HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/08/2008 - REVIEW OF BUILDOUT OPTIONS FOR FUTURE PARKS, ASSOC DATE: April 8, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Marty Heffernan FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Craig Foreman
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of Build out Options for Future Parks,Associated Operation and Maintenance(O&M)Costs
and Funding Options.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At a September 2007 work session, staff reported to Council the results of the public outreach
process for the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update. Council asked staff to develop three
options for developing future parks, with different O&M funding needs. Staff has developed these
options (Current, Reduced and Austere) and options to fund maintenance of future parks. The
purpose of this work session is to review the park build out and maintenance funding options. The
complete plan update will be considered by Council in the next few months.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Which park build-out option (Current, Reduced, Austere) does Council prefer?
2. Which funding option(s) for future park O&M costs does Council prefer?
BACKGROUND
The current Parks and Recreation Policy Plan was adopted by Council in 1996. It has served the
community well, but it is time for an update. City staff and the consultant, GreenPlay, conducted
a public involvement process including focus groups, a community survey and outreach to City
Boards and Commissions. The results of the outreach effort were reported to Council at a work
session last September. Council expressed concern about the O&M expenses associated with future
parks and asked staff to prepare three options for building future parks,with different O&M funding
needs, along with funding options. The purpose of this work session is to review the three options
for building future parks and options to fund the associated O&M expense.
After the work session staff will work with GreenPlay to complete the draft Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan update. Staff will bring the Plan back for further discussion at a future work session or
for consideration for adoption at a regular meeting, as Council prefers.
The attached PowerPoint slides, maps and spreadsheets provide the remainder of the background
materials.
April 8, 2008 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of September 17, 2007 Work Session.
2. PowerPoint Presentation.
3. Maps depicting park development for each build-out option.
4. Spreadsheets of park O&M costs for each build-out option.
5. Park and Recreation Board recommendation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Culture,Parks,Recreation and
6a
Environment
&MAN 215 North Mason Street, 311 Floor
p0 Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522
City of Fort Collins 970.416.2265
970.221.6586-fax
fcgov.com
WORK SESSION SUMMARY
DT: September 17, 2007
TO: Mayor and Member of City Council
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
FR: Marty Heffernan, Director of CPRE Al z H
Craig Foreman, Manager of Park Planning and Development
RE: September 11, 2007 Council Work Session Summary-- Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Update
A Councilmember asked if the parkland impact fees being collected could be used for such things as a
recreation facility. Staff replied the fees are collected to offset the impact of new residents on neighborhood
and community parks and they must be used to build or improve these parks. They cannot be used for
recreation centers. The Plan Update will provide greater flexibility on how the fees can be used to build and
improve our parks.
Council asked several questions related to park operation and maintenance costs. Staff replied that this has
been a chief concern and the Update will look at a variety of options to reduce future operation and
maintenance costs, for new and existing parks. Options could include reducing the number of parks,
designing parks to require less maintenance, delaying construction and making parks more durable. Staff's
work with other Colorado communities indicates the City's park operation and maintenance costs compare
favorably with these other communities.
Cormcilmembers cautioned the plan needs to have realistic expectations about funding. Staff replied a variety
of funding options will be explored and included in the plan recommendations.
Council asked about the sports complex and why it was being considered when it did not rate a]1 that well in
the survey responses? Staff replied that the sports complex is a longstanding issue from the existing plan and
needs to be resolved in this Update.
Councilmembers asked about the concept of community recreation and cultural centers recommended in the
Cultural Facility Plan. Staff replied that Recreation staff support this concept and it would be included in the
Update.
A Councilmember noted the lack of support for a fee increase shown on pages 10 & 11 in the survey.
Staff explained the number reflects a"cold" question without any information about how the revenue would
be used or the benefits it would provide. More information would need to be given to the public to get a
more accurate level of interest in the fee.
A Councilmember asked about UniversityCity Connections and whether anything in the Update would relate
to that effort. Staff replied that we are aware of this planning effort and some projects are related, including
the water craft course and other possible recreation near the river.
A Councilmember asked about the Velodrome project. Staff replied that the Velodrome is not within our
core parks and recreation mission because it is a very specialized facility and geared toward highly
competitive events. The City's Recreation mission is primarily to provide community recreation with an
emphasis on broad based participation. The City Manager added that the City is interested in the Velodrome
discussion for economic vitality and quality of life reasons.
