CC_Minutes_2015_0817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 17, 2015 Page 12 Mayor Roe expressed interest in a policy that would retain some portion of the park dedication fund dedicated for ongoing CIP,but reserving a portion for poten- tial acquisition of smaller sites that completed connections or corners of parks. Mayor Roe clarified that this didn't preclude the city from those smaller scale ac- quisitions; and suggested the Finance and Parks & Recreation Commissions talk about a realistic percentage for replacement/acquisition. The other piece noted by Mayor Roe was as development occurred, the money coming from dedication fees could be allocated using a different formula from the possible allocation of the current pool of money, into a respective pool specifically for acquisition. Mayor Roe noted this would address any potential boon of development and a periodic review of the allocation formula or targets based on individual cases based on cur- rent development and need for additional parks. However, Mayor Roe questioned justifying use of 100% of the park dedication fund strictly for CIP. While understanding the incentives, City Attorney Gaughan cautioned council members and commissioners of State Law prohibitions on the use of park dedica- tion fees, currently restricted to development or improvement of existing park as- sets. Mr. Gaughan suggested eliminating any reference to the term "ongoing maintenance" as it related to park dedication fees. Mayor Roe concurred, noting that councilmembers and others often have been us- ing "maintenance" when referring to CIP activities, but that in reality the CIP re- fers to improvements, and that everyone should perhaps use more discipline in their choice of words when discussing CIP items, and not use the word "mainte- nance" in those discussions— especially as it relates to the use of Park Dedication funds. City Attorney Gaughan noted that it was often difficult to define, but a best prac- tice would be to stop using the term "maintenance" and use terminology such as "development" and"improvement" as defined and clear in state law. Further discussion included proposed use of park dedication fees as a funding source for park CIP needs; recognizing the need for guidance on what could and could not be funded (e.g. new club house at the golf course, or enhancements at the OVAL); development of trail and sidewalk connections as a permitted use of funding versus cutting weeds or other types of"ongoing maintenance;" and veri- fying the need for specific input from the Finance and Parks & Recreation Com- mission in defining that fund and initial allocations. Councilmember Etten suggested the need for departments to also look at what as- sets to put money toward, which could create adjustments in the CIP, and need to define the highest priorities the money should be used for, which may prompt a long-term discussion.