Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Surface Safety And Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff flag slippery painted surface; resurfacing could cost about $125,000, will seek committee review
Summary
City staff told the Park and Recreation Board on May 14, 2025 that a painted surface in a park has produced slip complaints; a contractor test area cost roughly $6,500 and staff estimated about $125,000 to redo all painted surfaces, proposing to ask Public Works Committee and City Council to use part of a $1 million parks surplus to pay for it.
Park staff told the Park and Recreation Board on May 14, 2025 that complaints about a slippery painted surface in a park have prompted a contractor test and could require a roughly $125,000 resurfacing project, which staff plan to present to the Public Works Committee and City Council for funding consideration.
The issue matters because the painted surface has generated repeated complaints of slipperiness in wet conditions, creating a safety concern for park users and raising an unexpected budget need.
Staff reported that a contractor was paid to grind down and resurface a test area to evaluate options for reducing slipperiness. The test area work cost in the neighborhood of $6,500, the staff member said; staff estimated that preparing, grinding and recoating the entire painted surface would cost about $125,000. The staff member identified that person who obtained quotes as Mr. Perkins and said the contractor had worked with a representative of Sean Williams on the product selection.
City staff said they would review the test outcome once the surface has fully cured and tested in wet conditions before approving broader work. Because the current year's budget does not include funding for a full resurfacing, staff told the board they intend to propose using part of a roughly $1 million parks surplus previously set aside for trail work to pay for the safety repair and then “replace that money in the next budget cycle.” The board member who asked for the funding discussion suggested bringing the matter to the Public Works Committee for review; staff agreed.
Board members asked about the exact square footage of the painted area and other surface alternatives such as pavers. Staff said they did not have a precise square-foot figure on hand and noted that switching materials could create matching and maintenance challenges where painted surfaces currently exist. A staff member described pavers as “another set of challenges” and noted that grinding off existing paint leaves a surface that then requires something to be put back to match surrounding areas.
No formal funding decision was made at the meeting; staff were directed to present options, costs and product performance data to the Public Works Committee and Council before any city funds are spent.
