12b. Removal of Architectural Barriers, Lake Ann Park1
I MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
i
CITY OF l a 5
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
March 8, 1995
Removal of Architectural Barriers, Lake Ann Park Using CDBG Funds
As you are aware, the allocation of Commumt
administered by the city's Planning Department:' I
directly involved in this process since much of the
and recreation, i.e. Senior Center, removal of'archi
worthwhile park projects have been cc
' installation of an accessible play strucl
fishing pier at Lake Susan Park, and a
embellishments at Lake Ann Park. Fo
Director Kate Aanenson, and I have Uri
of these dollars. The city's accessbil
r
guides staff's recomm
Lake Susan Park have
habits. These commp
city's system.
Meted under
at City Ce
tltitude of a
.er Planning
i very consc
audit was c(
DWA (3 -9 -95)
opment Block Grant (CDBG) monies is
Park and Recreation Department is
nt money flows directly through park
ural barriers, etc. In past years, many
is program. These projects include the
tr Park, the installation of an accessible
F
cessible parking and facility
)hector Paul Krauss, present Planning
nt§ us in recommending expenditures
npl6ted in 1993 and this document
in regard to accessibility i
n the most attention in th
receive the highest levels
Manager's Comment's:
This item is solely
informational- attempting
to respond to questions
raised during the
CDBG hearing
,nts. Lake Ann Park and
due to obvious user
visits of any parks in the
Oftentimes with acaital improvement project, budget allocations require compounding until
such time when the project` can be,- financed. Such is the case with the Lake ' Ann beach play
equipment project. Visitor count estimates for. the Lake. 1i beach facility reach 50,000
annually. Replacing the playground at the beach riot only removes architectural barriers, it
provides a big bang for our buck. This is a high„ visibility site from which all park users can
receive benefit.
This is not to say that the process of selecting CDBG projects is completely scientific. A
variety of projects could have been selected; however, this rose to the top of the "to do" list
and has been compounding buying power from Year XIX block grant funds ($18,632) and
Year XX block grant funds ($28,544). A portion of the allocation of $29,696 for accessibility
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 8, 1995
Page 2
improvements approved by the city council on February 27 is necessary to complete the
funding package for this project. The project is split into three functions:
Site Preparation and Border Work
20%
Play Equipment
45%
Accessible Resilient Surfacing
35%
The estimated total project cost is $66,000 with an additional $3,000 - $4,000 being committed
to project administration. In addition, city labor to install the equipment valued at over
$25,000 in the competitive marketplace is being committed to this project. City crews will
clear the existing equipment and install the new equipment.
I cannot dispute that this project represents a large investment of city dollars. However, the
job of providing public play equipment which is accessible, meets Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) guidelines, American Society of Testing Materials Standards (ASTM),
provides separate play areas for age groups 3 -5 and 5 -12, and is exciting to boot, is
expensive.
c: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington- Koegler Group, Inc.
Attachment: Playground Safety, Final Problem Analysis, Todd Hoffman, Ethics in
Government, Hamline University
n
0
L
n
n
0
Playground Safety
Todd Hoffman
Final Problem Analysis
Ethics in Government, MAPA Course
PUB AD 801, Hamline University
Jane Calabria McPeak
A quarter of a million children are either injured or killed in playground accidents
every year in the United States. This figure has been relatively constant for over twenty
years. Over three - fourths of these incidents occur on public playgrounds. Why then has
Shirley Camper Somans' book, Let's Stop Destroying our Children published twenty years
ago, been ignored? The first chapter of the book is entitled, "Fun and Games ... and Sudden
Death," in which she points out the extent of children's injuries and deaths which were being
suffered on play equipment. Compound this statistic over the same twenty years and
approximately five million incidents involving playground injuries or deaths have occurred
since she published her book. Such prestigious newspapers as the New York Times and
Washington Post have addressed playground safety and national and local television networks
have covered the issue. A national conference entitled, "World Class Safety and Health," was
held in the spring of 1992 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The three day conference
included a full compliment of playground safety seminars. Dr. Bob Arnodt of CBS News
covered the conference, interviewing John Preston, Project Manager for the U.S. Consumer
Products Safety Commission. Mr. Preston is commonly referred to as the "guru" of
playground safety in the United States. The focus of this recent attention remains the same as
it was twenty years ago. Why are children injured and killed on playgrounds? But, more
importantly, why after twenty years of attention by the media, park and recreation
professionals, play equipment manufacturers and the federal government have we not
significantly reduced the rate of injuries on our playgrounds?
I
C
L
1
7
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created in 1973 to
address issues of public safety and welfare in the United States. At the time of its inception,
500 persons were put to work addressing safety issues as diverse as toaster ovens to
automobiles. The commission's first recognized effort to address playground safety was their
"Handbook for Public Playground Safety, Volume 1: General Guidelines for New and
park and recreation industry nation -wide and everyone was sent scrambling— agency directors
Existing Playgrounds" published in 1981. This publication sent a shock wave through the
attempted to assess the compliance of their equipment, manufacturers retooled their
production plants and attorneys and consultants quickly capitalized on a ripe opportunity to
package and sell "advice" on playground safety. The challenge, it seemed, lay in interpreting
the guidelines and reacting accordingly in order to make the nation's playgrounds a safe
haven for our children.
