL
City of Orlando
113yron Lastrapes/R&B Arch
(407) 648-72881
undisclosed
25,900
X
Paradise Valley Skate Park
Phoenix, AZ
jCity of Phoenix
IMike Dean 1
(602) 262-50511 $
350,000
27,000
X
Reedville
Hillsboro, OR
ICity of Hillsboro
1Gil Williams 1
(503) 224-52381 $
350,0001
26,000
1 X
Robb Field Skate Park
Ocean Beach, CA
lCity San Diego
(Michael Ryan 1
(619) 236-01431 $
450,000 1
41,000
1 X
Rock'n Rollers
Madison, AL
jQuantum Properties
IPam Farlow, 1
(256) 721-0000 $
380,0001
24,000
X
Riverfront Skate Park
OK City, OK
(City of Oklahoma City
ILarry Ogle 1
(405) 297-2133 $
425,0001
28,600'
1 X
Snedigar Sports Complex
Chandler, AZ
City of Chandler
IMickey Ohland
(480) 782-2743 $
330,0001
34,0001
1 X
Springfield
Springfield, IL
lCity of Springfield
1John Linxwiler
(217) 544-1751 $
245,0001
16,0001
1 X
Superstition Shadows Skate Park
Apache Junction, AZ
(City of Apache Junction
IJeff Bell
(480) 983-2181 $
25,0001
22,0001
1 X
Tempe Skate Park
Tempe, AZ
ICity of Tempe
(Mark Richwine
(480) 350-5325 $
600,0001
38,0001
1 X
Wavehouse Skate Park
Durban, South Africa
1Waveloch, Inc.
jTom Lochtefeld
(858) 454-17771 undisclosed 1
56,0001
X
William -Sam Memorial Skate Park
Midland, TX
ICity of Midland
IMonette Burke 1
(915) 685-73541 $
200,000 1
27,5001
X
Wilson Skate Park
Chicago, IL
ICity of Chicago
Michael Josef 1
(312) 762-15681 $
1,000,0001
23,0001
X
dtA!I
IRV
Berkeley Skate Park
Berkeley, CA
City of Berkeley
Mark Mennucci
(510) 981-6436 $
425,000
18,000
X
Boulder Skate Park
Boulder, CO
City of Boulder
Maureen Spitzer
(303) 413-7227 $
400,000
17,000
X
Bushmaster Skate Park
Flagstaff, AZ
City of Flagstaff
Mke Connor
(928) 779-7685 $
145,000
13,000
X
Calvary Chapel Skate Park
Albuquerque, NM
City of Albuquerque
Bob Church
(505) 338-3662 $
425,000
17,300
X
Clearfield -Fisher Park Skate Park
Clearfield, LIT
City of Clearfield
Chris Lund/NWL
(801) 355-5959 $
250,000
18,100 X
Escondido Sports Complex
Escondido, CA
City of Escondido
Peter Ritchie
(760) 839-5426 $
275,000
20,000 X
Fairmont Skate Park
Salt Lake City, LIT
City of Salt Lake City
Scott Van Dyke/ASWN
(801) 269-0055 $
220,000
15,660
X
Forest Grove
Forest Grove, OR
City of Forest Grove
Nick Wilson
(503) 224-5238 $
250,000
17,500
X
Foxglenn Skate Park
Flagstaff, AZ
City of Flagstaff
Mke Connor 1
(928) 779-7685 $
250,000
16,000
X
Garfield Heights Skate Park
Garfield, OH
City of Garfield
David Spehar
(216) 622-2402 $
350,000
20,350
X
Layton Skate Park
Layton, UT
City of Layton
Dave Thomas
(801) 546-8586 $
290,000
16,600
X
Logan Skate Park
Logan, UT
City of Logan
Brendan Pratt
(435) 716-9245 $
285,000
16,000
X
Mukilteo-Snohomish YMCA Skate Park
Mukilteo, WA
Mukilteo YMCA
Jeff Dunleavy
(425) 493-2416 $
425,000
19,000
X
Oakley Skate Park
Oakley, UT
City of Oakley
Paul Wolstenhulme
(435) 640-2767 $
225,000
10,550
X
Park City Skate Park
Park City, UT
City of Park City
Matt Twombly
(435) 615-5177 $
600,000
20,000
X
Prescott-Yavapai Skate Park
Prescott, AZ
Yavapai Community
Mike Fann
(928) 778-0170 $
280,000
15,000
X
The Ott Family YMCA Skate Park
Tucson, AZ
Ott Family YMCA
Stephanie Christenson
(520) 885-2317 $
155,000
16,000
X
Verdugo Skate Park
Glendale, CA
City of Glendale
George Balteria
(818) 548-6421 $
350,000
15,000
X
p 6 i i {,4 AI B� ',i''
I
{�
III III "IIII II"' I'I II I!I, III I
' , I
I
'•!; I:
X
Coolidge Skate Parkfftffwwzaj�i.
Coolidge, AZ
City of Coolidge
Nicole Zimmerman
(520) 723-6075 $
125,000
7,500
Duluth Skate Park
Duluth, MN
City of Duluth
Mark Anderson/LHB
(218) 727-8446 $
200,000
9,500
X
Hannibal Skate Park
Hannibal, MO
City of Hannibal
Jamie Page/Kiingner Assoc.
(573) 221-0020 $
160,000
9,000
X
Lathrop Skate Park
Lathrop, CA
City of Lathrop
Ann Wall
(209) 249-1717 $
140,000
7,440
X
Salvation Army/Waimea Skate Park
Waimea, HA
Salvation Armny
Tina Martinson
(808) 294-8484 $
150,000
7,500
X
San Bernardino Skate Park
San Bernardino, CA
City of San Bernardino
Robert Sepulveda
(909) 384-5167 $
125,000
8,000
X
Vallejo Skate Park
Vallejo, CA
Greater Vallejo Rec.
Hew Hesterman
(707) 648-4602 undisclosed
6,900
X
Veterans Skate Park
Chula Vista, CA
City of Chula Vista
Tim Jachlewki
(619) 294-8484 undisclosed
7,000
X
des"t 7n `group tn£_..
.Landscape Architecture
.Urban Design
.Skate Park Planning & Design
.Construction Administration
Skate Park & Plaza Desian with Affiliated Costs
COST
On average, the cost per square foot of a concrete skate park ranges from $32-$35
depending on site complexities, site amenities, and the style of park that is desired.
Other items that impact cost either raising it or lowering it include local equipment rates,
material rates, prevailing wage and local labor rates, all of which vary from state to
state, region to region.
SITE COMPLEXITIES
Site complexities are varied and unique to each site. For this reason, we suggest
contacting a professional design firm prior to or during site selection process to limit
some of the obstacles that can drive construction costs up. One example of a site
complexity includes public utilities currently occupying the chosen site and needing to
be relocated. The cost of re -locating the utilities comes out of the construction budget.
Other times, the selected site lacks current public utility service. In this case, utilities
such as electricity, water, or public telephone service will need to be established.
Again, the cost comes out of the budget. Other items that impact cost include extreme
or variations in topography: extreme grades or grade variation, poor soil and/or sub-
surface conditions, such as a high water table or solid rock which requires blasting.
Other considerations include possible complications in access to the site, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic flow interfering with or traversing the site, and any underlying
protection zone laws or land -use restrictions. All of these items are surmountable, but
will impact the budget.
SITE AMENITIES
Site amenities can also affect price when constructing a skate park. Some examples of
site amenities that can increase cost per square foot include the addition of lighting,
perimeter fencing and landscaping either throughout or around the site. Other
amenities, which are optional, but add cost to the bottom -line, include spectator seating,
drinking fountains, payphones, large clocks, shade ramadas and restroom facilities. A
city or town may have set requirements regarding some of these amenities. In some
instances they are mandatory and specific: a town might require that a skate park be
gated & fenced, further specifying the fence must be constructed of wrought iron and be
at least 6 feet tall. These are items which should be investigated while in the fund-
raising stage of development.
LABOR WAGES
A high number of small parks across the nation are government funded or co -funded
projects. In these instances, there will be a prevailing wage condition, meaning each
worker on the job must be paid a pre -determined set wage for the locality depending on
job title and responsibility. In addition to the hourly rates paid to workers, the contractor
must also pay pension, health and welfare fees for each worker employed. This can
result in higher labor costs which will impact the budget. The same can exist in union
environments. Workers must be paid the union set wage, plus pension, health and
welfare. For this reason, it is imperative that cost estimates be done during each phase
of design development. Although skate park design firms can not always dictate the
local costs, you will get a good general idea of the cost for your park before you come
close to breaking ground.
CONCRETE SKATEPARKS,
An often overlooked element that impacts price is the style and type of park desired,
designed and constructed. There are several different styles and types of skate parks,
with various levels of cost associated with each. The most popular type of park today is
constructed out of concrete. Not only is concrete more durable, requiring less
maintenance, the finish is smoother and provides for a better ride. Concrete skate
parks are often referred to as "in -ground" as most often a site is excavated and either
all, or a portion of the park is built below surrounding grade. However, concrete parks
can also be built "above grade" by importing fill dirt, compacting it and then excavating
the newly modified terrain. The method employed is solely dependant on the type of
park and any prevailing site conditions as mentioned in site complexities above.
BOWLS & POOLS
Within the genre of concrete parks, several design options or "style" of park are
available: bowls, flow, street, urban plaza or a combination that blends two or more of
these styles. The least expensive of the three, often associated with old school
California skate parks consists of a small "bowl', which replicates an empty swimming
pool. Bowls can be constructed on a relatively small site and can be designed to meet
the needs of all age and skill level groups. They can be small and simple or big and
deep and can vary in depth by containing both a shallow and deep end, making them
versatile. These types of parks are primarily constructed out of Shotcrete. Shotcrete is
applied with a high-pressured hose that sprays the concrete onto the vertical wall
surfaces of the bowls. It is applied in sections and hand -finished to form a buttery
smooth surface. Typically, the coping is constructed out of rolled steel and runs along
the entire rim of the bowl. The coping allows users to perform hundreds of "lip -tricks"
Skate Parks & Skate Plazas
Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group, Inc.
(tricks done on the coping) and the ability to "grind" (ride on) the coping for long
distances. An emerging trend in pool design is the use of traditional swimming pool
coping, made of concrete, to further replicate the experience of riding in empty
swimming pools, as skaters did in the 70's prior to the emergence of skate parks. Pool
tile, stairs, pool light, love -seat and skimmers are additional design elements being
incorporated into "old school" style bowls, commonly called "pools". The old school
coping requires a different technique of riding than steel coping, and provides a
challenging and fun environment for all park users.
Regardless of the design intricacies of the bowl, this style of park is typically the most
affordable type of park that can be built. While very affordable, small parks consisting
of less than 10,000 sq ft usually cost a little more per square foot on average than larger
parks. The reason for this is quite simple: whenever a construction project is larger in
nature, the contractor will benefit from discounts because the volume of materials being
purchased is greater. As a result, bigger skate park projects often get discounts on
concrete, steel, fencing, etc. They are also able to get discounts on equipment rentals
as the machinery will be used for a longer period of time. Although these discounts
typically are given to large scale projects, small parks can and should ask for the
discounts by requesting them as an "in -kind donations". By employing good fund-
raising skills, many park projects are able to get materials, local labor and equipment at
much lower prices, and in some instances at no charge whatsoever.
FLOW COURSES
In the concrete genre of parks, the most popular type of park has historically been the
flow bowl. Flow parks are larger and spacious in nature, have increased flat bottom
areas as well as larger deck areas which surround the course. Flow courses
incorporate various types of terrain and can therefore accommodate a greater number
of users at one time, address all levels of ability and gratify different styles of users.
Features incorporated into a flow park include but are not limited to pyramids, banks,
ledges, quarter pipes, vert walls, curbs, ledges, stairs, and hand rails. The wide, open
course environment allows users to freely ride in many directions and link up different
lines throughout the park. In a flow environment, the skater can drop in or push off and
flow through the course, riding up and down curved walls and banks, and navigating
over various props. This terrain is ideal for the large skater population accustomed to
riding vert or transition.
URBAN PLAZAS (SKATE PLAZAS)
A new emerging style of park becoming popular in metropolitan areas is the skate
plaza. Skate Plazas consist entirely of street terrain and mimic traditional downtown
urban plazas. As skaters are typically prohibited from riding downtown areas and are
either chased away or given citations for illegal riding, the skate plaza offers a unique
Skate Parks & Skate Plazas
Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group, Inc.
solution for skaters and community alike
Plazas appeal to street skaters because the sites are challenging and call upon their
individual and creative approaches to skating. Street skaters assess the terrain and
figure out different ways to approach it, ride it, and perform tricks within it. Skate plazas
vary in size and design, but will always contain traditional street style elements such as
benches, ledges, stairs, rails, gaps, sidewalks, etc. Unlike the common plaza in most
downtown areas, the Urban Plaza is specifically structurally and functionally designed
for skating: the rails are of various heights, length and set at specific angles to reflect
"real' street skating.