A Councilmember asked about the consultant finding any curveballs or interesting items. The consultant
replied they really didn't encounter any curveballs or unexpected results. The outreach effort shows the
community really likes the parks and recreation facilities and programs the City provides now. They also
want even more trails and active and passive recreation. The placement of ballfields in neighborhood parks
is somewhat unusual.
The Mayor asked if the Update would have options such as: austere, middle and best of class for
development of future parks. Staff replied they will develop these options for consideration.
Council asked for examples of ways we are currently reducing park maintenance costs. These include:
• 80% of parks are irrigated with raw water
• Weather stations in parks provide data used to minimize water usage
• Use of drought tolerant grasses in non-high use areas
• Established no-mow areas, thus reducing fuel and labor costs
• New mowing standard of 3"high for non-high use areas
• Introduced a"fertigation" system to apply fertilizer through the irrigation system to reduce labor
costs
• Trail edges are planted with low growing grasses to reduce the need for mowing
• New trucks allow for E85, diesel vehicles are bio-fuel, and new utility vehicles are electric
PARKS AND RECREATION
POLICY PLAN
COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APRIL 8 , 2008
Vtr-
Y i
POLICY PLAN UPDATE
AGENDA
A. Purpose of Work Session
B . Parkland standard comparison to other cities
C . Review of build out options
D . Review of park O & M funding need
E . Park O & M funding options
F . GreenPlay recommendation
G . Parks and Recreation Board recommendation
H . Next steps
I . Council Questions
A . PURPOSE OF WORK SESSION
• Staff and GreenPlay conducted a public
involvement process including focus groups , a
community survey and outreach to City Boards
• Reported initial findings to Council Sept . 2007
• Council requested 3 options (Current , Reduced ,
Austere ) for build out of the park system , with
different O & M funding needs
• The purpose of this Work Session is to review the
3 options and options to fund new park O & M
Y
SURVEY RESULTS
The March 2007 mail - in survey yielded high ratings for
our parks :
• 86 % of respondents believe our parks are meeting
the needs of the community
• 85 % rate the quality of our parks as "excellent"
• 76 % say they (or someone in their household ) have
used our parks within the last 12 months
�L
B . PARK STANDARD COMPARISON
Fort Collins has a standard of:
2 . 5 acres/ 1000 population for neighborhood parks and
4 . 5 acres / 1000 population for community parks
for a total of 7 . 0 acres of parkland per 1000 population .
Y i
PARK STANDARD COMPARISON
Parkland standards per 1000 population in neighboring
Colorado cities :
Greeley — 8 . 5 Parker — 7 . 5
Arvada — 8 . 1 Longmont — 7 . 0
Castle Rock — 8 . 0 Fort Collins - 7. 0
Loveland — 7 . 5 Brighton — 6 . 0
Windsor — 7 . 5 Lakewood — 5 . 5
Westminster — 5 . 5
PARK STANDARD COMPARISON
Some other cities :
Denver — 8 acres
Sacramento — 10 acres
Portland , Oregon — 20 acres
Eugene , Oregon — 10 acres
Y
PARK STANDARD COMPARISON
• Fort Collins places neighborhood parks at a
minimum of one park in every sq . mile (or portion
there of) that is predominantly residential .
• Many cities place neighborhood parks within a half
mile distance or within a short walk ( 10 to 15
minutes ) of every resident .
PARK STANDARD COMPARISION
• Fort Collins places community parks within or near
areas that are expected to be heavily populated , one
per 20 , 000 pop .
• Many cities place community parks within an area
ranging from 1 mile to 2 1 /2 mile radius or within a 20
to 30 minute walk from any home .
Y
PARK O & M COST COMPARISON
Park O& M costs ( per acre ) comparison with other Front
Range communities :
Broomfield $6 , 173 Loveland $ 5 , 802
Greeley $ 5 , 848 Fort Collins $5 , 092
Longmont $ 5 , 822 Westminster $5 , 079
C . REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
City Council requested staff develop three options
(Current , Reduced , Austere ) for building out the
City' s park system . The following slides review the
three options and discuss the pros/cons of each .