Many responsible authorities did their best to comply with the guidelines, believing
that our children's safety was worth the effort. Others, however, labeled the new guidelines
an unfunded "mandate" and did little or nothing to comply. Nay sayers were also quick to
point out that these new regulations were simply guidelines and compliance was not
mandatory. The courts soon dispelled this logic; however, upholding case after case based
upon negligence which was supported by the guidelines. Common sense mandates that our
society recognizes that the risk of injury is inherent to the playground experience. However,
with the publication of national safety guidelines, a reduction in the rate of injuries should
have been realized.
2
The city of my employment is committed to installing new equipment which meets or
exceeds the CPSC guidelines. We also retrofit or replace existing equipment in order to
attain the same goal. Our park staff conducts an annual audit of every piece of playground
equipment maintained by the city to test our compliance status. To date we have not reached
100% compliance, but we continue to work at achieving that goal. The entire staff is
committed to providing playgrounds which meet or exceed CPSC guidelines and performing
at this level has become culturalized within our organization. At night I can go to sleep
knowing that we are doing our best to provide a safe and enjoyable playground experience to
our users. The city's attorney office is also comfortable with our level of service. In fact,
they offer us words of encouragement in the areas of parks and recreation programming.
Accidents and injuries have occurred, but thankfully none of have been extreme and none
have resulted in litigation. However, this is not the case all across the United States and the
Safety Commission began to recognize this soon after their first publication hit the streets.
A full ten years later, with their challenge still unmet, the commission published a
second handbook for public playground safety. What had gone wrong? Why were injuries
still occurring at historic rates? I will offer you some thoughts in this regard; however, the
full jury on this question remains out even today, four years after the publication of this
second generation of guidelines. Shortly after publication of the CPSC's second handbook,
the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM), in cooperation with the CPSC, published
nationally recognized safety and performance standards for public playground equipment.
These standards are meant to supplement and clarify the 1991 CPSC guidelines and contain
important information relative to the design of accessible playgrounds. Now the industry not
3
r
L
u
n
0
only has guidelines by which to operate, we also have safety and performance "standards." It
seemed the final nail had been driven into the coffin of those who had chosen not to follow
the earlier guidelines.
After the shock wave of the 1981 guidelines travelled across the country, park and
recreation professionals, as well as other providers of playground equipment, set out on the
task of retrofitting their existing sites and developing specifications for new playgrounds
which were consistent with the new guidelines and standards. Success rates varied dependent
upon the level of understanding and commitment displayed by each organization. Some
criticized the manuals as being vague and/or difficult to interpret. Others became caught up
in the myriad of information being presented and were overwhelmed by the task of evaluating
their playgrounds for subsequent retrofitting. As the years passed, numbness began to set in
some organizations and they became very apathetic towards the whole process. After all,
rates at which injuries were occurring were not going down. Advocates of the guidelines
were to quick point out that our society had become increasingly litigious and incidents which
formerly had gone unreported were now showing up in the statistics. Others pointed to a
reduction in parental supervision as a cause of injury. For a moment, it seemed our charge to
provide public playgrounds may be lost in a whirlwind of guidelines, standards, regulations,
interpretations and accusations.
Fortunately, the industry stabilized after the 1991 guidelines were introduced. CPSC's
second edition was more concise than their 1981 version and contained information which
was less technical in nature. It was seen as a user friendly document and gained wide
acceptance across the country. The commission pointed to the fact that the majority of
0
playground injuries resulted from falls to the surface —an occurrence which could easily be
prevented in most cases. Early design standards for playgrounds commonly utilized concrete,
asphalt, or at best, grass or dirt surfacing underneath playground equipment. Ease of
maintenance with such installations was the primary motivation behind this practice. The
consequences, however, were swept under the rug for over fifty years. Other hazard patterns
included impacts by swings and other moving equipment, colliding with stationary equipment
and contact with hazards such as protrusions, pinch points, sharp edges, hot surfaces and
playground debris. Fatal injuries most commonly included falls, entanglement of clothing,
entanglement in ropes tied to or caught on equipment, head entrapment in openings, impact
from equipment tip over, or structural failure. What disturbs me about these findings is that
with the exception of collisions with stationary equipment, all of the hazards noted can be
prevented with proper design and maintenance of playgrounds. Children do not seek to
"misuse" or "abuse" play equipment. They search for challenges in play which directly
correlates with risk taking. For example, upon mastering a tunnel slide feet first, a child will
soon attempt it head first, either on one's front or back. In doing so, they may miscalculate
their exit and land "head first" on the surface below the slide. Common sense dictates we
anticipate this behavior and provide a fall- absorbing, i.e. resilient surface, below the slide.
However, many a begrudged janitor, maintenance employee and even administrator has
blamed such an incident on "inappropriate play."
Compliance with the 1991 CPSC guidelines and the new ASTM standards in new
installations has significantly lowered the risk of injuries on playgrounds being installed since
1991. However, too much stock is being placed in attrition to remedy the hundreds of
W1
thousands of existing playgrounds in our country. The attitude of, "it's always been that
way," could not have been more painfully evident than on a recent cross country trip of
thirteen midwest and western states.