The appeal of the urban skate plaza to a community is several fold. First and foremost,
it is aesthetically pleasing. Plazas often contain planter boxes containing flowers, trees
and other plant life, providing texture and color. The use of colored concrete may also
be utilized to provide artistic variation in the flat work and enhances visual impact. As
the plaza design is urbane in nature, it blends well into the metropolitan environment,
creating a space that can be enjoyed by those who pass by or sit to watch the skating
activities taking place. Finally, one of the greatest benefits of the urban plaza is that by
providing a legal place for street skaters to ride, damage to private and public property
not structurally designed to withstand skating is curtailed.
Overall budgets for urban skate plazas are on the higher end of the cost per square foot
spectrum. This is due in part to the additionally desired and/or required site amenities.
During the design process, plazas require more engineering than traditional bowl or flow
courses due to the features they contain: plaza versus traditional sports lighting, grading
and irrigation plans for planter boxes in addition to the flatwork, etc. During the
construction phase, several items affiliated with plaza design impact the cost: the
addition of trees, shrubs and/or flowers, installation of drip irrigation, the use of colored
concrete, and the construction of the actual street skate props.
Street elements such as rails, stairs, ledges and benches, cost more to build as they are
cast in -place, steel reinforced concrete elements that must be formed, poured and set.
Their construction requires more time and effort, which results in higher costs. The
increase in cost however, is not prohibitive and when added to the design in
moderation, will not drive the budget up substantially. When a plaza is 35,000 square
feet or larger, the increase in the aforementioned costs are offset by the discounts given
to purchasing construction materials in larger quantities, discounts for lengthier
equipment rentals and the lower ratio of mobilization to overall construction budget.
COMBINATION PARKS
Research suggests that there are some communities that consist almost entirely of one
type of skate -style user, either street or transition. However, most communities typically
Skate Parks & Skate Plazas 4
Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group, Inc.
consist of both. Even in communities where either style of user prevails, not all skaters
in the community are going to want an exclusive street or an exclusive flow style park.
In any of these situations, a hybrid park which includes flow and street elements is ideal.
Parks can either have the different sections of park separated by decking, or can have
elements combined in one overall design, or a combination of both. Cost for hybrid
parks can vary depending on the above -ground structures chosen as well as the street
section details and other amenities.
BIKES. BOARDS AND BLADES: MIXED USE FACILITIES
Parks that will incorporate BMX bike use, in addition to boards and blades, or bike only
parks, need to be structurally designed to withstand potential damage to the concrete.
In this instance, SITE Design Group, Inc recommends using a higher psi concrete as
well as protecting exposed concrete edges with the steel. The steel protection plates
limit chipping and chunking in the concrete that occurs when a bike peg hits the
concrete. Although experienced riders will often land their tricks correctly, you need to
be aware that a novice will not have the same skills and therefore might miss the edge
when attempting to hop onto a ledge to grind it. For this reason we also recommend
using thicker gauge steel for coping to help prevent "burring". When the coping is
burred, it must be sanded smooth to keep it safe. Constant sanding will eventually
compromise the steel, making it thinner, hence the need for this design modification.
Finally, all coping and edge plates must be tightly secured with anchors spaced more
frequently than needed in skate only facilities. All of these items will increase the cost
per square foot for mixed use or BMX only facilities. Overall, BMX or mixed -use facilities
cost approximately 25% more than skate only facilities. However, they provide the
much needed protection that when lacking, can result in an unsafe, compromised and
badly damaged facility.
Skate Parks & Skate Plazas
Copywrite 2007 SITE Design Group, Inc.
Skate Park Statistics
GROWING TREND
The growth of skateboarding continues to increase at an exponential rate.
According to data from the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 11.6
million people between the ages of 6-18 years old were skateboarding in
the year 2000; this number has grown 48.7% from 1999. Researchers further
expect there to be 15 million skateboarders by 2005. Additionally, there are 3.8
million freestyle BMX bikers in the United States; this number has gone up
800,000 from 1997. As the number of skateboarders and BMX riders increase,
so does the need for designated facilities to accommodate their sports.
Currently there are approximately 1000 skate parks in the U.S., all of which have
been built between January 2001 and July 2002 (Atlanta Journal Constitutional).
At the beginning of 2004, there were 1800 parks that have been built both in the
U.S. and abroad.
There are as many as 2000 more parks projected to be built in 2004 in the U.S.
(Heidi Lemon of Skate Park Association- www.spausa.org). According to the
website skatepark.org, 168 communities in the U.S. have currently posted a
want, need, or urgency for skate park development in their area. This is also
keeping in mind that this is only one website where people have written or posted
their comments to a known source; again, this is a good example of the
popularity of skate parks.
AFFECTS
According to www.saausa.orq, skate parks are the number one choice for
teens when polled by local park and recreation departments. The Skate Park
Association of the United States of America has also stated the same fact,
adding: "...In this age bracket, (6-18 years old), skateboarding is the third most
popular sport in the nation." Surveys report that there are an estimated 50 to 100
users at any park, at anytime, during any day compared to other athletic facilities
which lay dormant most of the time. Sources add that the good traffic yields less
danger in other areas in the park. More eyes on the street help for a less
dangerous atmosphere.
With such a young population utilizing skate facilities, it makes sense that by
providing additional facilities, communities can provide safe places for users to
go and take part in constructive activities.
Safety and risk management is another issue often touched upon while
discussing the skate parks. Interested parties are encouraged to search through
www.skater)ark.org/propaganda/leaislation/ for further information.
PARKS NATIONWIDE
There are approximately 1800 skate parks in the United States; seven states
have less than ten skate parks for the entire state, while California has 200 skate
parks in the state.
In 2002, www.skateboard.com/frontside/aetlocal/parks/ had published the
number of skate parks per state.
- AL — 16 parks
- AK — 7 parks
- AZ — 36 parks
- AR — 20 parks
- CA — 200 parks
- CO — 73 parks
- CT — 42 parks
- DE — 5 parks
- DC — 1 park
- FL — 85 parks
- GA — 30 parks
- HI — 8 parks
- ID — 23 parks
- IL — 115 parks
- IN — 37 parks
- IA —30 parks
- KS — 30 parks
- KY — 21 parks
- ND — 7 parks
- LA — 8 parks
- OH- 63 parks
- ME — 17 parks
- OK — 12 parks
- MD — 24 parks
- OR — 17 parks
- MA - 105 parks
- PA — 43 parks
- MI — 44 parks
- RI — 10 parks
- MN — 41 parks
- SC -14 parks
- MS — 13 parks
- SD -9 parks
- MO — 32 parks
- TN - parks
- MT — 12 parks
-TX — 47 parks
- NE — 14 parks
- UT — 17 parks
- NV 13 parks
- VA — 40 parks
- NH — 41 parks
- WA — 58 parks
- NJ — 62 parks
- WV — 18 parks
- NM — 12 parks
- WI — 47 parks
- NY — 80 parks
- WY — 10 parks
- NC — 46 parks
According to skateboard.com, Massachusetts contains 105 skate parks. Based
on the population of skaters in the area, it means that there is one park for
11,543 kids between the ages of 6-18. In Illinois, there are 115 skate parks, or
one park for 20,622 kids. California has the largest number of skate parks with
200, which accommodates for 32,775 users per park.
States with a smaller amount of skate parks also have large amounts of users
such as Oregon with 17 skate parks, and 38,814 users per park. Mississippi has
44 parks, and 41,771 users per park. South Carolina has 14 parks and 55,141
users per park. Finally, Louisiana only has 8 parks in the entire state, yet has
106,054 users per park.
State
Number of Parks/ State
Number of Users/ Park
Massachusetts
105
11,543
Illinois
115
20,622
California
200
20,622
Oregon
17
38,814
Mississippi
44
41,771
South Carolina
14
55,141
Louisiana
8
106,054
As you can see from the table above, even those states with the smaller
numbers of skate parks have an enormous number of users when comparing
them to states with a large amount of skate parks, (skateboard.com).
SUMMARY
The number of park oriented sports is clearly increasing; this yields the need for
a place for local users, whether they are kids, or adults, to go and enjoy
themselves. Action Sport Complexes have been able to provide skate park users
with a safe and monitored place to practice their well known hobby. Skate parks
are used more than any other sports facility on any given day; which further
supports the need for additional facilities nationwide, and the fact that there will
soon be a need for more.
WE ME,
design group inc
.Landscape Architecture
. Urban Design
.Skate Park Planning & Design
. Construction Administration
Skate Park Fundina Information
Funding a successful skate park facility requires the services of a carefully selected team or corporation.
We have compiled the information below to aid you in your search. One idea that many people have
found useful is searching online for funds and grants. KaBoom (}mm8t1a1 DDm.4LQ) and Skatepark
(�skattepark.ora) both contain decent fund-raising suggestions. Using a search engine such as
Google (www.google.c m), or Yahoo (www.vahoo.com) are also ways to find funds to support your
skatepark project.
Below is a list of some of the companies that may also be interested in providing funding. Additionally,
there are many grants available that are state or regionally specific. Searches should therefore be
conducted on both a national and regional level. Other than grants, we suggest you explore sources for
in -kind donations as well — many companies will provide services or materials at either a reduced cost or
for free, rather than payout a cash donation — but it all works!
Allstate Foundation
Q" allalpte.corn/community/ agerender.aso?Pact
e=foundationfundina.htm
American Eagle (http://planner.eskal8.org)
Ben & Jerry's
(www.benjerry.com/foundation/index.html)
Bikes Belong Coalition (617/426-9222)
Brita Water (http://www.brita.com/227i.htmi)
Coca-Cola (http:/1www2.coca-
rnla .om/ .itiznahip/sponsorrsbips b=Q
Community Development Block Grant. (CDBG)
(www.hud.gov/progdesc/cdbgent.cfm)
Cybergrants www.cybergrants.com
Enright Patterson t atters wfubmc.edu
The Foundation (infoOskateolaza.com)
Home Depot (www.homedeootfoundation.orq/)
The Jenesis Group (817/581-1999;
+.ienesis.ora)
Motorola (www.motorola.com/content)
Pay It Forward (payitforwardfoundation.org)
Pepsi -Cola (www.ymca.net/kfclpepsi.htm)
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (substance
abuse grant) — 336/716-5170
Ronald McDonald House Charities (social
services division) 6301623-7048
Snapple (Snapple.com)
SoBe (www,sobebev.com/about/contact.shtmi)
Sprint (www.sprint.com/sponsorships/)
Target (Target.com)
Tony Hawk Skate park Foundation
(www.tonyhawkfoundation.ora)
Tropicana (www.ymca.net/kfc/pepsi.htm)
I look forward to discussing how SITE Design Group, Inc. can make your future skate park project a
pleasant reality, and I feel certain there are available funds out there for your project. I will also be happy
to send you any additional contact information I come across as development of your project progresses.
Please feel free to contact me at any time; I can be reached at 877-SDG-PARK, or via e-mail at
briannsitedPsiant?rouo. com.
Brian Moore
Director of Sales & Marketing
design r`ro\up lrac
.Landscape Architecture
. Urban Design
. Skate Park Planning & Design
. Construction Administration
SKATE PARK SIZES
The newest trend in urban settings with populations close to one million is the development of
several different tiers of skate parks dispersed throughout the metropolitan area. The largest of
these is the regional skate park facility. Regional skate facilities are 35,000 square feet or
larger, are centrally located and become destination points for skaters & bmx riders throughout
the nation. These facilities also host professional demo tours such as Got Milk, The Tony Hawk
Tour, ASA & NISS as well as nationally televised pro -contests including CFB, X-Game
Qualifiers, Gravity Game Qualifiers and the Van's World Cup Series. They also host local
amateur competitions and at times offer skate/bmx clinics and camps. As such, regional skate
parks generate a great deal of media coverage and are known for providing terrain of varying
skill level and style.
Regional facilities usually provide for two distinct types of riding terrain: street and flow (or trani).
However, with street skating gaining popularity, we are seeing a greater interest in "pure street
terrain," or true urban plazas. Skate plazas look like traditional downtown plazas. The
difference, however, is that these parks are actually designed specifically to accommodate
skate/bmx/in-line riding. The handrails are set at different heights than would be appropriate for
the pedestrian, the gaps are closer together, the stairs shorter and steeper. These nuances are
recognized and applauded by urban terrain skaters who skate who finally have safe, legal, and
challenging facilities to ride. The plaza design is also being embraced by Municipalities as the
plaza blends in with the local environment: they are aesthetically pleasing and complimented by
planter boxes, trees, grasses and other ornamental landscaping elements. Less urbane
municipalities are opting for either pure flow parks or, as mentioned above, a combination parks
that includes both types of terrains and accommodates all styles of riding.