All options include an aggressive design and
operation and maintenance practices to reduce
O& M costs currently employed by the City
Y
O & M REDUCTION PRACTICES
• Park designs reduce irrigated turf areas
• Infrastructure built for long —term durability
• Concrete courts and parking areas instead of asphalt
• Increased " no- mow" areas for parks and trails
• Increased use of volunteers
• Satellite maintenance shops
• Extensive mulching program
• Reduced frequency of trash removal in some parks
O & M REDUCTION PRACTICES
• 80 % of parks irrigated with raw water
• Evapotranspiration/rain sensor systems used to
reduce water use
• Greater use of tall fescue grasses
• Solar powered pond aerators
• LED scoreboards
• Winter closure of restrooms
• No flower beds in neighborhood parks
• New vehicles E -85 compatible
.
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
CURRENT OPTION
Please see attached Current Option maps
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
CURRENT OPTION
Pros :
• Maintains current level of service
• Parks evenly distributed across the community
• Park facilities of equal quality
• Consistent level of accessibility
• Proven successful and well received
Cons :
• Higher O & M costs than Reduced or Austere
options
Y i
r
AL : ►.
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
REDUCED OPTION
Please see attached Reduced Option maps
Y i
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
REDUCED OPTION
Pros :
• Reduced O & M costs
• Improved trails in the northeast
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
REDUCED OPTION
Cons :
• Delays park construction — residents may wait 10
years for a park
• Fewer parks
. 10 parks in northeast reduced to 6
. 1 park in southeast eliminated
• Impaired access — major streets may separate
neighborhoods from park
• Smaller mowed turf areas — less room for
programs
Y i
rrrrr
9 �
yq�ry
ii
:' jaw-
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
AUSTERE OPTION
Please see attached Austere Option maps
i
REVIEW OF BUILD OUT OPTIONS
AUSTERE OPTION
Pros :
• Maximum reduction in O & M costs
Cons :
• Eliminates 8 parks
• Creates unequal parks system
• Significant service reduction — particularly in the
northeast
• Significantly delays park construction
REVIEW OF OUT OPTIONS
AUSTEREOPTION
Cons :
* Eliminates basic facilities like restrooms , picnic
playgrounds , special
* Impaired access — parks farther away and
separated by major streets
�®
r 1'
i
i
T
c{�.s
t� l ti )
12
D . PARK O & M FUNDING NEED
2008 - 2018 ( current dollars )
Current Reduced Austere
2008 - $39 ,500 $35 , 500 $31 . 100
2009 - $70 ,500 $35 ,500 $315100
2010 - $ 163 , 900 $655500 $56 , 700
2011 - $215 , 900 $655500 $565700
2012 - $595 , 900 * $955500 $82 . 300
2013 - $632 , 300 $955500 $825300
2014 - $668 , 700 $ 141 , 500 $ 1195900
2015 - $702 , 500 $5059500 * $4055600*
2016 - $738 , 900 $5465100 $4409600
2017 - $ 150695700* $5813500 $4715600
2018 - $ 151005700 $5815500 $487,400
* Year with a community park added
Y
PARK O & M FUNDING NEED
2019 - 2025 ( at build out)
Current Reduced Austere
2019 - $ 151375100 $641 , 900 $5223400
2020 - $ 157575100* $9015900 * $5223400
2021 - $ 157935500 $931 , 100 $5223400
2022 - $ 198359100 $962 , 900 $550 , 900
2023 - $ 198559900 $962 , 900 $5505900
2024 - $ 198559900 $994, 300 $5505900
2025 - $ 1 ,8559900 $ 1 ,554 , 300 * $ 150009900
* Year with a community park added
E . PARK O & M FUNDING OPTIONS
• General Fund support for future park O & M
• Specific sales tax increase for park O & M
• General sales tax increase with allocation for park
O& M
• Community park maintenance fee
• Use of Conservation Trust Funds for park O & M
• Trail Impact Fee
Y
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT
As the community grows , a portion of sales/use tax
increases could be allocated to new park O & M costs .
