As promised, attached are PDF files of the original Skatepark agreement and the proposed agreement. I received these a few minutes ago from the city’s information office.
As some of you may have seen, a person with a Skatepark e-mail address chastized me in the comments of the last council meeting stating “Jason– You didn’t do your homework too well. The people running the skatepark didn’t let the lease run out. There was a clause in the original lease that it WILL be extended upon the agreement of the Park board and R12 School district. The agreement was reached in October, and changed later this month. The extension was exercised on October 12, 5 days before the contract was up. It was hand delivered and signed for the same day at the Park Board office. The Park Board refused the extension, stating a new contract was required because of liability issues, although the original lease and new one had the same liability insurance requirements.” (Bold type added by me to point out that last section.) I apologized for saying they let the lease run out…instead, the park board exercised their legal right not to renew it. So, really, nothing was wrong in this situation. They signed the renewal and the Park Board said no. No fault anywhere…except that “SSG Bowl Dude” claimed the original lease and the new one had the same liability insurance requirements.
If that was true, then the Park Board would have some explaining to do.
As it turns out, the statement from SSG Bowl Dude is not accurate. There are differences between the liability insurance requirements including an aggregate coverage increase of over $300,000 and listing the Park Board, Springfield R-12 School District and the city & county as additional insureds.
Another difference between the documents is a section in the new agreement banning advertising of alcohol, cigarettes and promotion of similar items. Basically, they would have to obey the same regulations as everyone else connected to the Park Board. (Edit: Jim Lee at Bus-Plunge pointed out that some may this line implies those kinds of products are promoted now at the Skatepark and they are not. I wasn’t trying to imply that…just that the new agreement would specifically forbid them where right now the SSA is doing that voluntarily.)
Also, the new agreement would put one Park Board staff member at the Skatepark “for supervisory purposes, who shall work under the management of the Skatepark Founder but but shall remain under the full supervision of and obligation to the PARK BOARD and shall be a city Employee subject to all rules, regulations and general guidelines as all other Park Board and city employees. This PARK BOARD employee may have additional Park’s responsibilities at other locations throughout the Park System.”
Also, “SKATEPARK policies, rules and guidelines shall be jointly approved by the SKATEPARK and the Director of Parks, or their designee, on an annual basis.”
I don’t see anywhere that this document is the hostile takeover that we see being advanced in the media by some Skatepark members and patrons. Sure, the Park Board has some more supervisory power and the right to give the thumbs up or down for businesses on that property or products advertised there. That’s not a hostile takeover or the city ruining the park. The agreement even allows the SSA to sell billboard advertising on the fences at the park for additional revenue.
I don’t see the “sky is falling” on the Skatepark because of this new lease. The SSA would still run the show and operate the facility. They might lose a little bit of their autonomy but in the end they don’t own the land and they are leasing it from a city entity (which represents all taxpayers) that has the right to put restrictions into place the same as any other landlord. I could see the SSA’s outcry if the Park Board was indeed taking things over but that’s just not the case here.
Here’s the PDFs for you to see for yourself. The insurance agreements are in section 10.
Thank you for posting these. It’s certainly nothing like I’ve read in the paper from the skaters. If they want respect they need to give some to the taxpayers of Springfield.
Jason,
You are like a wealth of information that is sorely missing in this area. You have made all the right connections and seem to be able to take the pulse of the city whenever you choose.
GOOD JOB on this article.