The next tier below the regional park is the mid -size district park. District parks are
approximately 15,000-35,000 square feet in size and accommodate the various districts within a
large metropolitan area. Though smaller in size, they continue to be one of the most popular
size park as they not only service more localized population, but their budgets often fall within
the price range of each district park's department. These facilities are easily accessible, non -
supervised, often fenced and lighted. Their design can consist of all above -ground elements, all
in -ground concrete or a hybrid of both and is determined by community input combined with the
expertise of the design team.
Initially, one or several sites are identified as potential skate park sites. A Skate Park Design
Firm assists in determining the best possible location of the park from an urban planning and
recreational perspective. Public meetings are assembled and led by the Design Team to obtain
feedback from officials, the community -at -large and park users to ascertain the desired design
L-1
and structure of the park, detailing the types of preferred elements, style, etc. Most urban areas
with populations close to one million will have one regional park, accompanied by a number of
district parks. Whereas both regional and district parks serve larger urban areas, smaller parks
are becoming more popular in neighborhood communities throughout the United States.
Neighborhood parks primarily serve their own local population. Often, these parks are walking
distance for most neighbors. These parks range from 6,500-15,000 square feet in size.
Smaller parks are often the choice for areas with either limited funds or space. Like the district
parks, the style and type of park that can be built varies and is dependent upon the desires of
the local user group. If there are existing tennis courts or parking lots that can be converted to
above -ground modular parks, costs can be greatly reduced depending on the equipment
desired. As most modular pricing does not include taxes, shipping or installation, it is
imperative that these prices be discussed initially to keep the project within budget.
Finally the smallest tier of park is the skate or "wheel friendly" zones. Although the smallest tier
emerging in skate park development, wheel friendly zones or pocket parks" are becoming
increasingly popular. They are easily funded and developed, are often utilized by local riders
who lack transportation, are unsupervised facilities without helmet and pad requirements, and
typically are not fenced. Skate zones, quite simply, are skate elements that are incorporated
into established local parks. Each zone is contained in a site typically comprised of 1,500-5,000
square feet. These zones can be accessed via established park pathways and often, due to the
unique elements affiliated with each zone, will draw other riders in search of honing their
technique and upgrading their skill level. The skate zones offer a high degree of flexibility and
diversity as skaters/bmxers✓in-liners can practice one particular set of skills in a controlled
environment, out of the pedestrian's path, yet within their view, adding a new recreational
element to the park. In the past year, several large urban cities as well as newly built housing
communities are incorporating zones into their smaller parks, thus addressing and providing
recreational access for three of the fastest growing sports in the U.S.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a "zone" or "wheel friendly" areas, zones are created to
work with the environment and address direct need within an immediate area. The most
important considerations when incorporating zones into a neighborhood are site selection and
diversity of riding terrain. Each park should contain a different set of elements to draw riders
from the immediate area as well as local surrounding areas. As riders will be inclined to visit
zones in other areas, public access must be addressed in the initial stage of design: vehicular
access & parking, pedestrian access, public transportation, placement of the zone, safe entry
into and out of the zone and security.
Skate/BMX/In-line users differ in that their sports are technically based, and the only way to
improve is by constant practice. Whereas one site might contain a series of rails at varying
lengths for users to practice mounting, grinding, sliding and dismounting tricks, another site
might contain a small quarter pipe to practice ramp riding skills. Yet another zone can contain a
series of ledges, and another, an exciting street element to ride such as a small set of stairs, or
a gap to jump, or benches to ride. The possibilities with skate zones are endless and very
attractive to skaters of all skill levels, particularly beginners who might be intimidated to enter a
skate park and practice their skills in a larger, more populated park. More experienced riders
will come to hone skills in a more private setting than the large, spectator friendly skate park.
Copyright 2007 SITE Design Group, Inc.
And finally, any competitors in the area will make use of the zones to practice before
competitions. Costs for Skate Zones are extremely variable and are totally dependant on the
site and the type of equipment installed, be it above -ground modular or concrete. Again, when
modular equipment is priced it is imperative to add in taxes, shipping and installation.
One of the most important elements common to the design and development of all types of
skate parks is location. It is imperative that the community hire a firm that not only possesses a
professional background in Landscape Architecture, but a firm that is comprised of skate park
users/designers, with the ability to bridge the gap between what works best for the community
as well as the local park users. It is imperative to conduct data research and collection to
determine population, number of park users, types of existing parks, potential sites, potential
funding, potential amenities as well as potential site complexities. This is accomplished through
either an initial feasibility study or during the design process via a series of public meetings,
design workshops and a designated web -site designed for public information and feedback.
During these meetings and the effort of data collection, it can be determined how many parks
need to be created, a reasonable phasing time -line which establishes when parks are to be
added to an area, the location of the four tier levels of parks, what elements each level of park
should contain, and a structure for local as well as regional funding.
For additional information please contact:
Brian Moore
SITE Design Group, Inc
www.sitedesi_gngmu com
Copyright 2007 SITE Design Group, Inc.
design g r o it p irte.
SPECIFICATIONS:
-5'-0" [1.52m] Shallow End
vv/7,-o,, r2.13r-nl transitions
-ET-U" [2.43m] Deep End
\A//E3'-0" [2,421 TrRnsitinnn
-5'-0" [1.521 Radial Hips
SIZE:
9,700 sq.ft.w/ e, Deck
Dimensions:
Length - 120'-0" [36.57m]
Width - 49'-011 [14.94m1
CONSTRUCTION COST
+/- $35 per sq.ft. average,
varies per region
OPTIONAL FEATURES:
-Pool Coping
-Tile
-Extension
-Stairs
-Death Box [pool skimmer]
-Steel Coping
-Luv Seat
-Pool Light
1
CONTACT INFORMATION:
B77-SOG-PARK
[TOLL FREE)
FLOW SERIES:
MEGA -FLOW COURSE
A,
....... ..............
4
111
resign g r o it p inc.
SPECIFICNT-IONS:
VARfE IYOFGRIND BLOCKS
FLAT BAR
MANUAL PADS
LEDGES
-BANK RAIMPS
-HUBBA LEDGE
-Hip RAMPS
SIZE:
12,000 SQ.FT.
DIMENSIONS:
LENGTH - 150'.-0" [45.72m]
WIDTH - 80'-0" [24,38ml
CONSTRUCTION COST:.
+/- $30 PER SQ+J. AVERAGF-.,
VARIES PER REGION
OPTIONAL FENVURES:
-RAIL VARIETY
-STEEL BtvlX PROTECTION
PLATE
-GRANITE LEDGES
CONTACT INFORMATION:
877-SDG-RARK
(TOLL FREE)
KATE PLAZA 12,000
Regular Item
Consent Item
X Workshop Item
Item Submitted By:
Council Meeting Date:
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
Agenda Item #
Steve Beachy, Parks and Recreation
Director
December 20, 2001
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a report
related to the feasibility of a skate park facility in College Station.
Item Summary: This report is part of the action plan that attempts to
address issues related to Vision Statement #4, Strategy #5b: To meet
the needs of College Station citizens, we will develop Comprehensive
Leisure Programs, Prepare feasibility report on skateboard park.
This is a Iona -term Ulan.
This is a staff prepared report examining the feasibility of constructing a
skateboard park within the City of College Station. The report addresses
several issues including location, design, construction, operation,
maintenance, financial impact, location and liability. Additionally,
recommendations for each of these areas are provided.
The draft report was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
on November 13 and the final report was presented to the board on
December 11.
Item Background: As early as 1988 the City Of College Station began
investigating the possibility of constructing either a skateboard park or a
roller hockey rink. In FY 2000, $162,000 was approved for the construction
of a roller hockey rink. After consideration and public comment, it was
determined that a skateboard park was the greater need. The reason for
this is two -fold, first, comments received at the public hearing indicated that
there was far greater support for a skateboard park. Secondly, there are
two existing roller hockey rinks in Bryan, and conversations with David
Schmitz, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Bryan, indicates
there is not enough demand to fill these two existing venues. In FY 2001, a
skateboard park became City Council Strategic Issue 4 Strategy 5 b,
(develop a feasibility report for a Skateboard Park)
The skate park project became a Parks and Recreation Advisory board issue
in 2000. The public hearing was held on January 30, 2001 with the only
action being discussion, consideration and possible action concerning the
possible installation of a roller hockey and/or skateboard rink at an existing
College Station park. At this meeting City staff and board members
discussed various aspects and options of a skate park and roller hockey rink,
including possible sites for the facility.
In October of 2001, the Department began a survey of municipally owned
and operated skate park facilities in Texas. The results of this survey are
included in the report and include information from one facility in Colorado.
Budgetary and Financial Summary: There is currently $162,000 in
Certificates of Obligation, planned to be issued in FY03 as part of the City's
CIP plan. These funds will provide for one phase of development for the
proposed facility. Additional funds in the amount of 134,000 will be required
to construct a complete facility as recommended in the report. Operational
costs are estimated at approximately $9,545 annually.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council receive the report
and provide direction concerning additional actions that may be required
regarding this strategic plan. Staff further recommends that the
implementation be started in FY03 as planned with further development
included in the proposed capital improvement program.
Advisory Board Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board recommends that the skate park be built in phases starting in FY 02.
The board recommends that the Certificate of Obligation planned for sale in
FY03 be sold in FY02 and additional phases be funded either through the CIP
program or the issuance of additional Certificates of Obligation.
Council Action Options:
1. Accept report and recommendations.
2. Provide further direction to staff for additional work.
Supporting Materials:
1. Skate Park Feasibility Study
BACKGROUND
As early as 1988 the City Of College Station has been investigating the possibility of
constructing either a skateboard park or a roller hockey rink. In FY 2000, $162,000 was
approved for the construction of a roller hockey rink. After consideration and public
comment, it was decided to build a skateboard park. The reason for this is two -fold, first,
comments received at the public hearing indicated that there was far greater support for a
skateboard park. Secondly, there are two existing roller hockey rinks in Bryan, and
conversations with David Schmitz, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of
Bryan, indicates there is not enough demand to fill these two existing venues. In FY
2001, a skateboard park became City Council Strategic Issue 4 Strategy 5 b, develop
feasibility report on Skateboard Park
The skate park project became a Parks and Recreation Advisory board issue in 2000. A
public hearing was held on January 30, 2001 with the only action being Discussion,
consideration and possible action concerning the possible installation of a roller hockey
and/or skateboard rink at an existing College Station park. There were 117 visitors in
attendance at this meeting (appendix A). At this meeting City staff and board members
discussed various aspects and option of a skate park and roller hockey rinks, including
possible sites for the facility.
The floor was then opened to comments from the public. 27 speakers chose to give their
opinions. The public comment included the type of facility, staffing, and hours of
operation. One concern was raised as to whether the facility would be open to bicycles
also. A majority of the visitors, when asked, supported a skate park facility vs. a roller
hockey rink.
In October of 2001, the Department began a survey of municipally owned and operated
skate park facilities in Texas. To date four cities have been identified and surveyed. The
number is low because there is no central point of contact in Texas that has a list of these
facilities, including the Texas Municipal League Risk Pool. A copy of the survey and its
results are attached in appendix b for review, however, the key points include type of
construction, staffing and hours of operation. Each of these items, along with
recommendations a City facility are discussed in the remainder of this report
Monument, CO
1 09113107 12: 40 PM
On November 13, 2001 a draft copy of the report was presented to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. At this meeting, the Board examined the costs associated
with the development of a skate park in College Station and the funding currently planned
in the CIP. Based on discussions at this meeting, the Board recommended that the skate
park be built in several phases starting in FY 02. Their recommendation includes the
initial development of approximately 10,000 square feet with the potential for future
expansion. This amount is based upon an estimated project that can be developed with
the $162,000 that is forecast for FY 03.
This amount is not in the current budget. Implementation would require council approval
and an amendment to the budget. For this reason, the staff recommendation for the
implementation, is to proceed as planned with the initial phase to be developed in FY 03
utilizing certificates of obligation as the funding source. Additional phases should be
included as part of the capital improvement program planned for 2003-2008.