SALES TAX INCREASE
Seek voter approval of a specific sales tax increase for
maintenance of new parks
Seek voter approval of a general sales tax increase and
allocate a portion for maintenance of new parks
Y
PARK MAINTENANCE FEE
A park maintenance fee to fund community parks
O & M would cost about $4 . 00/month/home and
would generate about $2 , 500 , 000 in annual revenue
The fee would increase as new community parks are
developed to a cost of about $ 7 at build out .
The fee would provide a savings to the General
Fund of about $2 , 200 , 000 annually .
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
The development of the trail system is funded by the
Conservation Trust Fund ( Lottery)
Conservation Trust funds can be used for park
maintenance
Currently $687 , 500 of Conservation Trust funds is
being used for park and trail maintenance , $612 , 500
is used for trail construction
Y
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
Use of Conservation Trust funds for new park O & M
undermines the build out of the trail system
With current funding ( including $300 , 000 annually
from Natural Areas ) the trail system will be
completed in 15 years
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
If used for new park O& M , Conservation Trust
funding for trails runs out at different rates under the
three park build out options :
Current Option : 2013
Reduced Option : 2017
Austere Option : 2024
Y i
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
If Conservation Trust funds are used for new park
O & M , the trail system will be completed in :
Current Option : 46 years
Reduced Option : 40 years
Austere Option : 38 years
Provided the $ 300 , 000 annually from Natural Areas
is continued
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
The Conservation Trust fund revenues are
dependent on lottery (scratch game ) revenues
Legislators have shown interest in using the Fund
for other purposes , like education
Using Conservation Trust funds for new park O & M
eliminates the ability to use it for new recreation
centers or other facilities
Y
TRAIL IMPACT FEE
A trail impact fee on new residential construction in
the amount of $350 per dwelling unit could provide
funding for future trail construction
If the Trail Impact Fee revenue (currently about
$250 , 000 annually) is added to the Natural Areas
Program funds then $550 , 000 would be available for
trail construction annually in addition to
Conservation Trust funding
TRAIL IMPACT FEE
If Conservation Trust funds were used for new park
O& M and Natural Area funding and trail impact fee
revenues were used for trail construction , the trail
system would be completed in :
Current Option : 26 years
Reduced Option : 22 years
Austere Option : 21 years
.
F : GREENPLAY PARK BUILD OUT
RECOMMENDATION
The Current build out option is the best option
The needs assessment identified that citizens are
very satisfied with the current service levels
Focus on controlling O& M costs to the extent
possible through best practices
Keep options open and acquire land needed for
future parks
GREENPLAY PARK BUILD OUT
RECOMMENDATION
Concentrate turf grass to high use areas
Increase alternative landscaping
Pursue new funding sources to preserve current
level of service
Y
GREENPLAY PARK BUILD OUT
RECOMMENDATION
If Council determines the current level of service is
not affordable , GreenPlay recommends the
Reduced Option :
• Maintains an adequate level of service for future
residents
• Park like trail improvements helps offset the
reduced number of parks
• Close to keeping a fair and balanced park system
GreenPlay does not recommend the Austere O tion
1
G . PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
Continue with the Current Option
The Reduced Option is not recommend due to the
reduced level of service and the delay in park
build out
The Austere Option is not acceptable . It significantly
erodes the quality of our park system and greatly
under serves future City residents
.
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
Maintenance of future parks should be funded by the
growth in the General Fund
The " Price of Government" community discussion
should include a specific sales tax increase for future
parks O& M and to restore cut funding
Less preferred , consider a general sales tax increase
and allocate a portion to new park O & M
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
If the above funding options are not acceptable , adopt a
Community Park Maintenance Fee
It is not recommended to use the Conservation Trust
Fund for new park O & M
A Trail Impact Fee is needed if Conservation Trust
Funds are used for park O & M
Y i
H . NEXT STEPS
Complete the draft Policy Plan with recommendations ,
action items ( May)
Board and commission review (June )
Public outreach and open house (July)
Council consideration of the Plan (July)
I . COUNCIL QUESTIONS
• Which park build out option ( Current , Reduced ,
Austere ) does Council prefer?
• Which funding option (s ) for future park O& M costs
does Council prefer?
