Boarding pass revoked

Council rescinds its land offer for skate park

By Nick Malawskey, Sentinel reporter, nmalawskey@lewistownsentinel.com
LEWISTOWN — They’ve been called degenerates, hoodlums, miscreants and delinquents. They’ve been fined, ticketed, cussed and chased.

But if you talk to the kids, they’ll tell you they’re just looking for a home.

They’re the skaters in Lewistown, the boarders and the riders, who previously were told they would have a place to call their own.

Until Monday, it appeared they might be one step closer to having a place to skate. Two years ago, the Borough of Lewistown donated a tract of land within Rec Park for the eventual construction of a skate park facility.

It appeared all the skaters had to do was find a way to fund the construction of the facility, at a cost of $130,000 for equipment, paving and other upgrades in Rec Park.

But on Monday, at a special meeting held to award bids for maintenance work, the Lewistown Borough Council voted 4-2 to rescind its offer of the land in Rec Park.



The skaters speak

On Market Street in Downtown Lewistown, things were quiet Monday at Bliss Skateboard Shop. On the walls inside the shop hung skateboards without wheels and bike frames, awaiting riders.

A few kids were hanging out around the counter as owner Bill Shoemaker repaired a motorized scooter. Shoemaker said he wasn’t surprised by the council’s action.

“It’s been a sham from the beginning,” he said.

Shoemaker said the kids need a place to go — somewhere they can hang out and practice their sport.

“They’re all honest kids. They just need a place to be,” he said.

In the back of the shop, a few kids were skating and riding on ramps Shoemaker had set up indoors.

One of the skaters, 18-year-old Corey Blessing, said he was “really disappointed.”

“Isn’t their problem with us that we skate on the sidewalks?” he asked. “If they built it (the skate park), then we would skate there.”

That has been the argument set forth by the Mifflin County Skate Park Committee for more than three years: Give the kids a place to skate, and they’ll stay off the streets.

One group which has worked with the skate park committee has been the Mifflin County 4-H Sketchy Skaters club.

One member of the club, Caleb Everly, 13, said he also was disappointed by the council’s decision.

“We worked so hard (raising funds) for nothing,” he said. “I really thought we were going to get it ... I thought ‘oh its going to go,’ but I guess that wasn’t the case tonight.”

The money Everly referred to is the more than $60,000 the skaters and the skate park committee raised in the past two years to fund the project. Those donations were collected in order to be a “local match” for a state grant which was to fund half of the project.

But it was the state grant and the grant’s possible implications which led to the vote Monday night by the council.



The heart of the debate

In April, the Mifflin County Skate Park Committee approached the borough with an offer to enter into an agreement regarding a state grant to fund the project.

Under the agreement, the borough would apply for the state grant to fund the park, and the Penn State Cooperative Extension would administer those funds.

The agreement was tabled in April, to be reviewed by the borough solicitor and staff prior to the council’s May 15 meeting.

On Monday night, Lewistown Mayor Deborah Bargo, a member of the skate committee, asked the council members how they felt about the agreement, so she could take those comments back to the committee.

Mark Remy, acting as borough solicitor due to Jeff Snook’s absence, said a review of the agreement showed that the responsibility for the grant funding would be on the borough.

If the project collapsed or otherwise did not go forward, the borough would be held accountable for the grant funds.

The council previously stated it would donate the land for the facility and provide insurance, but it would not be responsible for any funding or maintenance.

“I don’t think he (Jeff Snook) really sees any way for us to insulate the borough,” Remy said. “I think the problem is the borough is ultimately going to be responsible for (the grant).”

In the discussion that followed, it was proposed that the skate park committee apply for the state grant.

However, officials said, that option was not feasible. In the grant application, the owner of the property must apply for the grant, and the borough owns the land.

If the committee owned the land, or if the land was private, then the committee could apply for the grant.

In a heated discussion, councilman Larry Searer, a supporter of the facility, expressed his frustration.

“I hope I live long enough to take the first ride on those ramps,” he said. “It ain’t never going to happen.”

Searer said every time the skate park comes close to reality, another roadblock is thrown up, pushing it father away — and just out of reach.

“Lets get this bull ---- over with,” Searer said, adding it was not fair to the kids to continue to promise them a skate park if it was not going to happen.

Instead, Searer said it was time for the council to make a decision instead of leading the skaters on.

“It isn’t fair to leave these people think we’re going to put a skate park in there. It should never have lasted this long,” he said.

“And now they’ve raised all this money ... and as far as I’m concerned it’s getting further and further away,” he said.

Councilman Frank Berrier, who made the motion to rescind the land, said the borough had made clear when it granted the land it would not help with funding.

“This was clear from the start,” Berrier said.

Berrier said the skate park committee was asking the borough to apply for the grant, but under the original agreement, the committee was to provide the funding.

Berrier said if the committee cannot get the grant without the borough’s involvement, then the project should not go forward, because of the liability it would place on the borough.



Lasting commitment

Money was not the only issue raised by the council Monday night concerning the skate park.

Remy and David Frey, borough manager, said wording in the grant application could make the borough responsible for “the life” of the facility if it applied for the grant.

That “commitment,” as Remy called it, could mean if the borough later wanted to remove the facility, it would be held responsible for the grant funding — funding that the state could ask to be repaid.

Additionally, council members cited existing problems with the skateboarders in the borough as being a mark against the facility.

Skateboarders in the downtown area have been blamed for the relocation of one area business. The borough also has received complaints about kids skateboarding on sidewalks and damaging property by “grinding” on benches and other structures.

“We’re putting a lot of money into the Rec Center and a lot of money into Rec Park, do we want to jeopardize it?” said Nelson Rieffannacht, another council member.

If they damage areas downtown, should they be brought into Rec Park, an area used by many families and elderly persons, Berrier asked.

“Some of us don’t feel it’s a good use for the property,” he said.

The skaters are “rude and antisocial,” Councilman Russell Rager said. “I’m sure we’ll get the same kids at Rec Park.”

Bargo argued that those skateboarders who have been a nuisance in the downtown area may be doing so out of frustration.



Motion and second

Berrier made the motion to rescind the land offer, which was seconded by Rager.

Bargo asked if she, as the mayor, had the right to table the motion for further discussion until the next council meeting on May 15.

As Bargo’s ability to table the matter was discussed, Rieffannacht asked, of the $60,000 raised, how much had been raised by the skaters themselves.

Bargo said roughly $12,000 of the donations had come from the skaters or their families, and said a lot of people support the project, including many local businesses.

“If there’s a lot of people that want it, then that’s the impetus to take it to private property,” Rieffannacht said.

Searer countered, saying he thought it was “very ignorant” of the borough council to withdraw the land now.

The council began to vote on the measure, with Berrier voting to withdraw the land offer.

As councilman Gregg O’Donnell voted not to rescind, the vote was stopped to allow Remy to review the borough code to see if Bargo could, as mayor, table the motion.

“I don’t think it’s good practice for Debby to table a vote so she can pack the house like DLI did,” Berrier said as the council awaited Remy’s decision.

After reviewing the code, it was determined that the mayor could only table a motion in the event of a tie-vote among council members.

The vote was retaken, with Berrier, Rager, Rieffannacht and Jim Felmlee voting to withdraw the land offer. Searer and O’Donnell voted not to. Councilman Jeffrey Adams was absent from the meeting.