Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 01/23/2008Call Meeting to Order: Mike Chalona called meeting to order 5:36pm Agenda Review: Guest Speaker Mike Freeman postponed to March 5 meeting. Citizen Participation: None Approval of Minutes: Greg Miller Approved, Mike Chalona Seconded — Approved 5:1 (Mary Carlson abstained) Updates: Policy Plan Update: Craig went over the basics of the policy plan with a power point presentation. He touched upon: the policy plan background, impact fees and what they mean, impacts to the general fund if nothing is adjusted, operating and maintenance costs, construction costs, and the price of government. Goals for the Build Out Examples: • Park Planning & Development - Balanced System, Fair System, Level of Service • Parks Division - Level of Service, Sustainability, Available/Accessible • Marty — Fair, Best System, Diverse, Unique. Looking at customer surveys, the community likes the Park system. We have a good thing going, but City Council is saying money is limited. So, how do we maintain current level of service in the future, using existing funds. • Board — Agree with all the above, it should be balanced and fair and all people should have availability to a park and a level of service in the parks. o How do you keep close or exceed unless you come up with a permanent fee source? A fee with the utility bill so O&M doesn't have to look to the general fund could be a possibility. It would provide a solid predictable revenue source, customer satisfaction and level of service. o We still need to be advocates for prudence of tax dollars. o We're blessed with an amazing park system, but expectation to make complete future parks should be based on available dollars. o We need to look at also completing the trail system. o Optimize maintenance strategies, take a look at smart ways to maintain level of service. o We need a consistent revenue stream to maintain a level of service, but it doesn't seem right to tax people. o Slowing down park development seem appropriate, community has to realize they don't always get what they want. P&R Board Minutes Page I of 4 • Greenplay: Planning for future community is difficult; you have factors such as growth issues, level of service, and customer satisfaction (what they like, what they want). Moving here is tied to parks and recreation system; so, these are all things that need to be considered when deciding on the three Options [Option 1 (leave the same); Option 2 (change build out to 2 years); Option 3 (austere)]. Look at where City says they are at, level of service key, being prudent in spending money, keep your options open, pursue new funding sources. Bill: The East community park has 35 acres of low maintenance turf, why only 6% low maintenance turf showing at Southeast park. Do we know of any development happening in the next 5 years? Craig: The Northeast park by A/B is the last community park, but most of the north building development is very slow. The Southeast and East would probably need to be done first. The 35 acres for the East park reflects a more passive park to fit with the surrounding area. The 3 acres at the Southeast park will likely increase in the final design phase (now that I think more about the park site). But, both the Southeast park and Northeast park will need a more typical balance of active and passive spaces. Jessica: I think development of parks needs to go where development is happening. Marty: Build out only when development needs it will reduce costs, in 10 years a lot can happen, under Option 2 we would stretch out park development as long as we can, but we would not be reducing the level of service. Mark: We need to be careful with alternate landscapes so that a park doesn't become all rock and natural plants. That wouldn't be very prudent. Craig: We like to have a good balance of recreating space and xeriscape, and I think the new Spring Canyon Park is a good example of that. We need to realize that if we went with Option 3 without neighborhood parks there would be an increase in O&M at the other parks because people will seek out the other parks for recreation. Also, we want the parks to continue to be developed with ALL the amenities. Greenplay: Some suggestions to ease the need to develop a neighborhood park every year would be to add connectivity from the trails to the parks, add benches and small play elements along the trail so that as a person was walking on the trail to the park they almost feel they've already entered the park. Craig: There are several trails that could work: North trails, Boxelder trail, South Fossil Creek and Dry Creek. Jessica: Do you work with developers to have trail access through development? Craig: Developers create the neighborhood park, but there's no impact fee for trails. However, we can build the trail if they