Y i
PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE - 2008
PARK BUILDOUT OPTION -
CURRENT ( SOUTH )
Id dame
CREEK SPRING I w
SIDE PARK PARK
1 Prosintelawn
2 Registry Ridge 1
3 Richards Lake 13
4 fluidekoper . -
5 Staley
6 rrailhead _
7 Maple Ilill E DRAKE RD
B Iron Horse - - - - - -
9 Fossil Lake
10 Elementary School LEISURE
E /
I1 Lind ....r
12 Lake Canal BEATTIE
13SWchill PARK
14 Eastridge STEWART
15 Interstate CASE PARK
16 Airport
17 Southeast Community
IS East Community 18
19 Northeast Community E HORSETOOTH RD
WARREN
Oe PARK
I h
Z COLLINDALE
o O GOLF COURSE O ENGLISH
2 �i _ RANCH PARK
S W
W ESIFIhLD yt w '- Z
YANK TROUTMAN 7
PARK Z 60 mW
Z Y
y O� I GOLDEN
'o O �-•� MEADOWS W
.p PARK `-- - -
W HARMONY RD - T - - — HARMONY RD
RIDOEVI , '+
PARK
RK
MIRAMONT
i PARK
N O
KECHTER RD
9 4p 5
- - FOSSIL rp CREEK
i O
PARK SOUTHRIQOE
GOLF-
SE
SOUTHRIDDE COUR !�
GOLF COURSE
I I
W TRILBY RD - 10_ - - - -
1.iyend
■ N
Pgpwetl Pugr
O Pen am A4onC
W �
Stub
City of Fort Collins Winer Feetvne 1 05 0 1 Miles s
rnerephir lnforautlon Peru
4rvl er
--} Cqly Lunb
PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE - 2008
PARK BUILDOUT OPTION -
CURRENT ( NORTH )
If Name WDOUGLAS RD - - Ep p - - - - - - - -
I Prosincetown
2 Registry Ridge
3 Richards Lake
i Iluidel:oper
5 Staley ■ .
6 1 railhead
7 Ntaple IliR t
3 �_
81ron Iloru O \ o
9 Fossil Lake
I Elementary School
1 I Lind
RICNARDS LAKE RO
121.aAe ('anal -\
13 Sidebill 7
14F:aslridge \ O
IS Interstate
16 Airport \ o
Of
17 Southeast Community r V
IB Last Community aft 3
19 Northeast Community o
� I
,Id H 19
�- - -AiLILLOX LN err MOUNTAIN VISTA
t l
BOLT A
� GOLD
. PARK LM
�!
W RABBIT
■ \• Q A BRUSH
i f�
r of
LEGACY W = . Ore Z .ter
r . _PARK Zl ■
��� , ,�;i
lir�.la-91 - LEE 2 ALTA VISTA I O
MARTINEZ v _ . . . . f - - Y - - - -- - -
� PARK E VINE OR
E PARK
_ PARK
OLO`FORT H '
14
COLONS 1B HERITAGE PARK
N y / \\ ■
r JEFF EET ,
LAPORTE AVE STREET
= PARK �
W MOUNTAIN AVE Z =
N Z LIBRARYCITY
NINE GOLF CITY W N PARK 0('1' ROSELAWN
CEMETERY
COURSE r*A..RN 3: 'C
W MULBERRY ST Ot E MULBERRY Si E MULBERRY S7
n ' - —
�G
W LAUREL Sr IA
SIUL
W ELIZABETH ST O
15
AVERY w \ v� ■
PARK
NIGH D
SCHOOL > i•' ' \
PARK y � ■ \
W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD ( t
w
EDDRA Ll
INDIAN PARK `
s
LILAC CREEK HILLS
y PARK SIDE laj SPRING PARK L
N PARK < PARK
O
ROLLAND = W
MOORE
PARK y
W DRAKE RD w E DRAKE RID `
Legend
■ Proposed Prrb N
OPCLLand Apanad W E
&reels
Cily of Fort Collins Wew Faal„aa t 05 0 t Mlles a
Geoarrphk In/ormaion Parb
S rvi er
Gry Limda
PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE - 2008
PARK BUILDOUT OPTION -
REDUCED ( SOUTH )
Id Name
1 Prosincetoan 13.2 Registry Ridge 1 r
3 Richards lake � 1 1
i Iluidekoper �
5 Staley
61 railhead E DRAKE RD
7 Maple Ilill
81ron Ilorse LEISURE -
9 Fossil Lake PARK _
ID Elementary School s'^�•
11 Lind BEAtTIE
12 Lake Canal PARK
I3Sidehill STEWART
CASE PARK
1� Eastridge
15Intenlate
16 Airport 18
17 Southeast Community
18 East Community -- — E HORSETOOTH RD _
I Q, WARREN