The Hoffman summer vacation of 1993 has me questioning the ethical state of our
governments and others who provide playgrounds for our children. In Kansas City, I found
school playgrounds still in place over asphalt and concrete surfacing. Other equipment stood
in pools of water which had formed in the depressions carved out of the hard earth below
them. Much of the equipment was outdated and a series of pieces were installed within wood
borders without sufficient clearance being maintained. A guaranteed percentage of all
children who fell or dismounted from this equipment would come in direct contact with such
protrusions risking injury. Our next stop found us in Colby, Kansas for a lunch break and a
chance to stretch our limbs. We found lunch at the local grocery store and happened upon
the Town Square Park which offered a picnic shelter adjacent to a playground. Upon
transporting our coolers to the shelter, a quick inspection of the play area had me labeling this
"the most dangerous playground in America." Nothing seemed to fully comply with current
guidelines or standards. The majority of the equipment was situated over packed soil, height
of equipment violations were common and garbage and debris littered the area.
A stop over in Grand Junction, Colorado found our three children playing on
equipment supplied by the motel we were staying at. Again, this equipment was outdated,
but more importantly, was never intended for use in a public setting. Such equipment quickly
becomes worn and is susceptible to failure. On to Green River, Utah for fuel and a
playground break for the kids (and parents). The Town Square Park across from the gas
0
station exhibited the standard war memorabilia found in similar settings and contained a
playground which quickly won "the most dangerous playground in America" status away from
Colby. Not a single piece of equipment appeared to be under thirty years old and all of it
was installed over a packed earth and gravel surface. Many pieces were secured by concrete
footings which were exposed at the surface or protruded above it. There were entrapment
areas, strangulation points, exposed stair rungs, insufficient slide railings, pinch points,
tripping hazards, metal animal figure swings and other numerous violations. Liz and I
coddled our children through every movement they took on the playground in fear of what
could occur without direct supervision and involvement in their play. We left that playground
much sooner than we would normally questioning the judgement of those responsible for the
provision of such an environment. Both this site and the one previously described appeared
to be operated by their respective local units of government. What disturbed me most was
that with the exception of the playgrounds, the remainder of the park areas were very well
kept. In fact, a restroom facility had been newly constructed at the site in Kansas, taking
priority over improving the safety of the playground.
Admittedly, my assessment of the country's playgrounds could very well be skewed
due to the random nature of my sampling of playgrounds from Minnesota to Seattle,
Washington and back. But, as we travelled, my exposure to "unsafe" playgrounds at parks,
schools, fast food restaurants, churches and camp grounds continued to mount. Some of the
more urban sites we visited were above average in my assessment; however, the majority of
all sites I inspected were well below standards.
7
I have been employed in the park and recreation field for the past ten years and
became directly involved in playground installation and maintenance approximately five years
ago. Being employed by a relatively young city, our playground sites are all under twenty
years old. Even so, upon my arrival, many lacked any type of resilient surfacing and were
plagued with other hazards such as head entrapments, protrusions and excessive height. As
the person ultimately responsible for our playgrounds, I was compelled to remedy these
deficiencies.
Naively, I thought the majority of other cities, towns, schools, churches, day cares, etc.
were doing the same. I often witnessed evidence to the contrary, but I attributed the lack of
action by the city in which I reside, the city down the road in which I shop, etc. to a
temporary lack of funding, anticipating that these improvements would soon be budgeted for
completion. The overall ratio of "doers" to "feet draggers," at least within my normal sphere
of travel, left me feeling somewhat confident that things were getting better. However, it is
now evident that an ethical standard to serve and protect the public by providing safe
playgrounds is clearly being ignored across our country. The "that's the way it always has
been" attitude can no longer be acceptable. A better way of doing business has been
identified and all public servants have an obligation to commit themselves to it. Guidance
from our federal government in the form of guidelines and standards has not resulted in the
level of commitment which we can be comfortable with. This is not surprising since
mandates "from above" of any kind are routinely ignored at all levels in our society. In lieu
of this, I advocate self - policing efforts which can be implemented from within an
organization/ institution. All providers of public services must remind themselves that in their
�1
haste to serve, safety comes first. This message can be effectively transmitted through trade
journals and newsletters and in professional workshops and seminars. Procrastination is the
downfall of many good intentions. I am guilty in that the letters which I drafted in my mind
addressed to the providers of the playgrounds I visited were never written and sent. It is not
uncommon for people to become enamored with a cause only to have their lust to make a
difference fade away. I want to make a difference, but in my silence have failed to do so.
Those letters will be written, being careful not to blame, and I will send them along with the
pictures I took while on my vacation. I also vow to encourage others to do their part in
sending the message that the safety of our children really does come first. Procrastination or
ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse for not providing safe playgrounds in the United
States. We must look within and become involved in a grass roots effort to promote the
merits of a safe playground experience. Monumental changes do not occur overnight.
However, allow the domino effects of a good message to multiply across this land and a
brighter future for our children will be born.
0