2 09113107 12: 40 PM
OPERATIONS
The majority of the Cities that were surveyed indicated that they open their parks to the
general public during posted park times and do not staff the facility. The only city I found
that provides a supervised facility is Temple. In discussions with Kelly Allensworth,
Recreation Superintendent in Temple, she indicated that if they had it to do over again,
they would not staff the facility. This option is currently being reviewed again. Staffing
the facility can lead to a significant increase in the Cities liability, whereas not staffing the
facility can lead to a reduced liability if done properly. According to Michael Popke, in
Skate Nation Magazine, "The majority [of skate parks] remain unfenced and
unsupervised."' This item will be discussed further in section 7, Liability
The four cities in Texas that I have found that operate skate parks only recommend that
safety equipment be used. There is a trend in California, which tends to lead the trends in
this sport to require safety equipment by ordinance (appendix c). This would then require
the Police Department to stop to issue citations. Such actions as gating, posting signage
clearly indicating our hours of operation, rules and equipment recommendations at the
gate can all serve to protect the City's interest.
Current figures for the maintenance of the three skate parks that are unsupervised ranged
from unknown to minimal. The operating costs for the supervised facility in Temple was
reported as $28,380, according to Val Roaming, Parks Superintendent. The cost for an
unsupervised facility is expected to be minimal, as the inspections recommended to
insure safety would be a part of the regular schedule.
The final issue is one of joint use, could both bicycles and skateboards use the facility. In
speaking with other operators and reviewing available literature, the standard appears to
be to allow both to use the facility, but not at the same time. The separation requirement
is due to the difference in speeds between the two. Most operators do agree that
skateboards and roller blades can share the facility at the same time, but bicycles are
separated. The separation is accomplished through the use of signs and posted times,
indicating which type of equipment is allowed.
Monument, CO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
3 09113107 12: 40 PM
Design of the facility is critical and can determine if the facility is successful or not.
"Skatepark building is a complicated process and those
who have experience agree on several key elements to
designing and maintaining a quality skatepark. Getting the
users involved in the process is important... "2
All of the cities surveyed, as well as a review of the literature indicate involving the users
in the design process increases the likelihood of the facility being used. Another key
factor would be the involvement of the neighborhood surrounding the facility. As
indicated by the number of individuals and comments made at the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board Public Hearing, there is sufficient public interest in the facility to garner
the needed input.
There are two common methods of constructing a skateboard park. The first, and most
costly, is the poured in place method. The skate board park in Abilene is 12,000 square
foot facility built using this method. This method requires that the shape be dug into the
ground, then having the concrete poured in place. Discussions with the Abilene Parks
and Recreation Department revealed that they had problems with the construction, in that
local contractors who were hired to build the facility did not have the tools or expertise to
build the facility. Additionally, the facility, which opened in August of this year, is
already having problems with the concrete cracking and chipping. The chipping is
primarily from the pegs of the BMX bikes that are allowed in the facility. This facility
cost the City $240,000 to build and maintenance costs are unknown at this time.
I 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,
platforms and other apparatus are bolted to the slab. This configuration also allows the
facility owner to rearrange the facility without major construction. This would allow the
owner to produce a "new" park every so often. The facility in Waco is 10,000 square
4 09113107 12: 40 PM
feet, and according to Andy Cedillo, Recreation Supervisor for the City of Waco, the
facility is to already small and is very crowded with only thirty skaters using it. "A
common mistake is building skateparks too small."3 Temple built their park for $40,000
on an existing tennis court complex with ramps purchased from Ramptech.
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' 14,400 S.F.
40,311
1999
Waco ' 10,000 S.F.
45,000
2001
Abilene Z 12,000 S.F.
240,000
2001
Monument CO' 12,800 S.F.
150,000 (est.)
2001
]Constructed on an existing tennis court slab
2 Abilene has a poured in place concrete facility.
3 Constructed by volunteers with donated materials.
09113107 12: 40 PM
W' + 801 -1i 160, 1
300, 1
ro Monument Skate Park - 0 0J%Skate Parks FSU Incorporated
0 amg 1506 W. Saint Wain
M Drmn9: Full Park Layout wl Parking, Top View a Colo Spgs. , CO 80904
0 craMed Aw K_ PattPrSnn natp- atin 991sge inr. ,.cca.'f�ca.o, qe
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
7 09113107 12: 40 PM
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City currently has $162,000 planned for the Parks and Recreation Department for the
construction of a skating facility. These funds are to be raised by issuing Certificate of
Obligation in FY 03.
Abilene indicated that their facility cost $240,000 to build. Tyler indicated that their
facility cost $13,900 to construct in 1998 and Waco paid $45,000 to purchase and install
the ramps, on an existing tennis court with a 3,000 square foot addition, and this facility
opened in October. Temple paid $40,311 in 1999 and the facility as located on an
existing tennis court.
Currently there is $162,000 proposed for the FY 03 budget for the facility. In order to
maintain that budget, the facility can be no more than 10,000 square feet. The facility
should be built in a manner that would allow it to be expanded when funds became
available. The following budget is based on estimates previously done by city staff and
information gathered from the equipment manufacturer's literature. The budgets reflect
costs for a base park of 10,000 sq/ft and the costs of developing an additional 5,000 sq/ft.
or 10,000 sq/ft.
Phase I
Base Facility
Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft
Equipment
Professional Fees
Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft.
Signage
Lighting
Benches (4)
Water Fountain (installed)
Subtotal
10% Contingency
Grand Total
Phase II
Option 1
Additional
Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft
Equipment
Professional Fees
Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft
Subtotal
10% Contingency
Grand Total
10,000 Square feet
$ 55,00000
$ 20,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$147,000.00
$ 14,700.00
$161,700.00
5,000 Square feet
$ 27,500.00
$ 70,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$104,000.00
$ 10,400.00
$134,400.00
Option 2
10,000 Square feet
$ 55,000.00
$110,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$178,000.00
$ 17,800.00
$195,000.00
8 09113107 12: 40 PM
(Cost of additional equipment is based on pre -designed facility from Ramptech catalog
based on a 15,525 and 19,575 square foot facility. Spohn Ranch estimates $177,542 and
$231,832 respectively for equipment costs)
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Based on conversations with the City of Temple and with Curtis Bingham the following
maintenance costs are forecast.
Electricity $2,000/annually
Daily Inspection (Crew 30 min/day) $2,020/annually
Monthly Inspection (Supervisor 3 hr/month) $ 525/annually
General Maintenance Supplies $5,000/annually
Total $9,545/annually
9 09113107 12: 40 PM
LOCATION
The location of the park is a critical item, if the park is not convenient for the participants,
it will not be used. There are several park sites within the City that could accommodate
the facility. They include Bee Creek Park, W.A. Tarrow Park, Central Park, and Wolf
Pen Creek. These sites are all large enough to handle the facility and all have access to
neighborhoods. However, Southwood Athletic Park seems to be a more logical choice
for several reasons.
First, Southwood Athletic Park is co -located with a maintenance facility so the daily
maintenance would be more readily available. Second Southwood Park currently
includes The Exit Teen Center, and these individuals will be some of our primary
participants. Southwood has a location, near the Teen Center that can accommodate the
facility and has adequate parking. Finally, the user group that we are attempting to satisfy
already uses Southwood as their skate board and roller blading facility. This occurs on a
periodic basis at the existing basketball courts and surrounding areas.
Locating the facility at Southwood would put it in an area already identified by the user
group as the place to go. Locating it elsewhere may cause the participants to continue to
use the facilities at Southwood Park in an inappropriate manner. Several sites within the
park are being considered for the skateboard facilities
Southwood Park
10 09113107 12: 40 PM
To. Brvan
11 09113107 12: 40 PM
LIABILITY
Liability has long been a major concern of municipalities deciding whether or not to build
a skate park. Skateboards and skateboarding have the appearance and the reputation for
being dangerous. However, recent studies have shown this to be a false image. In the
National Parks and Recreation Association's July 1997edition of it monthly journal, Matt
Rankin reports:
"When compared to other recreational activities,
skateboarding has a lower percentage of reported injuries
per participant (.49%) than other activities, including soccer
(.93%), baseball (2.25%) and Basketball (1.49%).5
Additionally, the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code, Chapter 75 Limitation of
Landowners' Liability (appendix d) contains specific language that recognizes "skating,
in -line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, and rollerblading." as recreation. It also
states that "the owner does not assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to
any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is
granted."
This protection is granted providing the City post signage with specific language dictated
by the Code. This language is also part of the Texas Municipal Leagues Public Skating
Guideline published in April 2000 (appendix e). TML also provides guidelines for
operation, maintenance, equipment, the skating environment and a sample of facility
regulations.
Additionally, recommending that all riders wear safety equipment could further reduce
the City's liability while in the park. According to TML this equipment should include,
helmets, knee and elbow pads, wrist supports and proper shoes.
Given the language provided by the State Legislature and implementing most, if not all of
TML's recommendations would appear to reduce the City's risk to an acceptable level.
12 09113107 12: 40 PM
RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
It is recommend that the facility be constructed in several phases. The first phase should
be at least 10,000 square feet and built with the funds planned in FY03. The second phase
could be either 5,000 or 10,000 depending on the use the original 10,000 square foot
facility receives, this development could be done in FY04 or 05 depending on the
financing available.
The facility should be built using the ramp method for two reasons. First, the installation
cost is considerably less than the "in ground" method. Second, over time, the facility can
be rearranged to provide different experiences for the participants. A fence, with a single
gate should be included with the construction to allow the park to be closed for
maintenance and repair. This would also limit the possibility of a "loose" skateboard or
bike reaching the general public, and limiting the speeds at which the participants may
enter the general flow of park traffic. The youth of the community should be invited to be
involved in the process, either through public hearings, focus groups, one-on-one
discussions with the skaters or a combination of all three. Their inclusion will assist in
achieving a design that is attractive to the youth and increase the likelihood of the
facility's acceptance
OPERATIONS
At this time, it is recommended that the facility be fenced with a single entry point. The
facility hours of operation and rules and equipment recommendations should be post at
the gate where they would be visible to all who enter. The facility should not be
supervised during normal hours of operation. We should at least remain open to the
prospect of allowing bicycles to use the facility, depending upon the type of construction
and the manufacturer's recommendations. Separation of users should be achieved
through the use of posted times and specific signs indicating whether bicycles are allowed
or not.
MAINTENANCE
After discussing the issue with Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent, we are
making the following operational recommendations. The facility should receive a general
inspection daily to check for broken objects, trash and general cleanliness. An in depth
park inspection should occur once a month, during the regular inspection rotation. This
would take approximately 3 hours to inspect for broken cracked or chipped surfaces,
secure fasteners and other safety related items.
13 09113107 12: 40 PM
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 of the facility and operation of
the facility be unsupervised with recommended rules posted.
FUNDING
The current funding plan is to issue $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation in FY03 to
build a skate facility. These funds could be used to build the initial 10,000 square foot
phase. Funding for the second phase could be either through the issuance of Certificates
of Obligation or through inclusion in the next Capital Improvement Program.
Monument, CO
14 09113107 12: 40 PM
REFERENCES
1. Popke, Michael, "Skate Nation", Athletic Business, 69, October 2000.
2. Bennet, Greg, "No Longer Forgotten", Todays Plavaround. 25, September 2001.
3.Guthrie, Dick, "Q&A", Skatepark, 12, November 2001.
4.Texas Municipal League, "Skating Facility Guidelines", 5, April 2000.
5. Rankin, Matt, "City Skateparks are Not A Recipe For Disaster", P&R, July 1997.
15 09113107 12: 40 PM
Appendix A
College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Agenda and Minutes, January 30, 2001
and Minutes, November 13.2001
16 09113107 12: 40 PM
I. Call to order.
2. Hear visitors.
3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting.
4. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the
possible installation of a roller hockey and/or skateboard rink at an
existing College Station park.
5. Adjourn.
17 09113107 12: 40 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.
18 09113107 12: 40 PM
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 Bogart, 2200 Lobo
Raymond Vogel, 2200 Lobo
Robert Cogburn, 1402 Caudill
Jason Arechiga, 117 Sunset Drive
David Worley, 3 819 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
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
Barbara Rees, 4905 Inglewood
Mike Jones, 1606 Una
Justin Goss, 3523 Graz
19
Austin Orand, 2321 Trace Meadows
Matt Fisher, 126 Dunn
Craig Joyer, 2321 Trace Meadows
Josh Rails, 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.
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.
WE
Eric stated that one hurdle might be that any changes to the Wolf Pen Creek area
would have to be reviewed by the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board. He
went on to say that if Wolf Pen Creek is chosen, the Parks and Recreation
Department staff recommend that the park have Open Skate, and that Texas
Municipal League Insurance cover risk.
Eric opened the floor to the Board for questions. Chris Barzilla asked if the
facility would be fenced off or left open to the public if Open Skate were chosen.
Eric replied that it could be done either way, but the facility would most likely be
Open Skate. John Nichols asked if the facility would be lighted. Eric stated that
the decision would probably have to be made after a location is chosen. He went
on to say that lighting is an option, but the Development Services Department, the
Design Review Board, as well as residents in the neighborhood surrounding the
chosen park would have to have input. Chris opened the floor to the public
hearing.