IY Northeast Community I/I( O PARK
N
i s COLLWDALE ENGIISH
p o GOLF COURSE p
S sa..r RANCH PARK G
W ES TFIE LD y -� +. - Z K
PARK P 7 of
TROUTMAN O m R
O W
PARK M Y _ W
GOLDEN t- 1J
MEADOWS y
a O
.P PARK
W HARMONY RD - - E HARMONY RO. _
RIDOEVIEW -
PARK
V)
N
PARK
W MIRAMONT
r
I PARK
N
17
lid
> I _�_ KECHTER RD
FOSSIL 0ar -�%
�, 10
L) CREEK SOU MRIDGE ■ O
PARK GOLF
SOUTHRIDGE COURSE
GOLF COURSE
I `
i
W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RD
O ti
r w��
i
1
Y-Irk W�
CARPENTER RD \�
O �
K
Z Z,,
U
V N N
Legend
lArqm ■ ENnIM4C Prno ■ Proporq hrrr H
OPrre LrM /puiir0 W F
Imawfio
Srnb
City of Fort Collins Wabr gaN,n 1 05 0 1 Mlles a
(:.al(raphir Information Pa�kr
S rrim
O Cal' 4mb
PARKS BUILD OUT SCHEDULE - CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
2008 TO 2025 Feb-08
BASED ON CURRENT COSTS PARK OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Parks Open Acres 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
Provincetown 2008 9 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500 711 ,000
Registry Ridge 2009 6 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 527,000
Huidekoper 2010 8 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 665,600
Richards Lake 2010 6 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 496,000
Trailhead 2010 4 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 332,800
Staley 2011 10 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 780,000
Southeast community park 2012 53.4 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 5,320,000
Maple Hill 2013 7 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 473,200
Fossil Lake 2014 7 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 436,800
Iron Horse 2015 6.5 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 371 ,800
Elm School 2016 7 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 364,000
East Community Park 2017 50 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 2,790,000
Lind 2017 4 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 187,200
Side Hill 2018 6 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 248,000
East Ridge 2019 7 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 254,800
North Community Park 2020 100 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 3,720,000
Lake Canal 2021 7 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 182,000
Airport Park 2022 8 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 41 ,600 166,400
Interstate 2023 4 20,800 20,800 20,800 62,400
309.9 39,500 70,500 163,900 215,900 595,900 632,300 668,700 702,500 738,900 1 ,069,700 1 ,100,700 1 ,137,100 1 ,757,100 1 ,793,500 1 ,835,100 1 ,855,900 1 ,855,900 1 ,855,900 18,089,000
# of Parks 19 2018 Life of
this Plan Update
Calculations based on 2006 dollars. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation
PARKS BUILD OUT SCHEDULE - REDUCED LEVEL OF SERVICE
2008 TO 2025 Feb-08
BASED ON CURRENT COSTS PARK OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Revised Schedule Total Low Maint.
