Board cuts Phase 4 from 4‑Bay Park plan and directs staff to seek grants, study fees

El Dorado County supervisors on July 22 directed staff to move forward on a package of parks‑funding actions: they agreed to a cost‑recovery framework for park services, authorized several grant pursuit steps for improvements at 4‑Bay Park, and removed a proposed Phase 4 (pickleball/basketball courts adjacent to residences) from a grant request after residents raised noise and siting concerns.

Why it matters: The Parks and Trails Division presented a financial sustainability plan to balance public subsidy with user fees and to identify new revenue options — rentals, permitting, concessions and targeted programming conducted by third‑party providers. The board approved staff direction to: (1) pursue a Land and Water Conservation Fund application and related Prop 68 and other grant opportunities for 4‑Bay Park, (2) continue a park fees/ cost‑of‑service analysis (staff to provide cost estimate for a consultant study if requested), (3) begin a request for information for contract recreation providers, and (4) implement a service‑category model that sets higher cost recovery targets for exclusive or rental services while leaving core open parks heavily subsidized.

Major decisions: After public comment and discussion, the board removed Phase 4 (the plan’s courts sited next to homes) from the immediate grant request and approved seeking funds for Phases 1–3 total of approximately $1,439,868 (phase 4 removed) rather than pursuing the entire multi‑phase package. Supervisors also asked staff to return with a firm cost for a consultant fee study before the board decides whether to contract externally or have county staff do the work internally.

Details: Zach Paris, Parks Manager, framed the division’s proposed cost‑recovery model for different service categories — open/free parks (0% target recovery), rentals/filming/structured programs (75–100% recovery), and specialized concessions (>100% recovery). Staff proposed administrative permits for each oak/park impact removal and suggested targeted efforts to increase revenue for rental and concession opportunities without directly running recreation programs.

On 4‑Bay Park specifically, the board had previously allocated approximately $1 million toward a base scope. Staff had proposed seeking additional grant funds to complete later phases. Residents and Supervisor Lane urged caution about locating loud court facilities beside backyards; the board agreed to drop Phase 4 from the current grant request and pursue funding for earlier phases while reserving siting/phase 4 decisions for a future board with appropriate CEQA review if designs change.

Grants and next steps: The board authorized staff to contact Sierra Nevada Conservancy (Prop 68), to submit a Land and Water Conservation Fund application, and to explore Wildlife Conservation Board and other grant sources for Chili Bar site work and restrooms. Staff will return with an estimate for the cost‑of‑service/fee study and a recommended timeline; supervisors asked for an option to phase fee work so initial high‑impact fees (rentals, filming) could be set sooner.

Public reaction and context: Residents voiced support for the plan’s transparency but raised concerns about park siting and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. The board emphasized the need for more public outreach and agreed to bring back detailed fee study costs before hiring a consultant.

Outcome: Vote to proceed with the modified package (phase 4 removed) carried by the board; staff directed to pursue grants, prepare a phased fee study plan and draft administrative permit language, and return with more detailed cost estimates to inform budget decisions.