According to this article in the StarTribune Burnsville is looking to raise an additional $30,000 on top of the $70,000 they have set aside to make improvements to its skateboard park and has taking the “radical” step of including the opinions of those who use the park to determine what changes should be made.
However, while citizen participation is hardly “radical” and should be the absolute minimum for any taxpayer funded project of this magnitude, especially ones where the City Staff are the furthest thing from experts on the topic, some in the public–including one StarTribune commenter–apparently do not feel that the $100,000 is a wise investment:
So the city can’t afford to mow boulevards and grass leading up to sidewalks and busy streets anymore, yet has money set aside for improvements at a skate park. Makes a whole lot of sense. Glad my tax dollars are being used so wisely once again.
Posted by: ticihg on July 5, 2011 at 12:39 AM
However, another commenter later replied that this cost would be a drop in the bucket compared to the much more expensive care needed when maintaining the numerous baseball fields across the city:
Maybe the tax dollars would be better spent on another baseball field that sits vacant 90% of the time. The cost of the refurb is probably a fraction of the cost to just maintain ballfields for a year and even in it’s current state, the skatepark is getting used.
Posted by: georgee on July 5, 2011 at 8:47 AM
So the question remains: is $100,000 a wise investment for the city? How many individuals would be required to make it a worthy expenditure? When compared to regular field maintenance is something which only requires upgrades once a decade a better item to spend tax dollars on? Should the city instead be spending this money on mowing instead? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
July 6th, 2011 at 7:21 am
You also need to factor in the money saved not having to replace damaged public property. (sarcasm) In my experience, a lot of skaters who decide to do their skating on park benches, walls, etc. usually cite the lack of adequate skate facilities as a reason for their need to engage in their hobby in a destructive way. Of course, one of my hobbies is shooting. When the gun range in town closed (small town in IL, not here), I didn’t decide to engage in my hobby on the city hall steps, the planters, park benches, etc…
July 6th, 2011 at 8:37 am
We live in Burnsville and take our children to the skate park and while I can see the need for renovations, I can’t see spending $100,000 grand on it. Whenever we go there to the skate park there is almost always someone there so I know it gets used quite a bit. If you ask me $100,000 on a skate park that gets used is a much better investment than the BPAC that sits empty and loses the taxpayers money.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Looks like a brand new skate park can be built for way less than $100,000.
http://abcnewspapers.com/2011/06/29/andover-skateboard-park-finally-has-found-a-home/
July 6th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Let me guess…Kautz has a relative with a kid that’s an aspiring pro skateboarder, right?
July 6th, 2011 at 9:34 am
I was at someone’s house about a year ago and his college-aged kid came home for the weekend briefly before bolting out the door, skateboard in hand, heading for the Heart of the City–where some of the best options are available for that sort of thing in the area.
No, not the skateboard park, but the Heart of the City. You know, the area right across the street from the Mayor’s condo.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:50 am
I don’t have a problem with spending money on a skate park. I don’t skate and have no desire for my kid to do so but it seems like they get used a lot. As for spending $100,000 on it, I have no idea what the things cost but it sure sounds like a lot to me.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:53 am
I’m ambivalent on the question. Ideally there ought to be a private company that provides this service. Charge a daily fee or maybe a yearly pass. It’s easy enough to have an access control point. It reminds me a bit of a roller-skating rink. Should the city have a roller skating rink?
On the other hand, if a city is going to spend money on parks, it ought to take the interests of the citizenry into consideration. I suspect (though don’t know from personal experience) that skate parks can be popular. So that makes me think, well, it’s not the most frivolous expense the city has undertaken.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:27 am
I think a skate park is equivalent to a baseball or soccer field or even a regular “park” when deciding if tax dollars could or should be spent on it. If you think there should be baseball fields, then you should be OK with this and vice versa.
I don’t really feel like figuring out if 100K is the right number, but I hate it when numbers are so round. Could it be done for $99,500 instead, or maybe $82,345? How about you get some bids before telling the contractor how much you have to work with? I would love to be selling a car to these people.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:32 am
I agree with J that it seems like this could be a privatized business if there is so much demand for this sort of thing. It serves such a limited portion of the public, so using public funds seems a little inappropriate. Although – we use public funds to serve limited portions of the public all the time, so maybe this isn’t any different.