Mary Gail Buck - Ms. Buck stated that on Thursday nights, high school kids get
together on the basketball courts at Southwood Valley Athletic Park and set up
ramps. She would prefer that the facility be at Southwood Valley Athletic Park
instead of at Wolf Pen Creek' or Central Park, due to the close proximity to the
hospital. She went on to say that she has been to skate parks and has seen some
terrible accidents. Ms. Buck stated that because of the Teen Center, kids are
already at Southwood Valley Athletic Park. She requested that the facility also be
open to BMX bikers as well.
John Barker — Mr. Barker stated that he feels that the Open Skate is a good option.
He said that Wolf Pen Creek and Southwood Valley Athletic Park are both good
locations for the facility. Times of use should be between sunrise and 11:00 p.m.,
and there should be a push timer to light the facility. He went on to say that he is a
BMX biker, and he would like the facility to be open to BMX bikers as well.
Chris asked if the ramps used for skateboarding and inline skates are the same
ramps that are used by BMX bikers. Mr. Barker responded that they are. Chris
asked if there would be a problem mixing skaters and bikers in the same facility.
Mr. Barker responded that it would not be a problem. He went on to say that
different sized ramps would have to be built to accommodate all levels of skill
(beginners to advanced). John C. asked how this could be accomplished. Mr.
Barker suggested not building ramps over twelve -feet tall. He recommended
building three or six-foot tall ramps, and making them 20-feet wide. John C.
asked Mr. Barker where he currently skated. Mr. Barker responded that he
currently skates on the stairs and handrails at Texas A&M University.
John Fife — Mr. Fife stated that a skate park would accommodate several different
styles of sports and pointed out that a roller hockey rink would only support one
style.
21
Jon Turton asked for a show of hands from the citizens in the audience who were
in favor of a skate park (the majority of the audience raised their hands). Jon then
asked for a show of hands who were in favor of a roller hockey rink (few hands
were raised).
Jason Andrew (name/address not on visitor list) — Mr. Andrew, a student at Texas
A&M University, asked about the planning of the facility. He stated that he has
encountered cracks on the surface at the skating facility in Bryan, which makes it
difficult to skate. He was also against a fenced rink because he has friends that
have rammed and broken their fingers on them. John N. asked Mr. Andrew if he
had any preferences to a location. Mr. Andrew stated that any location would be
okay with him. He went on to say that he would highly recommend push button
lighting. Chris asked if there is a wait to use the Bryan facility. Mr. Andrew
responded that there is a network of players that decide times of play. He went on
to say that this network helps to incorporate the neighborhood.
David Barker — Mr. Barker stated that his family has acreage off of Rock Prairie
Road. Four years ago, he built some dirt ramps for his son, John. He went on to
say that people of all ages have seen the ramps from the road and come by and use
them. He said that all of the age groups appear to get along together. Mr. Barker
and his wife are concerned about the liability and have had the players sign
waivers. He said that the facility needs to be designed to accommodate all age
groups, beginners trhough advanced. John C. asked what has kept his son
interested in the sport for so long. Mr. Barker responded that it is the challenge of
the sport.
David Worley — Mr. Worley and thirteen of his coworkers at Universal Computer
Systems, signed a petition in favor of an inline hockey rink as opposed to a skate
park (see attachment). He stated that the major limitation to the rink in Bryan is
the distance from College Station. Currently, he and his friends are using the
basketball court at Shenandoah Park due to the close proximity and the fencing
there. Mr. Worley stated that roller hockey is a unique sport, and that there is a
desire for it in College Station. He is also in favor of lighting at the facility.
Sam Price — Mr. Price stated that if there were to be a skate park, it would bring another
culture into College Station. He believes that a skate park should be built due to the fact
that College Station has a lot of over -eighteen establishments, and this park would be
good for the younger crowd. Mr. Price went on to say that parking would not be a
problem, due to the fact that a lot of the skaters and bikers don't own cars.
Scott and Andrew Meyer — The Meyer's stated that they had submitted a petition (on file)
with approximately 70 signatures on it for a skate park. The Meyer's feel that there
shouldn't be roller hockey rink because people would have to wait to use it. If a skate
park were built, it could be used by a lot of people at the same time.
22
David Watson (name/address not on visitor list) — Mr. Watson would like to have a skate
park and a roller hockey rink. He said that lighting is important, especially in the summer
when kids sometimes play until midnight. He suggested having people sign release forms
to reduce liability.
Mike Jones — Mr. Jones stated that he has watched trends, and it seems like skateboarding
is becoming more popular. He feels that it would be beneficial to the community to have
a place for kids that are on the verge of being excluded from other activities where they
can feel good about themselves.
PJ Armstrong — Mr. Armstrong suggested that if such a facility is built, to have a separate
day for skateboarding, roller blading, and BMXing for safety purposes.
Levi Peachey — Mr. Peachey said that he is a supporter of a skate park. He has been
involved in skateboarding for approximately seven years, and stated that there has never
really been a place where people can go and skate, or just sit back and watch others skate.
He suggested having a step-up system for ramps by putting smaller ramps in one section,
and working up to the larger ones to accommodate all skill levels. Jon T. asked Mr.
Peachey what maintenance problems he has encountered in other parks. Mr. Peachey
responded that the only problems that he has seen have been with the rotting or damaged
ramps. Jon T. asked what the chances of getting people to wear helmets in an
unsupervised park would be. Mr. Peachey thinks that if a sign were posted requesting
helmets, people would be respectful and probably wear them.
Chris Marshall — Mr. Marshall stated that the City of College Station needs to seek input
from skaters and bikers concerning the design of the facility.
David Barker — Mr. Barker said that his son has had several accidents, and from a liability
standpoint, he is in favor of kids wearing helmets up to the age of eighteen years old.
Jeromy Benavides — Mr. Benavides said that he was got kicked off of, and suspended
from the Texas A&M University campus for skateboarding. He feels that a skate park
would be a good alternative to the campus. Mr. Benavides thinks that having a pro shop
at the facility is also a good way for the City to recoup some of the construction costs.
Samantha Rosin - Ms. Rosin stated that she is in favor of a skate park, but wouldn't mind
having a roller hockey rink as well. She suggested that if the facility is going to be Open
Skate, it be "skate at your own risk" and it should be optional for people to wear helmets.
She also suggested having separate days for skateboarding, rollerblading, and BMXing.
William Allen (name/address not on visitor list) — Mr. Allen is a member of the Brazos
Valley Cyclists. He would like access to the facility to be primarily through bikeways.
He thinks that a pro shop is a good idea, and feels that a pro should be on site to supervise
the facility and to teach others. He also suggested that the facility address multi needs
(skateboarding, rollerblading, and BMXing), or have different sites for different needs.
Chris B. asked how the City could find a pro. William suggested that the City could post
the position, visit competitions, put an ad in the newspaper, or ask around. Chris asked
23
what certifications a pro would need. Mr. Allen could not address the question in 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
public facilities to skate. He said that a skate park would give some people in the
community a place to go, and feels that people from surrounding cities would use the
facility as well. Mr. Brown suggested charging a small surcharge fee. He also feels that a
pro shop is a good idea, because there aren't that many places that sell skating supplies
near by (supplies usually have to be mail ordered). Bill Davis asked what the cost is to
skate at a private park. Mr. Brown responded that it usually costs $10, or some pay a
membership fee.
24
Garrett House - Mr. House is concerned that the layout of the facility is going to be too
small. He said that when the City builds the facility, there would be more people skating
on it than ever suspected, and that the facility should be built in a way to make room for
expansion after it is built. He stated that the area between the pavilion and the Teen
Center at Southwood Valley Athletic Park is too small. He also said that smaller ramps
need to be built away from the bigger ramps. He went on to say that the City tends to
build facilities that are too small for the younger population (ages twelve to seventeen
years). John C. asked Mr. Garrett if there is a model sized park that the Board should be
looking at. Mr. House suggested that the Board look into privately owned Mansfield and
Eisenburg skate parks, and city owned skate parks in Georgetown and Tyler.
Mary Gail Buck — Ms. Buck stated that the City should get something put in place as soon
as possible because kids don't want to have to wait. She went on to say that something
small could be built to get started, then added on to at a later time.
Dakota Diehl — He stated that if the facility that is built were as big as the kids want, they
would bring their own props and build on to it themselves.
Ekhi Arzac — Mr. Arzac stated that lighting the facility is a good idea and also offered to
donate a half pipe from his backyard.
Jason Logan - Mr. Logan had concerns about the design of the facility. He stated that the
City could start small, but make room for expansion. He also said that the City should
consider designing the facility so that the players aren't facing the sun.
Marshall Rowe - Mr. Rowe feels that helmets should not be required. He has been
skateboarding for two years, and has not had any serious injuries. He also feels that
Southwood Valley Athletic Park would be a good place to put the facility due to the close
proximity to the Teen Center.
John Fife — Mr. Fife said that skaters would appreciate any sized facility right now. He
also offered to help build the facility.
Charles Bryant - Mr. Bryant suggested finding a way to build the facility in the area
behind the Teen Center.
Carla Barker - Ms. Barker said that the growth of the facility is a big issue and feels that a
lot of people would come to skate from out of town. She is concerned about supervision
rules for safety purposes, because serious accidents can happen. She is also concerned
that the ramps be built with safety in mind. Ms. Barker feels that refreshments should be
made available, possibly at a pro shop.
Jeromy Benavides - Mr. Benavides gave
www.bestofaustin.com/irr.
a web site for information:
25
Quinten Parmer — Mr. Parmer stated that there is a bond among skaters. He pointed out
that there is already a roller hockey rink in Bryan, and feels that the City of College
Station should build a skate park.
Aaron Loveless — Mr. Loveless stated that he is good at rollerblading, but right now, there
is no place to go skate and learn new tricks. He suggested having supervision at the
facility and having that person rent out helmets to ensure safety. He said that the City
really needs a skate park because College Station is a college -centered town, and there is
not much for the younger generation to do.
Blake Carroll — Mr. Carroll suggested looking at two skate parks on the south side of
Houston.
Mary Gail Buck — Ms. Buck believes that supervision is important, and there should be
access to a telephone at the facility. She suggested operating the facilities in a manner
similar to the public pools, where the City charges an admission or membership fee and
several staff members work at the facility during operation hours. She also suggested
fencing the facility off to keep people from entering it after hours.
One citizen stated that www.dexsk8.com is another web site that the Board could look at
for additional information.
Janet Dale - Ms. Dale is a mother of a skateboarder. She said that a lot of people consider
skateboarding as a fad, but it has been around for a long time. She went on to say that
building such a facility would have a positive economic impact. She is in favor of
supervision for safety and liability purposes, and feels that lighting the facility is very
necessary. She said that 10,000 feet would be the minimum size for a facility.
Chris thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. He said that the Board would love to
build both a roller hockey rink and a skateboard park, but due to finances, may only be
able to build one or the other. He went on to say that the input presented during the
meeting would be brought back to the Board for consideration at another meeting. Jon T.
asked if there were a way for the citizens to track the progress of this project. Laura
Wood stated that she would set up a web site that would be updated as events happen.
Steve stated that the Parks and Recreation Department could also post notices at the parks
and on the public access channel.
4. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
W
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Parks and Recreation Conference Room
1000 Krenek Tap Road
College Station, Texas 77840
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to order.
2. Hear visitors.
3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting.
4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of October 9, 2001.
5. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the public release draft of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding park land dedication requirements for the
Westfield addition.
7. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning skate parks.
8. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of members to the Conference Center
Advisory Committee.
9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the parkland dedication checklist and
detention/retention pond criteria.
10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the possibility of putting batting cages
and backstops at Bee Creek Park.
II. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements:
➢ Vision Statement #3, Strategy #4a (Develop and Urban Forestry Plan) and
➢ Vision Statement #4 (Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities),
➢ Strategy #1 (Performing Arts Center);
➢ Strategy #2 (Parks Maintenance Standards);
➢ Strategy 43 ( Intergenerational Parks);
➢ Strategy #4 (Comprehensive Parks Planning);
➢ Strategy #5 (Comprehensive Leisure Programs);
➢ Strategy #6 (Enhance Cultural Opportunities Through Existing Art Program);
➢ Strategy #7 (Connect Greenways); and
➢ Strategy #8 (Improve Communication between Boards)
12. Consent items:
-- Capital Improvement Project Report.
Next meeting date and agenda.
13. Adjourn.
27
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for
sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call
(979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website
http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19.
28
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Parks and Recreation Conference Room
1000 Krenek Tap Road
College Station, Texas 77840
7:00 p.m.
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park
Planner; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations
Superintendent; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Grace Calbert, Conference Center
Supervisor; Jane Kee, City Planner; Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff
Planner.
