Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Skatepark Design And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific Skatepark Committee recommends SWT Design, tables cost-sharing agreement pending insurance/coverage review
Summary
The Pacific Skatepark Committee voted to recommend SWT Design (with American Ramp Company involvement) to the Board of Aldermen for design and construction of the Jeff White Memorial Skatepark and voted to table the cost-sharing agreement until questions about insurance-required items and grant coverage are resolved.
The Pacific Skatepark Committee voted to recommend SWT Design (working with American Ramp Company) to the Board of Aldermen for design and construction of the Jeff White Memorial Skatepark and tabled a cost-sharing agreement until the committee can confirm which items the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant and the city will cover.
Committee chair said the group had contacted American Ramp Company and that the company "really, really want to work on this project." The chair added that American Ramp Company — a Missouri-based firm represented in the RFQ by SWT Design — indicated willingness to adapt to the committee's preference for an all-concrete park rather than prefabricated elements.
The recommendation matters because the committee must submit RFQ evaluation sheets to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) as part of the grant process; the committee discussed signing and naming those evaluation sheets before submission. The committee also discussed the project's funding timeline, noting there is time to raise additional funds before an October 2026 milestone referenced in the meeting.
Committee members said they prefer SWT Design paired with American Ramp Company over alternatives because of the latter's willingness to design a poured-concrete park and familiarity with LWCF requirements. One committee member said paying again for design and soil tests would be an unnecessary expense if SWT Design/American Ramp Company can build on prior work.
On the cost-sharing agreement, committee members raised specific concerns about whether elements required by the city's insurance — for example, fencing or lighting — are included in the LWCF grant or the city's 50% match. A committee member summarized the written cost-sharing draft as currently allocating "anything above the total amount of the 50% match from the city" to the foundation, and said the group should avoid leaving insurance-driven costs solely to the foundation if they fall outside grant coverage.
The committee voted by voice to recommend SWT Design to the Board of Aldermen; a seconder was recorded and no opposition or abstentions were voiced during the roll-call-style voice vote (the minutes record "All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstained? Motion carries."). The committee also voted by voice to table the cost-sharing agreement until the chair and staff can review the original grant application and confirm which items are covered by the LWCF grant and which items — if any — the city insurance would require beyond grant funding.
The committee directed staff to locate the original grant application and return with specifics about what was included in the grant budget and what was not, so the committee and city can determine whether any required insurance items would create additional local obligations. No precise dollar amounts were added to the record during the meeting beyond discussion of the potential for additional fundraising and the symmetric 50% match noted in the cost-sharing draft.
The committee concluded its meeting after tabling the cost-sharing agreement and approving the recommendation. The recommendation will go next to the Board of Aldermen for final selection of the engineering/design firm and for approval of the cost-sharing agreement if and when the committee proceeds to sign it.
