SPAC 11/12/07 Meeting Minutes

Click below to read the minutes from the last SPAC meeting.

Minutes
Skateboard Park Advisory Committee
November 12, 2007

Committee Members Present: Ryan Barth, Scott Shinn, Matthew Lee Johnston, Kim Schwarzkopf, Dan Hughes

Guests: Kate Martin, Craig Martin, Morris Wainwright, Tony Davies, Marianne Powell, Amy Honan, Marina Tretton

Staff: Susan Golub, Tim Gallagher

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Approval of Agenda: The agenda was amended to allow Mr. Gallagher to speak first.

Public Comments: There were no public comments.

Superintendent’s Introduction: Tim provided background information about his prior work as Director of Parks for LA County, and his experiences building the Stockton Skatepark in the late 1990’s, including incorporation of skatedots into that skatepark system. Tim reported owning a skateboard as early as 1961.

Friends of Agreement – Matt reviewed the history of the SPAC, including advocates’ involvement with the Ballard Bowl campaign in 2004, the nature of its existing partnership with Seattle Parks, and the political implications of that partnership for both the Parks Department and Seattle’s skateboarders. Ideally, the Friends of Seattle Skateparks Agreement will be an extension of the existing SPAC partnership, although its constitution and details still remain open questions. Ryan added that there is a connection between the Citywide Skatpark Plan and the SPAC, that the implementation of the plan requires an effective channel of communication between skatepark advocates and the Department, and that the Plan itself specifies a role for the SPAC. Matt noted the parallel process that occurred in Portland with Portland Parks and staffer Rod Wojtanik, and how successful it was. Tim asked why the Seattle skatepark process has taken so long to get to this point. Matt, Ryan and Scott noted various details about the way politics work in Seattle, the nature of Parks’ backing for skateparks, the lack of an advocate within Parks for skateparks, and the lack of communication with the public on skatepark policy. Tim noted that meeting attendance is key to moving forward for a constituency, and that Friends of groups tend to be maintenance organizations, so it is not clear why a Friends of group is warranted at this time. Susan noted that SPAC has acted on behalf of the Department in inappropriate contexts in the past, specifically with regard to the Seattle Center skatepark campaign, so a Friends of Agreement would be a way to redefine appropriate advocacy boundaries for it. Tim noted that redefinition of the SPAC’s role might be an appropriate step at this time, and will speak with Parks staff and SPAC representatives toward this end. Kate noted prior conversations regarding a skateboard Advisory Council in partnership with the Associated Recreation Council (ARC) and that moving the SPAC into this type of role would be an approprate step at this time, rather than a “demotion” to a Friends of group. Scott discussed fiscal sponsorship opportunities for new skatepark projects under the ARC umbrella. Ryan discussed future funding opportunities for skateparks under proposed budget items such as the Orphaned Parks program and the CIP process.

Skate Dot Pot/Process – Matt asked for clarification regarding implementation of the proposed money for skatedots in the 2008 Mayoral budget, which is approximately $100,000. Tim reviewed prior experience with “skate path” projects, where a skate element was placed within various parks to facilitate skateboarding. Ryan noted that a competitive process for neighborhood-level funding would be ideal. Tim related this to his experiences building skateparks in California, and noted that grassroots advocacy was not required to make things happen there. Kate noted that a Friends of group may not be an appropriate mechanism for future skatepark development. Scott noted that it is difficult to mobilize “dog and pony shows” full of kids to make things happen. Matt provided follow-up comments regarding the nature of comments made by some adults who attend public skatepark meetings, and how they have alienated the voice of youth from the conversation. Tim also noted that next year’s budget does not look good for larger skate features, and that it might be advisable to work toward smaller skate features. Matt noted that opportunities may also exist for building skatedots and spots with non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).

Action Item: Tim called for the SPAC to identify 10 eligible parks with room for skatedots that could be included in the 2009 budget request.

SeaSk8 – Ryan provided a history of the SeaSk8 process, including the recent design charrette and cost estimate for “Pavillion A only” and “Pavillion A and B” options at the “Pavillion site”. Following the analysis, the $2.9 million “Pavillion A only” option was recommended. Follow up with City Council revealed that additional funding for this option would be available, but that no other sites are available. Morris noted that the Broad Street site would’ve been best, but everyone knows why that isn’t happening. Ryan noted that the funding is moving very fast to complete this project, that Thursday’s SEPA meeting will be an opportunity for festival producers such as the Bite of Seattle and One Reel to make arguments about why the skatepark is not appropriate for this location, and that the estimated completion date for the skatepark is 2009. Additional discussion ensued regarding the utility of Pavillion B for indoor skateboarding, active programming for Skate Like a Girl within this space, the precedential effect of SeaSk8 on future skateparks, and the lack of an explicit agenda for the SEPA meeting. Tony noted that the demolition for the Pavillion building(s) was part of the Century 21 process, and not a function of the skatepark project. Additional discussion ensued regarding the consensus that has been built among government actors about this skatepark. Tony will arrive at the Center House at 5:30 for a pre-meeting brainstorming session with interested parties.

River City Skatepark – Kim reviewed the current status of the skatepark, and noted that the SEPA process for the skatepark is underway. Public comments will continue for a while, and construction will commence in February. Grindline will obtain a 30-year lease for office space on the property in exchange for building the skatepark for free. The eventual goal for the size of the skatepark is 10K to 12K square feet. Additional discussion ensued regarding technical details of construction, drainage, electrical, geotechnical, and landscaping, as well as ongoing fundraising and volunteer coordination issues. $30K is required to build a “dream skatepark” and $100K would create a 30-year “maintenance endowment” for the park.

Lower Woodland –Morris Wainwright and Brock McNally recently reviewed the construction documents for the skatepark and identified some issues for consultation with Wally Hollyday (skatepark designer) and Kim Baldwin (Parks project manager for this skatepark). Morris reported on the technical details of the issues, including drainage and grading details. Matt reported that the meeting went well, and that knowledge gaps were filled appropriately. Additional discussion ensued regarding the role of SPAC in design review for ongoing skatepark projects, the need for resources with skateboarding and engineering expertise when designing skateparks, the role of the lowest bidder during the RFQ/RFP process, the role and cost of citizen input into the design/build process, the ongoing nature of the design/build process for Seattle skateparks.

Jefferson Skatepark – Discussion of the status of the Jefferson Skatepark plan, community support for the park, skate advocates working on the campaign, and plans moving forward.

Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 8:25.

Next Meeting – The next SPAC meeting will occur Monday, January 14, 7 PM, at 100 Dexter Ave.