I would just wonder how durable it would be and how much the ongoing maintenance would be.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Question: What’s the cost of a lawsuit/liability claim for some kid who (like in the Star Tribune’s photo accompanying the article) isn’t wearing a helmet or any protective gear and launches off the new concrete bowl and turns himself into a vegetable by slamming his head into the ground? How about just an endless series of broken limbs?
Hopefully that $100K includes a ginormous sign saying “CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR YOU BEING A DUMBASS AND NOT WEARING A HELMET”.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I’m willing to sell the BPAC “used” Steinway piano for the same price we bought it for ($75,000) and donate the proceeds to the skate park. Then at least the money won’t be gathering dust like the piano.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Obviously Burnsville needs a skate park! How else will the mayor get rid of the dudes that board/skate in the heart of the city… her front-yard/backyard!?!
July 6th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Not sure if the cost is valid, though I expect it’s pretty expensive to do the demo they will need to do if they are replacing asphalt with concrete. concrete is extremely expensive. That said, I’d do it. Anything that gives kids something to do that isn’t getting into trouble is a win. I get the feeling the Burnsville police would be in favor of the expenditure.
That said, if there is other stuff Burnsville isn’t doing, that it should be doing then perhaps the skate park has to wait. Especially if the city is going around and threatening to fine people that don’t mow their lawn, when the city itself has decided that they can’t afford to mow it’s lawn.
Last I heard, if there is a SOTR city that needs a new skate park it’s Rosemount.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
We often use the park at the school above the skate park. Seems like there are kids there quite often, and I see kids riding skateboards along the street around there all the time, (on their way there and back I guess?), so, with some caveats, I am all for this.
First, as MSPD noted, there has to be some clear liability protection for the city. I find this one hard to understand, as people get sued all the time for everything, but I guess this issue must have been solved long ago.
Second, as a few others noted above, the price seems odd. Did they just say “This is how much we have, lets spend it all!”? The article about Andover or wherever it was showed that at least some people still use some common sense when spending other peoples money. Hopefully that takes place with this as well.
Anyway, renovate the thing and keep the kids off the street and out of trouble.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Mark it down. This sentence will become “how could nobody have thought of that or solved it long ago?” right after an article about someone sustaining a serious head injury there.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Please see the skate park located in Hastings – Oh – wait – they tore it down! Seems that after about 6 months it became too expensive to insure, and it only attracted a crowd with vandalism in mind – Oh – and the 3 kids who actually skate boarded.
Irving
July 6th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Businesses are drying up fast in Burnsville. We have so much empty and decaying retail space it’s depressing. Dunn Brothers coffee closed this week. I have no hopes of Haskell’s succeeding here because it is off the beaten path and I’m sure that few people know they are open in Burnsville. The story will be that Burnsville can’t support these “upper class” businesses, when in reality the city itself is not supporting retail traffic or enterprise. The council had better read the writing on the wall, stop whining about the recession, and stir up this pot before we become a ghost town.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
sandy, any ideas how to make that happen? (Not a sarcastic question, but a curious one.)
I don’t live in Burnsville, so I don’t have a vote, IMO. But a few posts here about private concerns having skate parks instead reminded me of something: Back when I was a high school kid living in Terre Haute, IN, one of the school things to do was to go to the nearby roller rink. I hated it, myself; I still have a very vivid memory of falling on my butt and somebody rolling right into me. Ouch.
I was on the bus going home one day, and I asked a friend, who was a young black woman and somebody anybody in the WORLD would be proud to call daughter, if she was going to go to the school skate. No, she said. Black people weren’t allowed there except on Sundays, so she wouldn’t go on school days, either.
That blew my mind. That made me ashamed.
I’m not so sure that we should count on private business to offer enough opportunities for our young people. Everybody assumes that money alone ensures a fair shake, but that just isn’t true. Businesses are made up of business owners with their own prejudices and their own agendas.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. I just wanted to throw it out there.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
HI, Michelle, I grew up in Marion, Indiana!