Board Members Present: Glen Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Don Allison; Bill Davis; Glenn
Schroeder; Jon Turton; Laura Wood (Alternate).
Board Member Absent: John Nichols, Chairman.
Visitors:
Ben Miller, 2001 Holleman Drive W., #914, College Station, Texas
Cristen Ratcliff, 800 Marion Pugh, #807, College Station, Texas
Jonathan McLavey, Hart Hall on TAMU Campus, College Station, Texas
Teresa Runcaw, Eppright Hall on TAMU Campus, College Station, Texas
Zach Knight, 2002 Longmire Court, #413, College Station, Texas
1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Glen Davis made a motion
to appoint Glenn Schroeder as Acting Chairman of the meeting. Bill Davis seconded the
motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
Hear visitors: No visitors spoke during this item.
3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Bill made a
motion to accept the absence of John Nichols as excused. Larry Farnsworth seconded
the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of October 9, 2001: Don Allison made a
motion to approve the minutes from October 9, 2001. Larry F. seconded the motion. All
were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
5. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the public release draft of the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Steve Beachy said that the UDO is a
comprehensive project that the City has been working on for over a year. He added that
there is a public release draft available and that staff is looking for input from citizens
and appointed board and committee members. This item was put on the agenda to solicit
written comments from the Board that will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission during their workshop meeting on November 29, 2001, at 5:30 p.m.
29
Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel took the floor. She stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission Chairman had requested to have one or two members of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board present to discuss the Board's comments during the
workshop meeting. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chairman John Nichols had
previously stated that he would be able to attend the meeting. Glen D. also volunteered
to attend.
Sabine reviewed a PowerPoint presentation concerning the information that the UDO
covers. She explained that the public review period would be from November 5, 2001,
to January 30, 2002. She also went over the expected timeline for the UDO adoption
(see attached PowerPoint Presentation).
Sabine discussed some of the highlights of the UDO. One highlight was the section
pertaining to Open Space. She added that greenways currently are not addressed in the
City's ordinances, and feels that the section pertaining to open space will help address
them. The open space requirement would not just include the dedication of recreational
land, but would also include an actual minimum amount of open space requirement for
every residential development, that will most likely be used for passive recreation,
retention, and detention. By making this open space requirement an element of designing
subdivisions, the City would improve its ability to make linkages between subdivisions
and to implement the City's Greenways Master Plan.
Bill is concerned that if open space becomes a requirement, developers may wish to
build on smaller plats so that they will not have to develop as much land. He asked if the
requirement would apply to the development of small lots or units. Sabine replied that
the UDO draft currently states that if the lots are residential, the open space requirement
will apply.
Glen D. asked if developers would have the option of paying a fee in lieu of the open
space requirement. Sabine replied that currently there is not a provision in the UDO that
would allow a fee in lieu of the open space requirement. Bill asked if the open space
requirement would require that there be public access to the dedication. Sabine replied
that currently there is not a requirement.
Glenn S. asked if there would be a standard for the type or quality of land that could be
dedicated to the city through the open space requirement. Steve added that there would
need to be policy guidelines on acceptance of open space, and further definition of what
the open space requirement is intended to do.
In summary of the above, in reference to Article 7, Section 7.4a (Open Space Criteria) of
the UDO, the Board showed concern that there is no provision to allow for those
developments with a small number of lots or units. They felt that there should be some
kind of thought process to establish a minimum size development for the open space
requirement, as well as to provide further definition of an open space.
Steve pointed out that the Park Land Dedication Ordinance revisions that the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board approved on October 9, 2001, had not been incorporated into
the UDO draft under Article 8, Section 8.5 (Park Land Dedication). Jane Kee stated that
the revisions were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission during their
meeting on November 8, 2001, and would be incorporated in the UDO. She added that
30
the UDO Consultant and the City's legal staff have advised that the Park Land
Dedication fees be approved by a separate resolution in order to keep them separate from
the UDO. That way, if the fees need to be updated, the UDO would not have to be
amended. Steve also pointed out that the recent policy information pertaining to the
acceptance of detention/retention facilities should also be incorporated into the UDO. In
summary, the Board would like for all of the current elements of the revised Park Land
Dedication Ordinance that the Planning and Zoning Commission passed to be included in
the UDO.
Steve referred to Article 7, Section 7.3 (Sign Regulations). He noted that city parks were
not specifically listed in the regulations, and asked what flag and sign regulations would
apply to park development. In summary, the Board feels that there should be better
explanation in the UDO of how these regulations will pertain to park development.
The Board was in consensus on the above. Kris Lehde will put the Board's comments
into draft format for the Board to review prior to the joint meeting with the Planning and
Zoning Commission on November 29, 2001.
No motion was made on this item.
6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding park land dedication
requirements for the Westfield addition: Steve said that this item is a follow-up on
previous action that the Board took regarding the Westfield Village Subdivision. At the
October 9, 2001, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, the Board had approved
4.299 acres as the park land dedication for two (2) tracts of land: the original Westfield
Subdivision, Phases I through IV, and a tract of land adjacent and to the south. In
addition to the motion, the Board had asked to review the developer's (Randy French)
plat for connectivity and accessibility between the two (2) tracts before it was presented
to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Pete Vanecek reviewed a checklist that staff had prepared, and also showed a site map
that included the original park land dedication, as well as the 5.9-acre proposed plat
between the two tracts of land. Steve asked the Board to keep in mind that Mr. French is
not requesting to dedicate the 5.9-acre plat of land as a public park; he is only showing,
as the Board had requested, the accessibility between the two (2) tracts of land that had
been dedicated.
After some discussion, Bill D. made a motion to only approve the access plan as
presented, not to recommend that the plat become public park land at any point in the
future. The motion was also contingent upon the expectation that there will be sidewalks
and accessibility as presented in the plan. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in
favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
7. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning skate parks: Steve stated that this
item is a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council Strategic Issue.
Recreation Superintendent, Peter Lamont, has been given the responsibility of
implementing this issue. Steve referred to the draft report that was included in the Board
packets (Skate Park Feasibility Study Draft Report). He added that the report had also
been given to the City Manager's Office, as well as to the Risk Management, Legal,
31
Budget, and Fiscal Services Departments for review. The final report will be presented
to the City Council on December 20, 2001.
Peter Lamont stated that the report was based upon research from national organizations
and magazines, and also from a survey conducted within cities in Texas that have
municipally owned and operated skate parks. Peter reviewed the report with the Board.
The City currently has $162,000 planned for the Parks and Recreation Department for
the construction of a skating facility. These funds are to be raised by issuing certificates
of obligation in fiscal year 2003. The approximate cost to construct a facility would be
anywhere from $279,400 (for a 15,000 SF facility) to $357,500 (for a 20,000 SF facility).
Jon T. suggested constructing the park now with the $162,000 budget, and working with
the community to build what they want. He added that any additional cost could be a
barrier to getting the park constructed. Steve responded that the original $162,000
budget was established for the construction of a roller hockey rink based upon what it
cost the City of Bryan to build their facilities. The public hearing that was held on
January 30, 2001, revealed that the community was in favor of constructing a skate park,
rather than a roller hockey rink. Steve added that the feasibility report recommends
funding the additional amount of the project through future capital improvement funds.
Glen D. suggested constructing the facility in two (2) phases by using the budgeted
$162,000 for the first phase, and expanding the facility using future capital improvement
funding for the second phase. He added that a 15,000 square foot facility could be
constructed in the first phase. The cost would include concrete, professional fees,
fencing, signage, lighting, and benches. Any remaining funds from this phase could be
used to purchase equipment. The facility could be constructed in such a manner that
additional footage and amenities could be added during the second phase of the project.
Glenn Schroeder suggested constructing a 10,000-12,000 square foot facility during the
first phase, rather than a 15,000 square foot facility. This would minimize the cost of the
concrete, and provide flexibility to purchase more equipment and/or amenities.
Steve pointed out that the $162,000 would not be available until fiscal year 2003. Bill
suggested trying to accelerate the project by going to the Council and asking for the
$162,000 prior to fiscal year 2003. Glenn S. pointed out the fact that the budget for
Fiscal Year 2002 had already been approved. To get additional funding now would
require Council to amend the budget. He added that the Board could ask that Council
issue certificates of obligation.
Glen D. made a motion recommending constructing the facility in two phases, the first
being the construction of a 10,000 SF facility, and using $162,000 issued from
certificates of obligation requested by staff of the City Council, and the second being the
construction of an additional 10,000 square feet (to total a 20,000 SF facility) using
future capital improvement funds. The motion included a recommendation to direct staff
to come up with cost alternates and a timeline to construct a 10,000 SF, 15,000 SF, and
20,000 SF facility. Jon T. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion
passed unanimously.
32
Steve stated that the report would be amended to include the Board's recommendations,
along with feedback from City staff, and would be brought back to the Board during their
regular meeting on December 11, 2001.
8. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of members to the Conference
Center Advisory Committee: Jon T. made a motion to appoint Glenda Ellredge and
reappoint Fran Lamb to the Conference Center Advisory Committee. Don Allison
seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Park Land Dedication
checklist and detention/retention pond criteria: Steve said that staff had been directed
to develop a checklist that developers would be required to fill out for proposed park
land dedication. The checklist would then be distributed to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to their meetings, in
order to provide more information on the dedication being presented.
Staff had also been directed to develop criteria for the acceptance of detention/retention
ponds. The criteria states that detention/retention ponds will not be accepted as part of
the required park land dedication, but only in addition to required dedication. This
change to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance would require that the detention or
retention pond design would have to be approved by City staff and meet the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board's policy concerning detention/retention area design.
Glen D. made a motion to accept the park land dedication checklist and the
detention/retention pond criteria. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and
the motion passed unanimously.
Glen D. recommended that staff distribute the park land dedication checklist prior to the
meetings. That would give the Board time to visit the proposed site if they wished.
Steve stated that there are times when the developer may not have the dedication
information until right before the meeting. He added that the Planning and Zoning
Commission meets twice a month, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board only
meets once a month, so at times, it puts a crunch on the developers to get their
information submitted. Glen D. recommended that the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board move to two meetings a month in order to coordinate with the Planning and
Zoning Commission's meeting schedule.
10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the possibility of putting
batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park: Steve said that this is a follow-up
item. Staff had previously been directed to come up with cost estimates for putting
batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park. Steve referred to a site map of the park.
He said that staff has come up with preliminary cost estimates, but have not done an
analysis of the site in order to determine specific locations for these amenities. However,
one idea would be to put them in the area that is located between the tennis courts and
the parking lot, adjacent to the softball fields. He added that it is important to ensure
that the placement of these amenities does not cause problems for park users.
Larry Farnsworth asked what funding source would be used for the project. Steve
replied that the project is currently not budgeted for. He added that there might be the
33
possibility of researching whether park land dedication funds could be used to purchase
the backstops.
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision
Statements: Steve said that the Department is on schedule with all of the strategic issues
that they are responsible for.
➢ Vision Statement #3, Strategy #4a (Develop an Urban Forestry Plan): There was
no discussion on this item.
➢ Vision Statement 04 (Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities):
➢ Strategy #1 (Performing Arts Center): There was no discussion on this item.
➢ Strategy #2 (Parks Maintenance Standards): The first quarterly report will be
submitted to the Board prior to January 1, 2002.
➢ Strategy #3 (Intergenerational Parks): Intergenerational amenities are being
incorporated into existing and future capital improvement projects.
➢ Strategy #4 (Comprehensive Parks Planning): This issue relates to updating the
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. The Department has started the
initial review of the plan, and will try to incorporate different components of the plan
for discussion on future agendas.
➢ Strategy 45 (Comprehensive Leisure Programs): This issue has two components.
1.) Skate Park Feasibility Study: The findings of this study will be presented to the
City Council on December 20, 2001.
2.) Senior Facility Feasibility Study: There is a student group from Texas A&M
University working on this study. They will present their initial findings to the
City Council on December 6, 2001. A final report with recommendations will be
taken to the Council for consideration in January.
➢ Strategy #6 (Enhance Cultural Opportunities through Existing Art Program):
There was no discussion on this item.
➢ Strategy #7 (Connect Greenways): There was no discussion on this item.
➢ Strategy #8 (Improve Communication between Boards): There was no discussion
on this item.
12. Consent items:
Capital Improvement Project Report:
Jon T. asked what the status was on Madeley Park. Steve said that there had been a
neighborhood meeting held, with representatives from Bryan and College Station
Parks and Recreation Departments in attendance (see attached letter from
neighborhood meeting). There is potential to do a joint project with the City of
Bryan for access to this park.
- Glen D. asked for an update on Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Steve said that
the groundbreaking for the Phase I construction of the park and the Veterans
Memorial project was held on November 12, 2001. He added that the City Council
had directed staff to find alternate funding sources to provide six soccer fields. The
contracts have been signed and construction for Phase I will start soon.