provide the land. Jessica: It seems it would be an amenity that a developer would encourage to get people to buy in the development. Greenplay: Another suggestion to reduce cost at parks would be to construct unisex restrooms. Jessica: I don't like that idea. Bill: Is there a concern with the level of service at our parks? Marty: We currently maintain our O&M very well, but what's at stake is if we gain new parks and work with existing money we could be put in a bad situation. Bill: A trail impact fee seems most viable to community. Jessica: Maybe use term "Parks & Trail" Fee. Marty: There is an impact fee for the Library, but since it is now a district, we may be able to switch that impact fee from the Library to Parks & Trail fee without any impact to the community. There's a price for government, police, fire, transportation for new tax so perhaps while they're having this discussion we could add parks to the mix. J.R.: Let's think about what was discussed here tonight and see if at the next meeting we can finalize what you want to recommend to Council. Jessica: I think we support reducing the pace of development. We need to show conservative steps if we want Council to adopt the plan. P&R Board Minutes Page 2 of 4 Michael: I also think the reduced Option 2 is better. Mark: I grew up here and our family drove to City Park, I thought it was great. I don't think it's a terrible inconvenience to drive to a park. Michael: What information can we have for next meeting so we can have meaningful discussion. Marty: What we need are funding options. Look at the Options 1, 2 and 3, show consequences of those options, and how funding options play into them. Craig will provide a build out from Advance Planning. Guest Speaker John Stokes, Natural Areas Director John talked about Northern Integrated Supply Program (NISP). It's a water storage supply project. Only the very southern part of Fort Collins would benefit from this project, but the City is not a partner in this project. The proposal is to create a large reservoir along 287 between Ted's Place and Owl Canyon utilizing the Poudre River. A permit is needed from The Army Corp of Engineers. They will be accessing regional impacts, inter -state impacts, environmental impacts, etc. The reservoir would be filled with run off from the Poudre. It would take water from the Poudre during primary impact months. The final say for the permit is up to the Army Corp of Engineers. A draft is due out in February. Response from public and governmental agencies needs to be within 90 days of draft. Jessica: How will this impact development around the river? John: NISP will make an average year look like a drought year on river. Craig: There will also be fewer good days for water sports. Jessica: Does this do any good for flood mitigation? John: In a flood situation they wouldn't be able to pump out water fast enough. We were asked by Council to show environmental impact. With the reduced flow, the concern is build up of sediment which overtime reduces habitat. It can also cause flooding and increased water temperatures which is bad for fish. In the long term, the plant life can change from cottonwoods growing along river to Russian olives. Lower flows can also result in poor water quality. The staff is working to make sure our response is ready for the 90 day deadline. It would be up to you if the P&R Board would like to present a letter of recommendation to Council. Michael: I would like to form a sub -committee to see how this would affect Parks & Trails so that we can make a recommendation to Council. Proiect Updates - None Other Business J.R. noted that an IGA for City Park South ballfield will be entered into by the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University only; the other participants backed out. City Park South ballfield will be upgraded with grass infield, new dug outs, and new lighting. Approval of P&R Board 2007 Annual Report — Motion to approve by William Pickering, Seconded by Mary Carlson —Approved: 6:0 P&R Board Minutes Page 3 of 4 February 27, 2008, P&R Board Meeting needs to be rescheduled due to conflict for Greenplay members. Carol Rankin will send e-mail to board to decide on new date. *******SPECIAL NOTE: Rescheduled Date: Wed., March 5 at 413 S. Bryan Ave., Park Shop******** Correspondence - None Adjournment —Board adjourned: 7:43pm Respectfully submitted, Carol Rankin Administrative Support Supervisor Parks Department Board Attendance Board Members: Mary Carlson, Mark Leuker, Jessica MacMillan, Greg Miller, Michael Chalona, William Pickering Staff: Craig Foreman, J.R. Schnelzer, Marty Heffernan, Jean Helburg, John Stokes, Carol Rankin Guests: Roger Sherman, BHA Design; Rob Layton, Design Concepts; Chris Dropinski, Greenplay l_� AJ f�J� Cf112. d E Alt 3 .i 1Z b U CO'XX\a,� P&R Board Minutes Page 4 of 4