Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/14/2021

Home

Notification: Note: At this time there is no proposed plat for the land this topic discusses, this case is to respond to the offer to the City to purchase approximately 11 acres, no special notifications are required. Observations/Alternatives: Observations: At its essence this case is a yes/no to the question as to if the City should attempt to proceed to a Purchase Agreement for 11 acres to add to one, of five existing community parks. However, there are many different ways to evaluate or factor the potential investment of over half a million dollars to acquire the raw land. The following are a few highlights of these myriad considerations —staff will attempt to organize these concepts in more detail for the meeting. Alternatives/Questions for consideration: Is the proposed $517,000 a 'good value' for the City's future park system? Capital improvements; grading, turf', irrigation, trail connections, trees, etc. amounting to another quarter million potentially, would be needed to realize this investment in a useable way as additional athletic field(s). However, at present, there is no more irrigation capacity to irrigate any more acreage at this park. Either city water would need to be available, or a new water well (with power supply, pump and controls would be needed); a new well with power may be $300,000 or more. Is a similar value realized by specifying that any new residential land use to the east of the park, would require Park Dedication (land) to result in additional field space to be added? The same capital improvements are needed for the athletic field, but under this scenario, municipal water is brought to the site. Cash savings may be 3/4 million for one or more athletic fields. Is additional athletic field space needed 'now'? Might capital expenditures in a new athletic field(s) be more valuable at Lake Itasca Community Park, given there is no significant developed park space near there, and it has double the density of children in proximity? In this scenario, a trail to connect Central Park to Variolite Street would still be recommended. Might the best way forward (for both the church and the City) be to 'ghost plat' all the property the church does not need for their building (before a Purchase Agreement is developed), to ensure that the land is developed to it highest and best use? Funding Source: Funding for any potential land acquisition (or capital improvements) this case discusses would be from the Park Trust Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission embark upon a robust discussion on the question this case proposes, and by consensus or motion, provide staff a clear next step in responding to the church's proposal, or for City Council action. Action: Based upon discussion. Attachments samples of CIP projects