34
Glen D. asked what the status is on resurfacing the Jack and Dorothy Miller jogging
tract. Steve said that it was suggested that the resurfacing be done with an
interlocal agreement between the City of College Station, the College Station
Independent School District, and the Parent/Teacher Organization.
Larry asked what the timeline was for the Board to give their input for the next
Capital Improvement Program. Steve responded that staff had turned in their initial
project list that day, and he wasn't sure at what point the City would be soliciting
recommendations from the Board. Glen D. asked to see a list of what the
Department has submitted at the December meeting.
Next meeting date and agenda: There will be a special joint meeting between the
City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Thursday, December 6,
2001, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers.
The Board recommended that the following items be
discussed at the meeting:
- Next Capital Improvement Program;
- Skate Park;
- Board Goals and Objectives;
- Previous topics presented to the City Council (May 10, 2001);
- The Board's acceptance of the changes to the Park Land Dedication
Ordinance and the Unified Development Ordinance Public Release Draft; and
- The status of the strategic issues pertaining to the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Kris will e-mail this information electronically to the Board prior to the meeting.
The next regular meeting of the Board would be held on Tuesday, December 11,
2001, at 7:00 p.m, at the Central Park Conference Room.
Glen Davis recommended that the following items be included on the meeting
agenda:
- Review of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Goals and Objectives;
and
- Consideration of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board moving to two (2)
meetings a month.
Glen also requested that the Capital Improvement report be moved to the top of future
agendas.
13. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
IR
Appendix B
Skate Park Survey and Summary Results
36
City of College Station
Skateboard Park Survey
Is your parked staffed during hours of operation?
Yes No
If not, is it gated?
Yes No
What are your hours of operation?
Is safety equipment required?
Yes No
If yes, what type (please circle all that apply)
Helmets
Kneepads
Wristgaurds
Other
Is there a City Ordinance requiring these items?
Yes No
Did the local youth help with the design and layout?
Yes No
How did you solicit/facilitate their input?
When was your facility built?
How much did your facility cost to build?
What type of construction was used?
What is your annual operating cost?
Is your facility lighted? Yes No
May I have a contact name and phone number?
May I schedule a visit to your facility? Yes No
Please return to:
Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent, P.O. Box 9960, College Station, TX 77842 or
fax 979-764-3737
Skatepark Survey Results
37
Four cities were identified as having city operated skateparks. The cities were Abilene,
Temple, Tyler and Waco. A survey was sent to each city and then returned . The results
of this survey are below.
Is you park staffed during hours of operation?
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 1 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
38
Appendix C
Safety Equipment Survey
dej
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
7f27101
Knee Elbow
Helmet
Pads Pads
OUT OF CALIFORNIA
Reno, NV
Jeff Mann Mann(@cJ,rano.nv.us
1
I
11
1
Littleton, CO
JcAnn Gould JoAnnG(0ssprd.org
Lake Oswego. OR
Colleen Hanson chansonq.ci.oswego.or.us
Willoughby, OH
Brian Katz
bkatz@wtlkwghbyohlo.com
Newport RI
Susan Cooper
scooper@Cityof Newportcom
1
Oregon City, OR
Dee Craig
dcraigcl.oregon-Gty.or.us
f
Kenosha. WI
ITFlatso@aol.com
1'
tI
1
Honolulu, HI
[Toni Robinson ITrobinson@co.honolulu.ht.us
I I
I
I
Crawfordsville, IN
Cheryl Keim Ickelm(awico.net
+
+I
11 I
1
Out of California Totals I I
1 4
3
3
CALIFORNIA ONLY
I
I I
San Clemente, CA
(Steve Mead Imead(Msan-Gemente.org
I 11
11
+I I
Mission Viejo, CA
1949.470306+
1
1
tl I
Laguna Hills, CA
1949-707-2600
+
1
t 1
Huntington Beach, CA
1714-536-5486
Claremont, CA
Dick Guthrie 909-399-5493
1)
t
1 {
San Dimas
AI Martin 909-599-7312
t 1
1
t
LaVeme
18illAguirre 909-596.8700
I +I
+I
+1 I
Vista
(Cathy Brendel 760-63"152
t
1
if
I
Oceanside
760-435-5041
I +
1
1
Corona
1JudySarz
Jonathan Jones lioniaci.corona.ca us
1 11
11
1
1
RanchoCucemonga
(Pat Meyer pmayer@cci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us
1
1
1
California Totals
I
I
I
1 t 11
11
t 1
Overall Totals
I I
1 151
I
141
1
141
" Rules are posted recommending safety gear even when no ordinance exbre I
I
I 1
+ I I 1
I
+I
I
I+ I
I
I
I
1
I
11 (
it
11
I I 1
+ 1
I
I
+I I I I I
+I
I +f I
I I I
I +I I
+I
I I
I<10
I
I
1
I
I
11
1 1 1 11 I 11 1 I I I + I 11 I
it
I�
1 1 1 1 1
j 1 1 1 1I 1
+ 1 + tt 1 I1 7 3 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1�1 1i1 11 51
5
1
201 y 1 121 1 151 3I 1211I 31 61 71 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
II
Appendix D
Chapter 75 Civil Practices and Remedies Code
Limitation of Landowners' Liability
41
CHAPTER 75. LIMITATION OF LANDOWNERS' LIABILITY
§ 75.001. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) "Agricultural land" means land that is located in this state and that is suitable for:
(A) use in production of plants and fruits grown for human or animal consumption, or
plants grown for the production of fibers, floriculture, viticulture, horticulture, or planting
seed;
(B) forestry and the growing of trees for the purpose of rendering those trees into
lumber, fiber, or other items used for industrial, commercial, or personal consumption; or
(C) domestic or native farm or ranch animals kept for use or profit.
(2) "Premises" includes land, roads, water, watercourse, private ways, and buildings,
structures, machinery, and equipment attached to or located on the land, road, water,
watercourse, or private way.
(3) "Recreation" means an activity such as:
(A) hunting;
(B) fishing;
(C) swimming;
(D) boating;
(E) camping;
(F) picnicking;
(G) hiking;
(H) pleasure driving;
(I) nature study, including bird -watching;
(J) cave exploration;
(K) waterskiing and other water sports; or
(L) any other activity associated with enjoying nature or the outdoors.
(4) "Governmental unit" has the meaning assigned by Section 101.001.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg.,
ch. 62, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 736, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
§ 75.002. Liability Limited
(a) An owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land:
(1) does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land; and
(2) is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except for wilful or wanton
acts or gross negligence by the owner, lessee, or other occupant of agricultural land.
(b) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land gives permission to another or
invites another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by
giving the permission, does not:
(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose;
(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is
extended a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or
(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property
caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation
is extended.
42
(c) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property other than agricultural land gives
permission to another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant,
by giving the permission, does not:
(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose;
(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted a greater degree of care than is
owed to a trespasser on the premises; or
(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property
caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted.
(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not limit the liability of an owner, lessee, or
occupant of real property who has been grossly negligent or has acted with malicious
intent or in bad faith.
(e) In this section, "recreation" means, in addition to its meaning under Section
75.001, the following activities only if the activities take place inside a facility owned,
operated, or maintained by a municipality:
(1) hockey and in -line hockey; and
(2) skating, in -line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, and roller-blading.
(f) Subsection (e) limits the liability of a municipality only for those damages arising
directly from a recreational activity described in Subsection (e) but does not limit the
liability of a municipality for gross negligence or acts conducted in bad faith or with
malicious intent.
(g) Any municipality that owns, operates, or maintains a facility in which the
recreational activities described in Subsection (e) are conducted shall post and maintain a
clearly readable sign in a clearly visible location on or near the building. The sign shall
contain the following warning language:
WARNING
TEXAS LAW (CHAPTER 75, CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE) LIMITS
THE LIABILITY OF A MUNICIPALITY THAT OWNS, OPERATES, OR
MAINTAINS A FACILITY IN WHICH HOCKEY, IN -LINE HOCKEY, SKATING, IN -
LINE SKATING, ROLLER-SKATING, SKATEBOARDING, OR ROLLER-BLADING
ARE CONDUCTED FOR DAMAGES ARISING DIRECTLY FROM SUCH
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg.,
ch. 62, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg.,
ch. 734, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
§ 75.003. Application and Effect of Chapter
(a) This chapter does not relieve any owner, lessee, or occupant of real property of any
liability that would otherwise exist for deliberate, wilful, or malicious injury to a person
or to property.
(b) This chapter does not affect the doctrine of attractive nuisance, except that the
doctrine may not be the basis for liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural
land for any injury to a trespasser over the age of 16 years.
(c) Except for a governmental unit, this chapter applies only to an owner, lessee, or
occupant of real property who:
(1) does not charge for entry to the premises;
43
(2) charges for entry to the premises, but whose total charges collected in the previous
calendar year for all recreational use of the entire premises of the owner, lessee, or
occupant are not more than:
(A) twice the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises for the
previous calendar year; or
(B) four times the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises for the
previous calendar year, in the case of agricultural land; or
(3) has liability insurance coverage in effect on an act or omission described by
Section 75.004(a) and in the amounts equal to or greater than those provided by that
section.
(d) This chapter does not create any liability.
(e) Except as otherwise provided, this chapter applies to a governmental unit.
(f) This chapter does not waive sovereign immunity.
(g) To the extent that this chapter limits the liability of a governmental unit under
circumstances in which the governmental unit would be liable under Chapter 101, this
chapter controls.
(h) In the case of agricultural land, an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who
does not charge for entry to the premises because the individuals entering the premises for
recreation are invited social guests satisfies the requirement of Subsection (c)(1).
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg.,
ch. 832, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 62, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
§ 75.004. Limitation on Monetary Damages for Private Landowners
(a) Subject to Subsection (b), the liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of
agricultural land used for recreational purposes for an act or omission by the owner,
lessee, or occupant relating to the premises that results in damages to a person who has
entered the premises is limited to a maximum amount of $500,000 for each person and $1
million for each single occurrence of bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single
occurrence for injury to or destruction of property. In the case of agricultural land, the
total liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant for a single occurrence is limited to $1
million, and the liability also is subject to the limits for each single occurrence of bodily
injury or death and each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property stated in
this subsection.
(b) This section applies only to an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land used
for recreational purposes who has liability insurance coverage in effect on an act or
omission described by Subsection (a) and in the amounts equal to or greater than those
provided by Subsection (a). The coverage may be provided under a contract of insurance
or other plan of insurance authorized by statute. The limit of liability insurance coverage
applicable with respect to agricultural land may be a combined single limit in the amount
of $1 million for each single occurrence.
(c) This section does not affect the liability of an insurer or insurance plan in an action
under Article 21.21, Insurance Code, or an action for bad faith conduct, breach of
fiduciary duty, or negligent failure to settle a claim.
(d) This section does not apply to a governmental unit.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 520, § 3, eff. Aug. 28, 1995.
44
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
45
Appendix E
Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool
Public Skating Facility Guidelines
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC SKATING FACILITIES
(SKATEBOARDINGIROLLERBLADING)
INTRODUCTION
Skateboarding and aggressive in -line skating continue to be a rapidly growing enjoyment
or sport activity in the United States. Because skating is often performed on city streets,
sidewalks and other public and private places, the activity has caught the attention of
many local government officials. Some communities are looking into the possibility of
creating parks designed for aggressive skating. Such parks are intended to provide a
place for skaters to go and limit the problems of skaters on streets, sidewalks and other
areas intended for pedestrians or automobiles. The following is intended as a loss
prevention guideline for skateboarding and aggressive in -line skating facilities.
Skateboards that are used for enjoyment or sport are made of wood, aluminum, plastic or
fiberglass and are usually used in the street or a specialized arena. It is not uncommon to
find skateboarding and in -line. Skating occurring at one facility. Therefore, the term
"skating" will be frequently used in these guidelines as most of the points addressed could
apply to each of these activities. The increased popularity of skating brings the potential
for increased exposure for accidents. The following paragraph from the Consumer
Product Safety Commission states:
"Because there is an element of risk in the sport itself, even optimal conditions
would not completely preclude accidental injury. An experienced skateboarder
wearing full protective equipment and riding a well -engineered and maintained
skateboard in a carefully controlled environment is still at risk for injury or death.
The probability may be -reduced, but cannot be completely eliminated."
In addition, a Consumer Product Safety Commission NEISS Hospital Report -revealed
the following:
• One third of the victims were skating for less than one week. The majority of
these were injured the first time they tried skating.
• Two out of every five injured persons occurred while using a borrowed
skateboard.
• The most frequently injured were within the 10 to 14 year old age group, who
suffered 45% of the injuries.
