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
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.
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.”1 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.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
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.
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 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.
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.
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 BuiltTyler / Unknown / 13,900 / 1998
Temple 1 / 14,400 S.F. / 40,311 / 1999
Waco 1 / 10,000 S.F. / 45,000 / 2001
Abilene 2 / 12,000 S.F. / 240,000 / 2001
Monument CO 3 / 12,800 S.F. / 150,000 (est.) / 2001
1Constructed on an existing tennis court slab
2 Abilene has a poured in place concrete facility.
3 Constructed by volunteers with donated materials.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of this facility is typically minor. None of the Cities surveyed relayed any maintenance costs. However, meeting with Abilene and speaking with Waco and Temple, all indicated that maintenance cost were minor.
The Texas Municipal League, in its Skating Facility Guidelines makes several recommendations for the maintenance of a skate park. Part of these recommendations include a daily visual inspection for broken equipment or obvious hazards. There should be documented monthly inspections by the maintenance supervisor as well. All inspections should note such items as warping equipment, cracked or chipped concrete, ”Irregular riding surfaces accounted for over one-third of skateboarding injuries according to CPSC study.”4, or other unsafe conditions.
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
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 Facility10,000 Square feet
Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft$ 55,00000
Equipment$ 20,000.00
Professional Fees$ 10,000.00
Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft.$ 6,000.00
Signage$ 2,000.00
Lighting$ 45,000.00
Benches (4)$ 6,000.00
Water Fountain (installed)$ 3,000.00
Subtotal$147,000.00
10% Contingency$ 14,700.00
Grand Total$161,700.00
Phase II
Option 1Option 2
Additional5,000 Square feet10,000 Square feet
Concrete @ $5.50/Sq.ft$ 27,500.00$ 55,000.00
Equipment$ 70,000.00$110,000.00
Professional Fees$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00
Fencing @ $15.00/Lin ft.$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00
Subtotal$104,000.00$178,000.00
10% Contingency$ 10,400.00$ 17,800.00
Grand Total$134,400.00$195,000.00
(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
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
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.
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.