I don’t have the solutions; I just want things to be better – is that wrong of me? I just hate seeing my current town going downhill while the council/mayor seem to be doing silly things. “Let them eat brioche!”
July 7th, 2011 at 7:36 am
I don’t know exacty what the problem is with Bursnville Skate Park, but (and I might be the one with the college kid referred too by Bill) the kids who skate HATE the Burnsville skatepark. Don’t know why other than it’s been tagged as “Lame”.
But it’s better than the Apple Valley Skate Park.. which I don’t think exists. The Heart of the City is still the preffered spot although the kids have been make day trips to ST. Cloud to skate there and, for some odd reason, Amery WI. Apparently they LOVE the skate park in Amery! Personally I can’t tell the difference, has something to do with stairs and no one skates in Amery.
100K seems like a lot of skate park.
BTW The ball field that sits empty 90% of the time… for the 10% of the time that they’re needed, summer evenings, good luck reserving one in Burnsville or Apple Valley. They’re taken and they are packed, so someone is using the facilities.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:30 am
The skatepark in Oakdale was converted from metal ramps to cement a few years ago. I don’t know how much use it got before the renovation but when I have been there since the renovation it has been packed. I was trying to find out how much the new facility cost but I’m not real good at internet searches.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:02 am
dsw, I couldn’t find it on their website but I called Oakdale and their Finance Director dug through the records and split out the cost as it was a part of a larger park spending project. The price was $240,000 which included fencing, concrete work (footings, etc), engineering (layouts), equipment, and design. The very beginnings were started in 2006 and construction was completed in 2007.
Here’s a video shot of the park:
July 7th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Ahh yes, Roller Skating Rinks. I recall a field trip during Jr. High to a Roller Rink up in Anoka County. I remember thinking that this was a stupid field trip. I could skate o.k., but I just remember thinking that this was such a waste of time.
With proper gear, skate boarding is less dangerous than high school football, at least that is what I’ve seen claimed on some sites related to insurance liability.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
If the park brings in money then $100K is fine; however, it’s “free” to use so it’s not a good use of taxpayer money. Baseball/Softball fields bring in enough revenue, by renting them out to league games, to at least cover maintenance costs but nothing more. If they are going to spend so much money on a skate park the least they could do is charge some sort of admission fee. Didn’t the city spend $200K on a sculpture in the Heart of the City too? Who’s voting for these councilmembers and mayor that just want to waste our tax dollars?
July 7th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
#18 What does a discriminatory practice of an Indiana business in your childhood have to do with whether or not a city-owned skatepark today, in Burnsville, is a good idea? I have not heard of any skating rinks today that keep blacks or any other groups of people out.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:22 am
I agree that this isn’t any different than putting athletic fields in parks; it’s just as legitimate a thing for the city to do, provided the cost is reasonable.
I’d be curious to see the projected annual maintenance costs of the park, and those for the current athletic facilities (ballfields, soccer fields, etc.) as well. I also wonder about how much Burnsville spent to create all those fields.
Back in college, I worked for the City of Lakeville parks deparment for a couple summers as a seasonal maintenance worker, and honestly, a substantial portion of the department’s time (probably the majority some weeks) was spent maintaining the athletic facilities in the parks — mowing, picking up trash, fixing benches and fences, striping, installing equipment, and so on. Just grading all of the infields was a 40-hour/week job for a seasonal employee right there. And there were fewer parks then, too (King was still being built, for example). I really, really doubt all of that expense was defrayed by user fees, too.
I don’t know if this skate park is a good use of money necessarily, but I also don’t think it’s different than what the city parks do now. Sure, this could be done privately, but so could everything else the park system does, when it comes down to it.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:01 am
Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can chime in:
Cities are required to maintain a certain amount of greenspace/”undeveloped land”. I know that parks (e.g. Lebanon Hills, Alimagnet, etc.) help them meet this requirement. My understanding is that ballfields in parks qualify as undeveloped acreage and, therefore, are serving a dual purpose.
Also, I pay a handsome sum of money to have my kids in baseball on those fields. I don’t actually know where all of that money goes, but my impression is that part of it goes to the upkeep and “reservation” (akin to ice time) of those fields.
I guess I disagree with the correlation between ballfields and the skate park (not that it is my primary reason for questioning this expense).
