F-13 Skateboard Park
-.. .
I"";
'../
." ç.
rt - ";}. ;;., - 7 7
August 17, 1977
TO:
Mr. Norris D. Olson, City Manager
FROM:
George A. Wood, Administrative Intern
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Study of Skateboard Parks
REASON FOR STUDY:
On July 18,1977, the City Commission requested that staff study the possibility
of a skateboard park. This request was based on a letter from two boys, Tyrone
Clincy and Jimmy Briscoe. .
BACKGROUND:
Skateboarding has grown tremendously since the introduction in 1973 of polyure-
thane wheels. Prior to this time, skateboards were either homemade, or mass produced
with wheels similar to those of roller skates. Today, safety equipment is manufactured
also, consisting of knee and elbow pads, gloves, shoes, and helmets. The growth in
skateboarding has led to both public and commercial ventures into skateparks, with
inclined runs, bowls, and pipes (resembling giant sewer pipes). Presently., most
skateparks are in California and Florida, with a few in North and South Carolina,
Texa~ and other states. The International Skateboard Association (ISA) projects
rapid growth of the commercial parks, and also encourages public facilities.
HEALTH AND SAFETY:
Skateboarding has definitely increased in usage, leading to health and safety
concerns. Many adults are concerned about the possibilities of bone fractures,
abrasions, and sprains. Since skateboarding requires a hard smooth surface, side-
walks and streets, parking lots, outdoor basketball courts, and similar surfaces
soon attract skateboarders. Street and sidewalk usage, especia11~ present traffic
safety problems with motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Time, October 27,1975,
stated that Lonç; Beach, San Diego, and other cities have banned skateboarding in the
streets and parks because of accidents and injuries. The article also pointed out
that some high schools in San Diego are planning safety classes for skateboarding.
LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION AND GOVERNME~T INVOLVEMENT:
Before considering design, cost, maintenance, operation, and liability issues,
two major issues must be considered. The first is whether the potential user popu-
lation warrants a skatepark. Secondly, if so, should local governments get into the
business, or let private enterprise totally answer the demand. Only a survey would
answer the former; and the following information should aid in the latter.
\ .
Mr. Norris D. Olson
August 17, 1977
Page 2
DESIGN:
Skatepark design can be as simple as a run (long, banked runway) ending
in a large bowl, to a 3-4 acre complex of runs, large pipes, and bowls in
various combinations and sizes. Constructed of concrete, the surface must be
smooth and crack free. Parks in California and Florida are not subject to the
more severe winter weather of central Kansas. Therefore, any design must take
this into account. There are wooden portable units available at less cost,
which could be dismantled and stored during the inclement months.
COST OF CONSTRUCTION:
Cost is dependent upon the size and complexity of the park. ISA's Executive
Director, Sally Miller, suggested that Jack Diamond, a San Pedro, California
contractor, could erect a portable unit for as little as $7,000 to $8,000. Mr.
Diamond seemed to feel that was a little low, and offered to forward some infor-
mation. However, it has yet to arrive. I would estimate a cost of $10,000 to
$15,000 for a portable serpentine run and bowl.
The City of Irvine, California has a public skatepark which is free to
residents. It consists of a 200 foot serpentine run ending in a freestyle bowl.
Cost in 1976 for excavation, gunite course (a form of concrete), irrigation,
landscaping, drainage and contract supervision approximated $30,000. Outside
design fees of 5 to 10% and increased construction costs would probably raise
it to $34,000 - $40,000, according to Irvine. Additionally, Irvine saved on
construction costs as the skatepark was part of an overall park development fin-
anced through park bonds. Bear in mind that this is a simple design. By compar-
ison, "Skateboard Wor1d", a commercial park near Torrance (greater L.A.), California,
cost approximately $450,000. It includes a sound system, 500 foot freestyle area, mogul
runs, steep slalom runs, and deep bowls. Other parks could fa'l anywhere within these
extremes.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:
Operation and maintenance of the park present additional costs. These might
be offset somewhat by charging for admittance and renting equipment. Commercial
parks presently are near $1.50 per two-hour session, not including $.25 to $.75
for equipment rental. Harsher weather conditions here might increase maintenance
costs, though nv estimate of present costs was available. Additional personnel would
. be essential to provide supervision and collect fees if instituted.
LIABILITY:
Normally, if the City charges an admission fee, it changes the nature of the
function from governmental to proprietary. As a very rough guide, Kansas law
generally provides governmental immunity for a governmental function, but not a
proprietoryone. Irvine has a blanket policy for all parks, allowing skateboarding
to fall under it. Present cost to commercial skateparks, according to ISA, averages
15.35% of the gross receipts. Whether this percentage would be higher or lower for
municipalities hasn't been determined. Safety equipment consisting of elbow and knee
pads, helmet, gloves, and shoes must be worn to qualify for insurance.
Mr. Norris D. Olson
Augu:;t 17, 1977
Page 3
INJURIES:
Even with such equipment, injuries will occur. Irvine has reported one
broken arm and numerous abrasions. "Car1sbad Skatepark", a commercial park,
recorded about two dozen major injuries in the first year, with about a dozen
being severe fractures or breaks. Wrist fractures are the most frequent type
of injury. However, Irvine pointed out that skateboarding was #25 on the Consumer
Product Hazard Index, as compared to bicycles, #1; stairs, #2; power lawn mowers,
#3; and football, #4. Attendance at Irvine averages over 100 persons on weekdays
and 300-400 on weekends.
ALTERNATIVES:
There would appear to be four basic alternatives for the City to consider:
I.
II.
No involvement, but might consider trying to interest a local entrepreneur.
Rent the land to an individual on a concession basis.
III. Invest in a portable park unit, either charging an admission fee or
allowing free admittance.
IV.
Constructing a permanent skatepark facility, either charging an admission
fee or allowing free admittance.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~~
George A. Wood.
Administrative Intern
GAW:bc