Minutes - Council Work Session - 11/23/2021

Home

get it done. She stated the River’s Bend Park sign was taken down and asked if it could be added to 2022 signage plan or if it was built into another plan. She wanted to see some projects done and suggested there be an RFP for the Elm Crest signage. Mayor Kuzma asked if the signage Councilmember Musgrove requested was in the budget. Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied, with respect to the signage at the River’s Bend Park, the idea was that a community entrance monument was at Bunker and th 47 which was taken out by a car, so those two would be put together. He noted Staff has been going through the City’s sign guidelines and when estimates were put together, they were surprised at the amount so Staff was redesigning something more modest. The sign was going to be replaced when the intersection improvement project was completed, which just happened. He explained the idea was to do River’s Bend at the same time. Regarding funding, the River’s Bend sign would best be funded by the Parks Maintenance Fund also known as the Capital Maintenance Fund because that was an investment the community already made but needs to be replaced. At Elm Crest Park, there was discussion about economic improvements with Community Development that maybe it’s a larger sign. The question was about if the sign was only for the park or for community benefits. The sign scheduled for the Draw was brought to City Council and was projected because of the cost. During that time, different sign guidelines were adopted which were very expensive. He stated he would be happy to move all three projects forward, get estimates, and have City Council give direction on the design and how best to proceed. Finance Director Lund referenced the Park and Recreation Commission meeting and stated that the topic of the increase in park dedication and trail maintenance fees was on the rates and charges. The rates and charges are on tonight, and that was not presented to the Council at the introduction, so she was wondering if Council was in agreement with the Park and Recreation Commission’s proposal that the park dedication go on residential properties for cash from $3,500 to $4,050 and the trail development fee increase from $1,000 to $1,150. Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood provided some background. He explained that each year, the recommendation is brought from the Park and Recreation Commission to City Council before the introduction is done for rates and charges. That had been done in October, more information was requested, that is why it wasn’t addressed but was tabled until November. The Commission suggested that these two rates represent about 15% increase for residential, with no increases for commercial or industrial, and recognizing that the rates hadn’t been recommended for any increase since 2018. He noted it seemed modest from the Commission’s perspective. He stated the list and scope of the projects to fulfill the needs as projected in the CIP are huge and far out pays the park dedication fee that is being collected. That was the basis for the recommendation, for what the Commission thinks is a modest increase of about 15% covering the past three years. Councilmember Riley commented that he doesn’t consider 15% a modest increase but it is already going forward and he thinks it should stay where it is. He would like to hear more about this, why that may or may not be a good number. City Council Work Session / November 23, 2021 Page 10 of 15