July 8th, 2011 at 9:01 am
MSPD,
You mention parks in your message along with ballfields. I don’t pay a reservation fee to walk in a park, but I know the city pays a lot of money to workers to keep them trash free/grass cut, etc.
Given that a skate park does not even have grass, it could probably be argued that the maintenance there is cheaper than a normal park that has grass to cut and maintain, but also cement/asphalt and trash to maintain like a skate park does.
I am not a skateboarder and nor are my children and I do not even know one person who would use such a place, just to be clear. I just don’t think that it is a bad idea provided there is a subset of the demographic that might use it the same as I use regular parks to walk my dog.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:03 am
@ Aaron Hoy – You are wrong when you say “it’s “free” to use so it’s not a good use of taxpayer money”. In my mind, a good use of taxpayer money is spending the money on what the taxpayers want. In my case, my entire family values being outdoors and we use the parks. In fact, we have a map and have highlighted everypark in Burnsville that we have been to.
I live by Wood Park in Burnsville and the City put in a fishing dock; the dock is free to use. Should we take out the dock because it is free and you don’t think it is a great use of taxpayer money? I’ve been to and taken my kids to the skatepark in Burnsville so my family uses it. I don’t question if the skatepark should be in Burnsville, I question the cost of replacing/fixing the existing one.
July 8th, 2011 at 10:36 am
lefty, I was just pointing out that there are requirements for cities to set aside/reserve a certain amount of undeveloped acreage/”greenspace”. There are no requirements to set aside a certain amount of acreage covered in concrete. My understanding (albeit limited) is that ballfields qualify as “undeveloped acreage” and therefore are serving multiple purposes (regardless of the costs of upkeep). If you have to do maintenance on a parcel of land and it is serving multiple purposes, that constitutes a good use of resources in my book. Anyway…the point is, I disagreed with the comments directly comparing all parks with a skate park. Tangentally…maybe.
I also pointed out that by creating a skate park with more advanced features and “attracting people from all over the metro” as they stated as a goal in the Strib article, it invites more liability. Again, the photo accompanying the Strib article shows a skateboarder in the air with no helmet or other protective gear. One hard fall on the back of the head, and you quite possibly have a TBI patient and a giant lawsuit.
I’m actually neutral to the expenditure but it does introduce some questions (and maybe precedent).
July 8th, 2011 at 10:53 am
I hear you. I do think it is sort of silly as to if it has grass or not. I have never heard any controversy about the Eagan skate park up in the softball field area on Diffley and Lexington though it is obviously a gift from the city to skateboarders as they skateboard for free there.
I cannot say for sure, but I suspect there is significant precedent regarding the liability of a city regarding injury at one of these parks. Don’t know that it is much different than a kid falling off the top of a slide. I don’t see any warning signs on slides in local parks. I do know that if my kid fell off of a slide (or banged their head on the cement at a skateboard park), I would be making sure they stop going on slides before suing the City of Eagan.
I think there is enough common sense in our court system to prevent government liability in situations where people are stupid and/or clumsy.
July 8th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Someone should call the Clerk and ask how much the city is insured for parks and specifically any contract terms related to the skate park. I’m guessing that will answer the questions.
No, I’m not doing it :)
July 8th, 2011 at 11:10 am
I am working and much too busy to make that call.
July 8th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Even if athletic fields meet the green field requirements, though, they still cost more money to build and maintain than just leaving the space wild.
July 8th, 2011 at 11:48 am
You can’t sue the government.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
@ dsw You’re right… What you said is partially what I meant to say in the first place. To spend $100K on renovations is more of a waste, especially on one park. I personally think it’s fine to have a skate park but agree that it might be able to benefit from some renovations. Like lefty said above (post #8), why don’t they first get some bids on a renovation? Then they could vote on a budget proposal to fulfill that. That way the bidder doesn’t know how much the city has set aside to spend and instead the city can get a better deal. I get the feeling jobs that the city, state, and federal governments have contractors do are paid too much based solely on this reasoning.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Greg: re: your comment at 35: Yes you can.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
You can sue the government, but the types of suits and remedies available are generally very limited compared to those in cases in which the government is not being sued.