Parks Open Acres Turf Acres 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
Provincetown 2008 9 2 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 35,500 639,000
Registry Ridge 2010 6 0.5 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 480,000
Richards Lake 2012 6 0.5 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 420,000
Staley 2014 10 3 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 552,000
Southeast Community Park 2015 53.4 8 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 364,000 4,004,000
Huidekoper 2015 8 0.5 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 406,000
Maple Hill/Lind 2017 7 0.5 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 318,600
Trailhead 2019 4 0.5 19,800 19,800 19,800 19,800 19,800 19,800 19,800 20,800
Fossil Lake/Elm School 2019 8 0.5 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 284,200
East Community Park 2020 50 25 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 1 ,560,000
Side Hill 2012 6 1 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 146,000
Iron Horse/Lake Canal 2022 6.5 0.5 31 ,800 31 ,800 31 ,800 31 ,800 127,200
East Ridge 2024 7 2.5 31 ,400 31 ,400 62,800
North Community Park 2025 100 30 560,000 560,000
Airport Park deleted
Interstate deleted
280.9 75 35,500 35,500 65,500 65,500 95,500 95,500 141 ,500 505,500 546,100 581 ,500 581 ,500 641 ,900 901 ,900 931 ,100 962,900 962,900 994,300 1 ,554,300 9,580,600
LCurrent level of service 309.9 39,500 70,500 163,900 215,900 595,900 632,300 668,700 702,500 738,900 1 ,069,700 1 ,100,700 1 ,
Annual Savings from
Reduced Level of Service 4,000 35,000 98,400 150,400 500,400 536,800 527,200 197,000 192,800 488,200 519,200 495,200 855,200 862,400 872,200 893,000 861 ,600 301 ,600 8,508,400
Savings from Low Maintenance Turf 4,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 12,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 30,000 32,000 82,000 84,000 85,000 85,000 90,000 150,000 767,000
Developed Acreage Reduction 104.0 or 35% reduction in developed acres 2018 Life of
this Plan Update
Parks eliminated 5
Savings from low maintenance turf 767,000
Savings from revising, eliminating and delaying parks 7,741 ,400
Total savings over the next full build out 8,508,400 or 47.04% cost reduction
Assumptions:
Calculations based on 2006 costs. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.
PARKS BUILD OUT SCHEDULE - AUSTERE LEVEL OF SERVICE
2008 TO 2025
BASED ON CURRENT COSTS PARK OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST Feb-08
Revised Schedule Total Low Maint.
Parks( Open Acres Turf Acres 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
Provincetown 2008 9 2 31 ,100 31 , 100 31 .100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 31 ,100 559,800
Registry Ridge 2010 6 0.5 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 409,600
Richards Lake 2012 6 0.5 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 358,400
Staley 2014 10 3 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 451 ,200
Southeast Community Park 2015 53.4 8 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 285,700 3,142,700
Huidekoper 2016 8 0.5 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 350,000
Maple Hill/Lind 2017 7 0.5 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 31 ,000 279,000
Trailhead 2018 4 0.5 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 126,400
Elm School/Fossil Lake 2019 8 0.5 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 245,000
East Community Park(1 ) deleted 0
Side Hill(1 ) deleted 0
Iron Horse/Lake Canal 2022 6.5 0.5 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 114,000
East Ridge deleted 0
Northeast Community Park 2025 100 30 450,000 450,000
Airport Park deleted 0
Interstate deleted 0
217.9 46.5 31 ,100 31 , 100 56,700 56,700 82,300 82,300 119,900 405,600 440,600 471 ,600 487,400 522,400 522,400 522,400 550,900 550,900 550,900 1 ,000,900 6,486,100
Current level of service 309.9 39,500 70,500 163,900 215,900 595,900 632,300 668,700 702,500 738,900 1 ,069,700 1 ,100,700
Annual Savings from
Reduced Level of Service 8,400 39,400 107,200 159,200 513,600 550,000 548,800 296,900 298,300 598,100 613,300 614,700 1 ,234,700 1 ,271 ,100 1 ,284,200 1 ,305,000 1 ,305,000 855,000 11 ,602,900
Savings From:
Elimination of Parks and Facilities 4,400 35,400 102.200 154,200 507,600 544,000 536.800 268,900 269,300 568,100 583,300 582,700 1 ,152,700 1 ,187,100 1 ,199,200 1 ,220,000 1 ,215,000 705,000 10.835,900
Low Maintenance Turf 4,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 12,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 30,000 32,000 82,000 84,000 85,000 85,000 90,000 150,000 767,000
Total Savings 8,400 39,400 107,200 159,200 513,600 550,000 548,800 296,900 298,300 598,100 613,300 614,700 1 ,234,700 1 ,271 ,100 1 ,284,200 1 ,305,000 1 ,305,000 855,000 11 ,602,900
Developed Acreage Reduction 138.5 or 43% reduction in developed acres 2018 Life of
this Plan Update
Parks eliminated 8
Savings from low maintenance turf 767,000
Savings from revising, eliminating and delaying parks 10,835,900
Total savings over the next full build out 11 ,602,900 or 64. 14% cost reduction
Assumptions:
(1 ) Fees have been collected and would need to be returned to homeowners.
