Skate Park Design Selected, Private Donor Vows $25,000

By Kendra Bobowick

“Can I give you the good news now?” asked Parks and Recreation Director Amy Mangold. A donor has come forward with a promise of $25,000 to assist the skate park funding. A father she did not name will match the budget line item of the same amount for a park if the item survives budget cuts this year. Plans call for a skate park’s construction in a corner of Dickinson Park near an older parking area.

“So, that’s a big incentive for that piece to stay in the budget,” she said. Commenting on the contributor, she said, “His kids actually voted for [our] skate park design.” Earlier in the evening, recreation board members had made a critical decision between two designs, which advanced skate park plans.

With a design selected, Ms Mangold hopes the project will soon be out to bid. Estimates range between $100,000 and $125,000. The budget request for $25,000 in 2010-2011, which will now be matched by private donation, adds to another $50,000 that Ms Mangold has said will come from “[another] fund dedicated to the skate park.” The Donate to Skate campaign has also generated more than $18,000 to date. Visit DonateToSkate.com for upcoming fundraising information.

Choosing A Skate Park

“You have a big responsibility tonight,” Ms Mangold told Parks and Recreation Commission members. Shuffling through color prints, she gave everyone two images to consider, explaining, “Vote on one of our designs [for a park]. Our skaters are split down the middle.”

Similar images of flat concrete surfaces, rails, stairs, ramps, and platforms sat side-by-side on the table before members. One design had a central, grassy area, while the other was a stamped concrete throughout. “The designers came and listened to the kids and came up with [the designs]” she said. “The kids were and are thrilled.”

At first concerned with “what the green will look like later” if skaters and other youth ride through the lawn, Chairman Ed Marks asked, “Will it stay green or be overrun with tracks and go brown?”

Could they plant decorative grasses there to deter traffic and blend with habitat in a nearby stream and bog in proximity to the park’s location? Members liked the thoughts of shrubbery or grasses, and keeping the design that includes a small central green, and also offers a flow more welcoming to younger skaters. The second park option revealed a more sequential flow of features from stairs to platform to ramp to a downward slope and rail and around again. The first design with the green is slightly less organized. Younger children could step out of the flow, possibly find a place to sit at benches and watch older skaters and BMX bicycle riders.

“The green is a compromise to sitting on the track. I like the idea of tables,” Mr Marks said. Assistant Director of Parks Carl Samuelson noted other locations where benches would work, adding, “I have the feeling they’ll be up on this hill watching from the shade.” He pointed to certain areas on the map where a hill abuts the park.

PJ Yochum also favors the design with the green. “This is beautiful,” she said.

Moments later she said, “I move we do design number 2461 with the green.”

“There is a motion on the floor, all in favor,” Mr Marks prompted. Design 2461 found unanimous support. “I think this will work wonderfully for the sight,” Mr Marks said.

Noting An Objection

“What about that letter in [The Newtown Bee]? I didn’t understand where it came from, and how old were those pictures?” asked member Pat Barczak. He referred to a recent letter published in this newspaper that questioned the recreation department’s choice of park design and construction methods, claiming that the precast concrete method had been found faulty elsewhere. Several Internet references lead to a blog with entries that criticize the design method and specifically a company that provides the parks. Photos also showed different park features in disrepair.

“What was the alternative?” asked Mr Barczak. Portable jumps and pavement were another earlier consideration, Mr Marks said.

Familiar with the emails, letters, and phone calls from two sources in recent weeks, Mr Marks addressed Mr Barczak’s question. “Either way you’ve got to do maintenance and eventually would have to repair things.”

Ms Mangold said, “To answer accusations, I looked into this, really.” This week Ms Mangold provided The Bee with sources from her research.

Supporting their recent decision on which precast concrete design they liked best, Mr Marks said, “The students love it.” The skaters, parents, skate park designers, and recreation department members had all collaborated to arrive at the design the commission accepted Tuesday, which includes a 15-year warranty. Upset with recent criticisms, Ms Mangold said, “It’s unfortunate about the letter. I have not ignored this; many of us are dedicated to the project, have done our homework and done it right.”

Ms Yochum said, “And, you’re supported by your commission …”

“And the skaters,” added Mr Marks.

“I am confident we’re doing the right thing,” Ms Mangold said.

Concerned that she might need to produce a letter defending the commission’s decision, member Jan Brookes, a former member of the Legislative Council, warned, “Sometimes I think what people know about what is happening in town comes from letters — a poor source of information. Maybe this shouldn’t go unchallenged.”

Mr Marks confirmed, “We went through a process to arrive at ideas [for a park].”

“I’d like to write a letter [if necessary],” Ms Brookes said.

“I’d be happy to sign on,” said Mr Marks.