Wheels in motion: one community uses citizen involvement to get a skatepark rolling.

Editor's note: A crucial aspect of developing parks is citizen involvement. That's especially the case with a project such as a skatepark, which many members of a community might have negative feelings about. The following article focuses on the community--education work that the author headed to help gain support for a skatepark in Two Rivers, Wis. In April, the city council overwhelmingly approved building a skatepark at Riverside Park. At this writing, the city is reviewing plans received from a request-for-proposal process.

A community-needs assessment that we conducted in 1997 found that one of the top three facilities that students wanted from the City of Two Rivers' park system is a skatepark. As long ago as 1987, the Two Rivers Parks and Recreation Department had files indicating that skateboarding was an issue and, in some cases, a problem for businesses, homeowners and kids. The kids were asking for a safe place that's challenging-a place they can call their own-where biking, blading and boarding won't conflict with pedestrians, vehicular traffic and commerce.

An ad-hoc planning committee began working in August 200l. Its work has focused on big-picture issues associated with a skatepark facility, such as:

* Who will use it?

* How long will it be a necessary service?

* Can we afford to build a skatepark?

* What is the city's liability?

* Where will it be located?

* What are the design considerations and construction materials?

* How much will it cost?

Skatepark planning was approved through a full series of regularly scheduled public meetings, including those of the Advisory Recreation Board, Capital Improvement Plan Committee, Finance Committee and the City Council.

The city has budgeted to pay a portion of the park, but park advocates need to complete additional fundraising to complete the project. A citizen task force, Skatepark Planning Committee, TR Skates Y2K2, was formed. The members of the planning committee include kids, parents and adults, principals, City Council and Advisory Recreation Board members.

The city's liability for a skatepark is similar to that of playground equipment. Depending on the designs, this risk is considered manageable.

The dynamics of a skatepark and the park's users are unique compared to other park facilities and patrons. Skateparks attract additional perceived baggage that administrators, emergency service providers and neighbors need to have resolved before the park is built. Choosing the proper location is the most common hurdle to the successful implementation of a skatepark proposal.

Location, Location, Location 

Once a preferred location is identified, neighborhood buy-in-or at least minimal resistance--makes the implementation phase more palatable for city policy makers. Although it's easy to identify obvious concerns, it's difficult to determine the intensity or priority of those concerns.

The citizen-participation committee wanted to recommend a location that meets minimum criteria for an acceptable, mid-size skatepark. The group evaluated 21 sites, narrowed the list to six possible locations and then selected three as premier locations.

Research conducted by staff at the direction of the city boards identified real and perceived concerns among residents of the three neighborhoods. The main concerns were maintaining a safe neighborhood, appearance of the park, limited noise and other pollution, neighborhood traffic patterns and new pedestrian traffic patterns of kids on wheels. An underlying concern was how all of these matters would affect property values.

Based on previous experience with facilities of this nature, other concerns the stakeholders (staff, residents, neighbors, park users) had included safety, rowdy behavior, parking, facility care and ease in getting to the park. The planning committee also considered cost, life expectancy, maintenance, liability and future trends of the activity

Face-to-Face Interviews and Mail Surveys

At one potential location, Walsh Field, I conducted interviews with a few neighbors who would be most closely impacted by the skatepark being located in their neighborhood. In the interview instrument I used, I started with general discussion about the interviewee, and gradually narrowed to the discussion of building a skatepark at Walsh Field. The order of the questions began with establishing a personal relationship, and then proceeded to individual views about the department. The order revealed the interviewee's perception about the department's credibility and legitimacy before mentioning a skatepark. Questions then led to the generalization of a skatepark. The questionnaire ended with, "Is there any reason not to build the park at Walsh Field?" See the sample interview form on p. 46.

Because of resources and the comfort levels of neighbors with concerns, I decided a mail survey, rather than in-person interviews, would be better for the other two potential sites, Riverside Park and CC Case Elementary. We sent a self-addressed, stamped post card to residences that are, in some cases, as far as 1,000 feet from the proposed skatepark development. A total of 198 cards were sent to CC Case neighbors, and 244 cards were sent to Riverside neighbors. The response rate of returned cards was good-29 percent from Riverside and 33 percent from CC Case. See the sample postcard survey at the left.

On the basis of the interviews, neighborhood meetings and returned response cards, we reached the following conclusions about the three potential sites.

Walsh Field

The main findings of the interviews were:

* The neighborhood wasn't opposed to using Walsh Field for athletic activities.

* The neighborhood wasn't against the development of a skatepark in Two Rivers.

* There was resistance to locating the skatepark in the Walsh Field area, although I did have documentation of support from some neighbors.

* This resistance came primarily from those who would be closest to the park.

Walsh Field had many strengths:

* Parking.

* Restrooms.

* Compatible uses of an existing area, Neshotah Park.

* Staff supervision and regular maintenance.

* Ease in patrolling.

* Near trail connecting new neighborhoods and state park.

But it also had weaknesses:

* Lack of full neighborhood support.

* No room for future expansion.

* Near a busy county road.

We concluded that Walsh Field is a reasonable location in which to install skatepark components with minimal impact on few neighbors. This location meets some minimum requirements of a suitable location for a mid-size park. Nonetheless, without eliminating Walsh Field as a potential site, the committee decided to consider other locations.

