Laserfiche WebLink
Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that would be difficult to <br /> determine conclusively, because it cannot be certain when and how properties will develop. He <br /> stated that estimates could be done based on the current zoning or projection growth. <br /> Acting Chair Sis stated that the fee structure has to be based on reality and need and therefore he <br /> wondered whether there is a metric that would establish such a need. <br /> Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that the need is the CIP. He <br /> stated that plan also includes a community center which is often a public/private partnership. He <br /> provided details on the interfund loan that was used to purchase properties within The COR. He <br /> stated that land sales are currently paying back that loan, but once that is paid off, staff would <br /> propose to use a majority of the land sales within The COR used for construction of Municipal <br /> Plaza and The Waterfront. He noted that another option would be to perhaps gain additional <br /> funding through referendum to support community desires, such as a community center to include <br /> other park needs. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if the Park Trust Funds must be used for new development. <br /> Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that it is legal for the City to <br /> impose development fees, as every home permitted places new need on City infrastructure and <br /> facilities. He noted that some developments are already near larger city parks that meet that need. <br /> He explained that there needs to be a nexus between Park Dedication fees collected and how the <br /> funds are used. He stated that the trail system helps to provide that geographical connection to <br /> existing park features. He stated that the nexus is more important in The COR because of the <br /> density and need for additional outside space for apartment residents. He stated that when a city <br /> does not do a good job allocating park dedication dollars, there can be liability from developers <br /> that may take the city to court. He stated that the previous year they reviewed the 2021 and 2022 <br /> projects, which had a very good geographic distribution. <br /> Commissioner Leistico asked if the City has the funding and projects identified but is lacking the <br /> manpower or labor to implement the projects. She noted that some of these projects are not that <br /> large in scale of funding but have remained on the list for years. <br /> Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that people and funding is <br /> required for projects. He noted that the boardwalk project required a certain amount of time and <br /> energy to develop the plans and specifications along with the time needed to go through the proper <br /> Commissions for review. He stated that even when a contract is brought on for the project, staff <br /> still has oversight of the project and there needs to be ongoing maintenance. He noted that the <br /> Commission would probably be suprised to hear the amount of maintenance that is required for <br /> the dog park. He estimated that 30,000 dog waste bags are used throughout the city as an example. <br /> He stated that the larger the park and trail system grows, the more time and energy is needed for <br /> maintenance, therefore it is a balancing act. <br /> Acting Chair Sis stated that the additional information that was requested has been provided, and <br /> asked the Commission on input on the direction it would like to take. <br /> Park and Recreation Commission/November 18, 2021 <br /> Page 7 of 12 <br />