5.b. PRSR 12-11-1996 December 5, 1996
To: Park and Recreation Commission
Fr: Jeff and Phil
Re: Proposed Action Plan For Skatepark Development
To assure understanding and direction, we have developed the attached action plan for your
consideration. Jeff presented this same action plan to the "Youth Initiatives " committee this past
December 3rd and received their support of this plan.
Jeff and Phil will be prepared to review this information at your December 11th meeting.
•
12/2/96
Draft
•
Skatepark Development Action Plan
Goal: To develop a permanent site/facility that will accommodate skateboarders, inline skaters and
bicycle enthusiasts.
Project Partners:
* City of Elk River Park and Recreation Commission & City Council.
* Community youth and adults that are enthusiasts/ advocates of this facility.
Breakdown of Responsibility:
City:
-- Project costs and identify commitment and expectations
-- Identify site
- Identify liability and develop policy per recommendation of loss control professionals
- Develop standards for ramp construction
- Oversee construction of ramps
40. General site maintenance
- Staffing / management of site
- Develop a "management team" to help manage
- Inspection program of site equipment
-- Train personnel
Community youth and adult facility advocates:
- Fundraise to develop site and equipment
-- Coordinate in-kind service where appropriate to the project
- Make up of "management team"
- Input to design
-- Input to site identification
- Community awareness/education, public relations
- Develop training sessions/clinics to educate users on safe practices of the equipment
The 2001 Committee, Inc.
Community Values Checklist For Local Governments
At a conference sponsored by The 2001 Committee, Inc., participants ogreed on some community values to
which we should aspire. As a follow-up action, the following guidelines are suggested as an aid in the review
of ony proposals considered by local governments.
1. Does the change allow for ease of transportation for all members of a family? Is
there adequate access for pedestrian, bicycle or other types of lanes? Are the
transportation routes reasonably safe for children?
2. Does the change allow for adequate recreational outlets for all members of a family,
and especially for children? Are the recreational outlets within a reasonable distance
for children?
3. Does the change tend in any way to split neighborhoods? Do design standards
encourage neighborhood interaction, rather than isolation?
4. Does the change tend in anv way to separate family members from one another?
Can the change be categorized as positive for families?
•
5. Does the change support the value of being a welcoming community'? Are housing
for different income levels, and subsidized housing, fairly well integrated throughout
the community?
6. Does planning for events involve the consumer, namely members of families? Are
there consistent family-friendly events?
7. Does the change encourage lobs which are adequate to support families?
8. Does the change support the values recognized in citizen input at The 2001
Committee, Inc. conference? Those values are 1) being a welcoming community, 2)
promoting healthy families, 3) promoting neighborhood cohesion, and 4) promoting
respect for persons and property.
411