Donor and council debate skate-park location at pocket park; council favors alternative site pending public hearing

Keene City Council members and residents debated whether a small donated parcel known as the pocket park should host a skate park or remain primarily a family-friendly, shade-filled green space. The council indicated preference for an alternate site and agreed to start preliminary planning funded at $100,000, subject to required public hearings.

A resident who identified himself as the donor of the pocket park told the council, "that wasn't my vision when I gave that land to the city. What I had in my mind ... was a place where mothers could go for swings, slides, merry-go-round, stuff like that." He said a skate park at that location "would kinda defeat that purpose in my opinion because of the activity you would have from that." The donor also said he believed the pocket park is in a residential area and he would prefer uses that preserve trees and shade.

Several council members said they favor placing a skate park across the street from the pocket park because that location offers more visibility and parking. "You got more visibility. You got more access, easy access to it," one council member said while describing the alternate site. Other councilors and residents expressed concern about installing a large concrete slab in the pocket park, which they described as wet in places and shaded by mature trees.

Council members also discussed funding history for a skate park: councilors recalled prior budget proposals that at one point contemplated higher funding levels but ultimately the board agreed to set aside $100,000. "So I think it's a 100,000 will at least get us moving forward with an official plan," a council member said, adding that formal engineering and detailed costs would follow.

Councilors agreed to pursue planning for a skate park at an alternate location and to mark funds to engineer and develop plans this year, but they emphasized the need to hold the public hearing before construction. Staff told the council the city is required by state law to seek public feedback on projects above certain dollar thresholds and that items can be combined in a single public hearing for all CIP (capital improvement plan) projects.

Why it matters: The decision will affect how the pocket park is used, whether mature trees and shade are preserved, and how public funds are allocated. Council preference for the alternate site could preserve the donor’s intent while still advancing a skate-park project.

Next steps: Staff will include the pocket-park/skate-park plan in the upcoming public hearing alongside other CIP projects and return with design costs and options; no final construction funding was approved in the meeting.