Skate park supporters provide input

Posted

The city of Perryville’s Parks and Recreation Department gained much-needed clarity on the possibility of a new skate park at a public meeting earlier this month.
For about 45 minutes in the Council chambers, several individuals provided comments on what needs done to complete a skate park which will be a part of the city’s recreation offering in the future.
Public comment was taken from several individuals.
“The old skate park, we had a big hand in building it, and a lot of us used it pretty much daily,” said Dave Tucker. “It was a big hit when we lost it. I wanted to be able to have a new park to access for myself and our children. I thought (the discussion) went well. It seemed like we had a positive interaction with everyone. We are on the right way to get a new skate park.”
The details of where it coud be located weren’t a part of last week’s discussion.
“Locations, we’re not really sure on,” Tucker said. “We’ve talked to them a few times about a couple of spots but they don’t have anything concrete until they do what they have to do. To make it a successful project, I’m not really sure. It needs a lot, to make sure we make it some-thing for the skaters and not just something that’s going to be a waste. That’s what everyone is afraid of. It’s going to be built as just a (skate) park and no one’s going get to use it. It’s not going to be a useable park. There are a lot of (skate) parks out there that aren’t even usable.”
Asked about the skating community now, Tucker responded: “They’re still out there doing it.”
He continued, “Everyone that’s skating now…they are either going to other parks or…what a lot of us do is go to a basketball court in the park…anywhere there is flat ground. They’re trying to survive. There is still a core group of guys, younger than me, they were just getting into skate-boarding whenever (the old skate) park got destroyed.”
Tucker pointed out the “bureaucracy of it all” led to the old skate park losing favor. Meetings were held and discussions occurred, Tucker noted.
“The people that originated the park had moved away, and the people that were left,” Tucker said. “The people that were still skating weren’t set up to be able to build onto it. It had gotten to a point where we could use it effectively the whole way it was. It was good. It worked…It kind of just slipped through the cracks on us. By the time we realized what was going on, it got destroyed.”
What used to be the area of the skating area on Feltz Street is now a child’s park with swings, according to Tucker.
“I think that it went well,” said Tim Godlove. “The city is showing that that’s something they’re going to do in the budget and they’ve been planning on it for a while, to have another skate park in Perryville. I feel that the people who attended the meeting, the consensus was, ‘Let’s do it right,’ even if that means taking a little more time.
“Let’s build it like some of the other (skate) parks in neighboring communities that have been successful, use those as examples,” Godlove said.
Godlove was asked what will determine if a skate park is successful.
“I think it’s going to be involvement with the Board (of Aldermen), setting up a budget, and planning a good location for it, and then knowing what they have already set in motion, and then for them to be involved with the community…we want to do something that the commu-nity can be proud of and people can be using it.”
“People had pride in the previous skate park,” Godlove noted. “That generation understand that. We policed it ourselves, (but) it wasn’t taken care of in certain way.”
At the Dec. 15 meeting, Godlove preached patience.
“We need to do it right, even though that might take a little more time and more work, but if it’s done right it will police itself,” he said.
If there is buy-in from the community and those who plan on using it, it can benefit the community, according to Godlove.
“Typically, if it’s built by skaters you know it’s going to be a good that’s really useful. We had gone through and re-built things that weren’t working.”
During a quiet moment at the meeting, Ward 1 Alderman Tom Guth asked, “Do you guys care where it’s at?”
While not directed at anyone in particular, there was one answer that came through loud and clear: “We don’t care where it’s at, as long as it exists, man,” Tucker said.
Godlove credited the city for recent efforts to revitalizing the parks, band shell, and downtown area.

“You put a little more money in than you may of needed to, but you’re investing in it. With the skate park, the (pre-fab metal) forms you said you’re leaning toward, all that’s going to do, is create a space that skateboarders are not going to want to use. We’re not going to have pride in it and we’re not going to go to it.”
Godlove said the discussion Dec. 15 went well.
“It was a really good experience,” Godlove said. “At the end of the day, if you do it right, and it might take a little bit more time, might take a little bit more funding, might take a little bit more work, that’s when it will be successful like the other successful things that Perryville has decided to do in the past couple years.”
City of Perryville Parks and Recreation Director Jim Cadwell reiterated that nothing has been determined yet.
“No decisions have been made and none will be made tonight,” he said. “That’s why we want-ed to have this public forum. We could’ve just charged forward but it was decided to open this up to the public, let’s see what they have to say.”
Afterward, Cadwell said the meeting brought about “good information, the information can be taken to the board for further discussion.”
Ward 1 alderman Larry Riney serves a liaison to the city’s Park Board.
“It is quite obvious that there are enough citizens here, and very good citizens I may add, that want and desire a very nice skate park,” Riney said. “I believe, through a head nod here, we’re going to, the Park Board, make a recommendation to present their idea to the (Perryville) Board of Aldermen.”
Proposals and costs will come later.
“The meeting tonight was basically to see how the Park Board felt about the general input to the skate park idea and to me to be honest it’s overwhelming of what I see of the fine people sitting here, and I appreciate you taking your time out to come up and say, ‘Hey, this is what we need, we would like a nice one,’ we hear that,” Riney said. “I personally see no problem with us moving forward as a city on this project. That’s where I stand.”
After this statement, there was applause from those in attendance.
On individual pointed out the previous location had “unsavory activity” and that “an area more visible” would be preferred.
Godlove pointed out the city of Farmington constructed a skate park near its police station and it is monitored with cameras.
The suggestion also was made to not build it next to a shed or outdoor building, which was the case at the previous skate park.
In addition to “unsavory activity,” another term used when bringing up the previous skate park was “riffraff.”
“We are learning as a community it doesn’t matter where you build it or what it looks like, if you allow the riffraff to control it, than you’re at fault,” Riney said. “…We don’t bend to the riff-raff, the riffraff bends to us. They choose to live that way.”
One point still to be determined: how much space is needed.
“How big an area would you guys need, big as a football field or what?” Ward 2 Alderman Curt Buerck asked near the end of the meeting.
Several suggested the park would ideally be about the size of a tennis court, possibly 40 by 80 feet, or slightly larger than that.
One individual said the size of about two tennis courts, with the potential to add on with a parking lot could be a starting point.
“We’re going to move forward with this,” Cadwell said, noting that the specific details of where it’s going to go and the projected budget still are up for discussion. “We’ll visit about this and start looking at areas in which to be, at that time, we can start reaching out if there’s that core group, for volunteers,” he said.
Grant funding from the state of Missouri or another organization could be an option, according to Cadwell.
“In the end, the more input (we get from) the better it’s going to be,” Cadwell said.