Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highland staff: city leads region in park acreage but must decide whether to add acreage or prioritize maintenance
Summary
Staff presented an updated inventory of Highland parks and a level‑of‑service analysis showing the city currently above regional averages; councilors debated prioritizing maintenance of existing parks over acquiring new park acreage and discussed possible sites including the gravel pit, Beacon Hills/Area 52 and a dog park site.
City planning staff presented a parks, trails and open‑space chapter of the draft general plan and told councilors Highland maintains about 25 public parks totaling 129 acres plus 436 acres of open space. Using a standard National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) method, staff calculated about 6.1 park acres per 1,000 residents, which staff said places Highland above other Wasatch Front communities.
Staff told the council that, with projected population increases, Highland would need roughly 19 additional acres of developed parkland to maintain the current 6.1 acres per 1,000 people; without new land, the level of service would fall to an estimated 5.3 acres per 1,000 by the plan horizon. Council members said they were proud of the current park system but raised questions about funding and maintenance. “We need to maintain what we have better,” one councilor said, and others said they prefer prioritizing maintenance and amenities in existing parks over acquiring new parkland that the city would then have to maintain.
Specific park topics: staff and councilors discussed the gravel pit (Central Utah Water Company owns much of that property; the city would need to negotiate and possibly annex land to influence its future use), Beacon Hills/Area 52 (developers have proposed adding amenities to the existing Beacon Hills Park rather than creating a separate new park), and a possible dog park on a recently acquired parcel near UCCU. Council members also discussed neighborhood ownership and volunteer maintenance: several neighborhoods and church stakes have performed park maintenance and might be part of a strategy to prioritize high‑use parks while setting lower standards for small pocket parks.
No formal policy or budget decision was adopted at the meeting. Council direction focused on drafting park classification standards (minimum amenities/maintenance levels by park type), clarifying which private/quasi‑public parks count toward a city level‑of‑service calculation (staff said private parks are excluded), and preparing an implementation section that lists priorities and possible funding strategies. Staff said they will update maps and the draft text for public review.