Calculations based on 2006 costs. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.
Austere level for neighborhood parks includes eliminating restrooms, ballfields, and multi-use pads, increasing low maintenance turf
Austere level for community parks includes eliminating two restrooms, dog park, water parks, skate park, specialty facilities, i.e.(bike course
volley ball courts etc.) Only building two basketball courts with no lights, 2 tennis courts with no lights, two small non-reservable shelters,
2 ballfields with no lights, 2 turf fields instead of 4, downsizing playground, increasing low maintenance turf
ATTACHMENT 5
Culture,Parks,Recreation&
Environment
Parks,Forestry&Sports
413 South Bryan Avenue
.I&City of Fort Collins Fort Collins,CO 80521
970.221.6660
fcgovcom
March 19, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Parks & Recreation Board
RE: Park Policy Plan Update-Park Build out Recommendation
City Council requested City staff develop three options (Current, Reduced and Austere) for
building out the City's park system with different levels of operation and maintenance funding
th
needs. Staff has developed these options and will present them to Council at the April 8 Work
Session. The P&R Board has been involved in developing and reviewing these options and
submits for your consideration our recommendation.
The Board strongly believes Fort Collins is a special place to live and work in large part because
of our outstanding parks, trails, recreational facilities and programs. Recent community surveys
• confirm the citizens of Fort Collins place great value on these vital community facilities and
programs, and want them to be well maintained .
On March 5th the Board held a four hour meeting, largely devoted to developing our
recommendation on the future build out of our parks, including operation and maintenance
(O&M) funding, Our concerted recommendation is to continue to develop our parks to provide
the level of service currently enjoyed by our citizens, as represented by Option 1, Current Level
of Service.
Option 2, the Reduced Level of Service, offers a sizeable reduction in future O&M funding
needs, which may be attractive, given Council's concern with the impact of future park O&M
costs on the General Fund. Unfortunately, this option reduces our level of service, particularly in
the northeast part of our community, where most new parks will be built. The Reduced Option
also significantly delays development of new parks. The Board does not recommend adoption of
the Reduced Option. However, this Option is significantly better than the Austere Option.
The third option, the Austere level of service is not acceptable to this Board and we believe it is
not acceptable to current and future citizens of Fort Collins. It significantly erodes the quality of
our park system and greatly under-serves future City residents.
•
where renewal is a way of life
The Board firmly believes that maintenance of future parks should be funded from the growth in
General Fund revenues. New parks are built from impact fees provided by new residential
development and they serve these new citizens. A growing population will result in more sales
and use tax and increasing General Fund revenues. If the percent of the General Fund currently
devoted to Parks is continued into the'future, adequate funding should be available to maintain
current and future parks.
Our second funding preference is a specific sales tax increase dedicated to park maintenance. If
Council moves ahead with a ballot measure (Price of Government) it should include a specific
sales tax increase dedicated to park and trail maintenance. The increase should provide funding
for future park and trail maintenance and should restore funding cut from current park and trail
maintenance. Alternatively, the sales tax increase could be dedicated to general government
needs and used for current and future park maintenance, but this is less preferred.
If the above funding options are not acceptable, we would encourage the Council to institute a
Community Parks Maintenance fee to fund maintenance of current and future community parks.
This option has the added benefit of returning significant dollars to the General Fund (now being
used to maintain community parks)which can then be devoted to other needs.
Another funding option, but one the Board does not recommend, is the use of Conservation Trust
(CT) funds for maintenance of new parks as they come on line. CT funds are used for trail
construction so this option undermines the development of our trail system. It also means CT
dollars will not be available to build future recreation centers and facilities. If Council decides to
redirect CT funds from trail construction to park maintenance, it is imperative that a trail impact
fee be implemented. The trail impact fee could replace the library impact fee. Revenue from the
fee would be used for new trail construction and would help offset the loss of CT funding for
trails.
It is our hope that Council supports our recommendations, and if further information or
clarification is required, please do not hesitate in contact us.
Respectfully,
Michael Chalona,
Chairman, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board