• Fractures were the most common type of injury, accounting for about one-third
of all injuries. Over half of all injuries were to the lower arm or leg.
47
• Five percent of the injured persons were admitted for hospital in -patient
treatment.
• One out of every three accidents occurred when skaters struck irregularities in
the riding surface.
• One out of every four involved skaters who lost their balance.
• Slightly over 1% of the injuries were attributed directly to the product.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The skating facility should be designed and constructed with a priority commitment to
reducing the risk of injury to spectators and users and to reduce the liability exposure to
the local government. The purpose of the skating facility, park, ramp, or "area" should be
to give skaters a safer alternative to skating on streets, sidewalks, and in parking lots. If
the goal of the skate park is to reduce skating in other public areas, the local government
should consider enacting ordinances that ban skating in other places and involve the
skaters in the design of the park so they will utilize the facility.
Consideration should be given to providing handrails, intermediate rails, side rails and/or
toeboards for those pieces of equipment that have platforms. If kickboards and/or steps
are provided, these should be painted in a contrasting color to help alert visitors of
potential trip and fall hazards. Once larger ramps or pieces of equipment are in their
permanent positions, consideration should be given to anchoring these pieces in place.
Bolt extensions should be limited to no more than two threads and covered with an acorn -
style bolt nut. Equipment should be arranged so that it does not interfere with other
skating and/or rollerblading activities and/or maneuvers. The joining of skating
equipment should only be done where recommended by the manufacturer. Joining of
grindrails should be discouraged due to potential gaps between the grindrails, unevenness
of the pieces and the possibility of catching any skateboard or rollerblade wheel in the gap
which may increase the likelihood of injury.
Prior to installation, it is a good idea to forward drawings and/or specifications of pieces
of equipment that are being considered to the TML-IRP Loss Prevention Department.
Copies of construction specifications should be provided where possible. The ideal
location for a facility is in a park with access to restrooms, telephone, drinking fountains
and shade. The facility should be well -lit and highly visible to city personnel such as
police or parks employees.
Take into consideration skaters' differing abilities. The facility should be divided into
areas designated for beginners and more experienced skaters. Structures such as ramps 3
feet or less in height are generally safer than taller ramps. The manufacturer or designer
should be able to assist with creating a park that will have different areas for different
skating abilities. Skateboard runs should be clearly labeled as to degree of difficulty.
Children younger than 10 years of age should not be allowed in the skate park. (The
American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under 5 not use skateboards.
Children 5 to 9 years old can suffer severe head and neck injuries.) Consult with
manufacturers about age limits.
There are generally three types of skateboarding structures.
HALF -PIPE STRUCTURES
This equipment is shaped like a "U" and can range from 2 - IO feet high. A half pipe 4
feet or higher is considered advanced equipment and designed for experienced skaters.
Since large ramps are not appropriate for beginning skaters, the average park should not
implement large advanced ramps.
BOWL STRUCTU RES
These structures can be described as a large empty swimming pool with rounded edges
and moguls contained inside of it. The bowls are generally I constructed of concrete,
asphalt or a stand alone fiberglass, flume -type bowl.
STREET SKATING STRUCTURES
These are pieces of equipment that reflect obstacles found on public streets and
sidewalks.
Examples of such pieces are rails, pyramid and fun box.
PEOPLE
Employees should be trained regarding all safety rules and procedures, operational
procedures, management requirements, etc. AJI training and orientation given to skating
area employees should be documented and retained on file. An adequate emergency plan
should be developed for the skating operation and should be appropriately communicated
to all employees. Employees should be certified in a first aid course from a nationally
recognized agency such as Red Cross or National Safety Council and an appropriate first
aid kit should be readily available on site. Appropriate police and ambulance phone
numbers, as well as ready access to a telephone, should be maintained.
If the facility is attended by employees, the skating facility supervisors (employees)
should be stationed such that the entire area may be viewed and monitored. Facility
personnel should have sufficient knowledge of skating and in -line skating to enable a
review and determination of a skater's skill level, before permitting use of the facility.
The number of people allowed in the area should be limited to minimize injuries resulting
from collisions. The Facility Director or whoever is in charge should determine the
patron limit based upon the size of the skating area, the number of employees on duty,
seasonal demand, etc. This will help insure a safe management ratio between supervisors
. •
and users. Unsupervised facilities should consider patrols by entity personnel and
carefully consider signage so that rules are followed.
Skating also requires good balance and body control skills. Many of the young skaters
have not developed these skills and do not react quickly enough to prevent injury. It is
important for supervisors to review and train skaters how to fall in case of an accident.
This brief review course with skaters helps them reduce their chances of being injured.
The following is a list of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's recommended
failing techniques:
• If you are losing your balance, crouch down so that you will not have so far to
fall.
• In a fall, the idea is to land on the fleshiest part of your body.
• If you fall, try to roll, rather than absorb the force with your elbows.
• Even though it may be difficult during a fall, try to relax your body, rather than
go stiff.
A complete accident report should be filed by employees following any accident or
injury occurring at the skating facility. If there is no supervisor, there should be a
person prepared to investigate and report on accidents. This documentation should
include:
1. the date
2. the time of day
3. the injured person's name, address and phone number
4. the name of the injured person's parent or guardian, if a minor child
S. the names and phone numbers of any witnesses
6. a complete description of the events and circumstances surrounding the
accident or injury
7. the cause of the accident corrective actions felt necessary that may
prevent reoccurrence.
All incident and accident reports should be kept on file.
EQUIPMENT
50
There should be a documented daily visual check of the facility by the employees on duty
for any visible hazards or repair needs. (Irregular riding surfaces accounted for over one-
third of skateboarding injuries according to CPSC study.) There should be a complete
documented inspection performed by the maintenance supervisor at least once monthly
and more frequently as necessary. Included in all inspections should be any walking or
standing surfaces, fencing steps, handrails, spectator areas, and/or any construction
deficiencies. Perimeter areas such as sidewalks, parking areas, driveways, etc. should be
inspected periodically for any deterioration that may contribute to trip and fall injuries.
All maintenance and repair work should be documented as to the type of maintenance
performed, the name of the employee pet -forming the work, and the date completed.
Safety equipment should be worn at all times while using the facility. This equipment
shall include, but is not limited to, the following: appropriate skateboard in good working
condition, helmet, knee and elbow pads, wrist supports, and proper shoes. There is
protective equipment currently being manufactured that will help reduce injuries.
Additional equipment for consideration is specifically designed slip -resistant shoes,
helmets, gloves, padded jackets, padded shorts, as well as padded hips, knees and elbows.
The most important feature to look for in protective equipment is comfort, design and
function. The equipment should not interfere with the skater's hearing, movement and/or
vision. The skating facility supervisors (employees) should prohibit skaters from using
the facility if their equipment is not deemed satisfactory. Shoes should be checked for
dirt, rocks and debris prior to use.
ENVIRONMENT
Skating should be allowed only in designated areas. Loss prevention measures include:
1. The designated skating area should have one entrance. The entrance
should be secured with a lock during all closed hours.
2. Rules and regulations, including hours of operation, should be posted in a
conspicuous location. "No Parking" signs should be posted for areas that
may affect the safety of participants and or visitors. Additional "Slow
Down -Children at Play" signs should be considered if there are driveways
and/or parking areas in close proximity to the skating facility.
3. The area should be designed according to appropriate safety standards. If
open at night, the facility must be adequately fit.
4. All design specifications, assembly instructions, and
maintenance/operations recommendations from the developer, engineer,
and/or manufacturer should be retained on file. Certificates of insurance
should be required from all third party individuals and reviewed annually.
51
5. Consideration should be given to fencing the facility. The fence should
preferably be a type that cannot be climbed, such as rod iron or mesh
type chain link that has 1-2 inch wide holes. A fence at least 6 feet in
height is recommended. Fences may be higher. The fence should be
located away from the edge of the skating surface to allow for a hazard
free "fall zone" before reaching the fence. The park designer or
equipment manufacturer may have recommendations. The fence should
provide for adequate protection to spectators from flying boards, other
debris and/or falling skaters, and should also help protect skaters from
interference and distractions by spectators and passers by.
OPERATIONS
Well thought-out rules should be established, used and posted throughout the facility. If
the facility is meant for both skating and rollerblading then signage, accident report
forms, applications, waivers and other documents should have the wording for skating or
include both aspects. Rules and regulations should also address procedures if inclement
weather occurs (i.e., cold weather, rain, frozen puddles of water). Rules should include,
but are not limited to, the following-
• No bicycles (i.e., BMXS, etc.) alcohol or drugs are permitted in the facility;
• All skaters should wear, at a minimum, safety equipment which includes elbow
pads, knee pads, helmets and proper shoes;
• Skaters should enter and exit designated areas one at a time;
• Supervisors should develop rules prohibiting specific maneuvers that are deemed
particularly hazardous for a skater's experience or age; (Consider limiting to
skaters 10 years and up.)
• A sign containing a warning of the hazards of skating should be posted at the
entrance and throughout the facility. "This facility is used by both experienced
and inexperienced skaters. Serious injury may result from being hit by a
skateboard, failing or colliding. The City does not assume responsibility for
injuries -SKATING IS AT YOUR OWN RISK."
• Only one person per skateboard;
• Complicated tricks require careful practice. Only at specifically designated areas
and times will tricks be performed and only under the supervision of the facility
managers and supervisors.
52
Please see attached sample skatepark rules. The park should retain the right to revoke
skating privileges of participants who are rowdy or who otherwise do not abide by the
rules.
CONCLUSION
If your local government is considering a skating facility, the most important areas are
maintenance, safety inspections, supervision, protective gear, and rules/warning signs.
TML-IRP should be notified prior to the opening of any skating facility for an
explanation of the necessary special endorsement and cover -age cost.
If your local government wants to set up a skating facility, we strongly recommend that
you transfer your risk by the way of waivers or via a private contract. The transfer of risk
to a contractor is a method by which a skating facility is managed and maintained through
a lease with a private contractor. The private contractor indemnifies the local government
for any negligence and places the local government on its insurance policy as an
additional insured. Competitions should be restricted to sponsoring organizations that are
able to provide separate insurance coverage and a contract holding the city harmless and
indemnified.
Texas House Bill 1058, enacted as of September 1. 1999, effectively shields
municipalities from liability arising out of the use of skateboard and other recreational
facilities, except for gross negligence and acts conducted in bad faith or with malicious
intent. H.B. 1058 also requires cities to post a sign at each facility with the following
specific language: Texas Law (Chapter 75, Civil Practices and Remedies Code) limits the
liability of a municipality that owns, operates or maintains a facility in which hockey, in -
line hockey, skating, in -line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding or rollerblading are
conducted for damages arising directly from such recreational activities. Additional
signage is recommended from a risk management perspective to warn and inform
participants of rules and conditions of using the facility. (See Sample Skating Rules for
additional information.)
The above recommendations are made from a Loss Prevention perspective.
Recommendations may not eliminate all risk exposure. However, implementation of
recommendations may minimize the potential for accidents, injury or loss. Final skating
facility policies and procedures should be reviewed by city management, risk
management, and/or legal counsel to insure that the needs of your local government are
met.
53
Sample Facility Regulations
Hours of Operation:
SKATEPARK RULES
WARNING
Texas Law (Chapter 75, Civil Practices and Remedies Code) limits the liability of a
municipality that owns, operates, or maintains a facility in which hockey, in -line hockey,
skating, in -line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, or rollerblading are conducted for
damages arising directly from such recreational activities.
Know your limits and abilities. You are responsible for your safety. This park is
designed for ages 10 and up.*
Only skaters will be allowed in skating area - all others must watch from behind fence
Proper safety equipment is required at all times - including proper shoes, helmets, knee
and elbow pads, and wrist guards.
No bicycles or personal ramps allowed in skating area. (Note: Some entities disallow
roller skates. It is up to your facility to determine.)
One skater on ramp or rail at a time.**
One skater per skateboard.
Skating allowed in authorized areas only.
No personal ramps or rails are allowed.
Skatepark will close if wet or raining.
No alcohol, tobacco products or illegal substances allowed.
No graffiti allowed. Park will be closed until graffiti is removed.
Dispose of all trash property. No food or drink allowed in skating area.
All other park rules and ordinances apply.
Have fun, be safe, and respect your fellow skaters.
*Ask the manufacturer of the equipment if there is a minimum age requirement. There
may be an age limitation for each piece of equipment. If so, mark the equipment should
be grouped accordingly. Possible markings could be like ski slope trails - green circle for
beginners, blue diamond for intermediate, etc. The manufacturer and designer may have
other ideas.
**More than one skater may be able to wait on the platform. Check with the
manufacturer on this and all other recommended number of users.
Check with park designer and manufacturer on suggested rules as well.
Infractions of the above rules may result in loss of skating privileges.
54