Riverside Park

Riverside Park has enough space for a small to mid-size park. Among its strengths:

* Parking lot currently available.

* Visible for patrolling.

* Area set back away from other park uses, giving skaters a sense of ownership.

* Existing shelter.

* Existing park facilities used by teens for recreational activities.

* Majority of neighbors surveyed support building a park and building it in Riverside Park.

The main weakness of Riverside Park was the lack of bathrooms; this gap could be addressed by an enclosed porta-potty systems. We concluded that Riverside Park is an acceptable location to install skate facilities.

CC Case Elementary

This location had conflicting aspects. Neighborhood demographics aren't consistent with those of a playground and/or skate facility--the surrounding area has a large population of retired citizens. At the same time, the location is close to a new high school and likely future growth of Two Rivers.

We identified these strengths for CC Case:

* An existing restroom facility available at a nearby park.

* Easy for police to patrol and see what's going on at park.

* Park has summer staff during playground program, who would help with supervision at no additional cost to budget.

* An existing buffer zone (wooded area) between proposed location and closest neighbors.

But there were significant weaknesses:

* Traffic patterns are bad/unsafe from the north side of town.

* Neighborhood demographics aren't consistent with an active park.

* Fewer neighbors support the concept of a skatepark than in other areas of the city.

Our initial assessment was that CC Case is a moderately reasonable location in which to add a skatepark.

Staff Recommendation on Location

Based on neighborhood acceptance as the heaviest weighted factor, Riverside Park seemed to embrace the idea most openly. Sixty-three percent of Riverside Park neighbors interviewed indicated that they would support a skatepark in Two Rivers. Of those supporting a skatepark, 86 percent embraced locating it at Riverside Park. These are fairly significant percentages supporting the project and building it in their backyard. Riverside Park, we concluded, is a good, reasonable location that meets the requirements of a skatepark.

Based on central location, existing uses and supporting facilities as high-priority issues, Walsh Field was a good choice. This location would affect fewer people, and was moderately supported by a portion of the local residents. This site would provide a worthwhile recreational activity at the focal point of our city's parks and recreation infrastructure.

Because of the strong resident support, we named Riverside our first choice, with Walsh Field being an acceptable alternate.

Park Size and Type of Construction

After much deliberation, the committee recommended building a modular skatepark system (rather than a permanent concrete park). With many vendors available, we'll be able to use a competitive bid process, and get a high-quality product at a competitive price.

After reviewing parks in other cities, a subcommittee of the skatepark planning committee completed preliminary designs for the skatepark. These plans have been reviewed and tweaked by professional designers. The designs include areas for beginners and an area for intermediate-level athletes. Both areas have been approved as safe yet challenging.

This plan has an approximate cost of $61,000 in equipment, leaving a balance of $24,000 to install a 10,000- to 15,000-square-feet slab of concrete. Additional fundraising and in-kind donations may reduce costs on either the slab or equipment. Future fundraising allows for earlier implementation of the entire project.

Safety, Rules and Liability

Citizens had several concerns about safety; including the use of safety equipment, vandalism, hours of operation and who can use the park. Then, of course, comes enforcement of the park rules and trying to contain the operation. Once neighbors were informed about the type of park and equipment proposed, they had a higher comfort level with the idea of the skatepark. (Wisconsin state statute provides municipalities protection for recreational activities as long as facilities are kept in good repair, have posted signs with rules and regulations, and keep records of regular maintenance. The statute doesn't provide protection for negligence or malicious intent.)

Once a reasonable and responsible set of rules is developed, the city attorney and insurance carrier will review them. This information will be used as a resource for communities nationwide to meet similar challenges of committing facilities to a group of citizens that are easily forgotten.

Other Survey Findings

Our citizen-involvement method significantly helped to gain city council backing for a skatepark in Two Rivers. It also provided valuable insights into residents' feelings about parks and recreation; we'll be able to better serve them by using these findings.

Based on information from those interviewed, the Two Rivers Parks and Recreation Department is considered credible. There are some perceived issues of mistrust about what is said and what is true, but for the most part, residents understand that what we are trying to accomplish is in the best interest of the Two Rivers residents. Statements from residents such as, "They are going to do what they are going to do, just don't lie to us," make me believe that more public relations and seeking out of public comment as compared to completing the bare minimum posting is required for all city projects/programs. People expect a high standard of services and facilities. They also expect us to be good stewards of the resources committed to our department.

Concerning the value of recreation, although residents' levels of participating obviously range widely, most placed a high value on using existing facilities and programs to their fullest potential. A common comment was, "Kids want to do what kids want to do." That is, the adults recognized that while they might be satisfied with walking and a more leisurely type of recreation, children have other, legitimate goals that the city should help them meet. Neighbors of the proposed location embraced the concept of a skatepark partly because of a widespread feeling that "everyone should be able to pursue his or her thing within reason." In the case of skateboarding, residents acknowledged that a lot of children value it as a means of transportation, socialization, activity and health, and athleticism.

Rick Manchester is director of parks and recreation for Two Rivers, Wis. He can be reached at [e-mail].