Jim Harbison - City Park Wisdom

Guest Columnist Jim Harbison asks:  Where is the wisdom for more City Parks?
At the July 12th City Council work session they spent most of the meeting discussing city parks development funding. Director Brian Denmark said the current $800 per lot impact fees is insufficient to develop new parks. He also pointed that once the park is developed the City becomes responsible for its maintenance and upkeep. Councilor Small acknowledged that the current impact fee system has not been fair to the developers or residents. Furthermore, impact fees, by law, cannot be used for maintenance.

    Herein lies part of the problem. The City has no direct funding for parks maintenance. The Facilities Department has to compete with all the other City departments and is apparently unable to secure sufficient funding to maintain the current parks. Additionally, the current impact fee structure is inadequate to develop the parks as initially planned. Many, including Desert Trails Park have not been developed beyond phase 1 due to lack of funds.
    The City Council in all of their infinite wisdom has mandated that developers “donate” a parcel of land with each development for a public park. In addition the city charges each new home owner within that subdivision $800 for the development of this park. Currently here are no standards established by the City as to the size of the park or what type of park it will be. The size seems to be determined by how much leverage the Council believes it has over the developer in the approval process for the development.

    The City Facilities Department has difficulty in maintaining the current City parks which number more than 100. How many parks do we need, especially when we cannot maintain those we currently have? What are some options for the “demand” for neighborhood parks cited by our current City Council?
    Mr Denmark offered several options. One would be to increase the impact fee to $2000 per lot to cover the current cost levels. That certainly would have a negative impact on affordable housing. Another is to require the developer to construct the park as park of the subdivision and then turn over the completed park to the City. This would, theoretically, eliminate the need for the park impact fee. Another option offered was to change the direction from small neighborhood pocket parks to large regional parks (Premier Park). It still does not resolve the ongoing maintenance cost issue.
    I would offer another option. Most of the new developments have created home owner associations that collect dues to maintain common areas. Why can’t new parks in their developments be their responsibility? This should definitely be their responsibility in any gated community. If parks are that important to the development of their subdivision why isn’t it part of their homeowners association?

    Councilor Thomas continued to stress her goal that walking trails and bike paths should be created to link the existing parks together before we develop more parks.
    I would suggest that we stop City mandated development of these small pocket parks and focus our limited funding on adequately maintaining and developing our existing park system. Significant improvements can be made to Burn Lake, and Young Park and Meerscheidt Park could benefit from additional upgrades and maintenance. These parks offer greater recreational opportunities and reach more people that the small neighborhood parks. They represent a more efficient use of our limited tax dollars.

    The Council will hold a joint work session for 8/26/10 and want input from the realtors, BIA, and the public on fee increases. I would encourage everyone to attend and offer their suggestions on this issue.

Jim Harbison - City Park Wisdom